Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Goutam who wrote (85881)	1/7/2000 7:12:00 PM
From: niceguy767	Respond to of 1572673

Hi Goutama: Too much! It really is that simple! Just as Scumbria articulated last spring and reiterated so lucidly after he attended the Dirk Meyer presentation in June! Everything since, within AMD's control, has evolved to or exceeded plan! It's hard to imagine that the Athlon is still in its infancy stage of evolution and market penetration!

To: Goutam who wrote (85881)	1/7/2000 7:30:00 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 1572673

Re: "Now, what do you think was the catalyst behind the fast deterioration of Intel's once pristine image? My simple answer to this question is "Athlon"!" I think that is half of it. Intel was asleep and Athlon caught them by surprise. No question about it and that is the reason for Intel's scrambling to regain their position and image, so you and I are in agreement on that issue. The second half is in regards to RamBus. In my view Intel was right to pursue RamBus and right to take those chances and I think they will eventually be successful with that memory technology. What they did wrong, in my view, is fail to have a backup plan should RamBus present problems and delays, which it obviously did. They were 100% committed to an unproven technology with no fallback strategy. That's just plain stupid and you have to place the blame at the highest levels. Whoever concocted this plan must have presented it to the executive staff. Isn't it the job of the CEO to ask the hard questions? Like "what the hell do we do if this thing doesn't work?" (I'm no CEO and I know enough to ask that question). That's his job and that's where the blunder took place. It's good to take risks and try new things. We need more of that, but it's just plain stupid to rely so heavily on something that has no proven track record and at the same time have no backup plan should your risky strategy blow up in your face, which it did. EP