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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (86188)	1/9/2000 6:53:00 PM
From: kash johal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583736

Tench, Re:"gateway management vs Intel" My suspicion is that they found out they had delivery problems and tried to call the head guy at Intel. And were probably rebuffed. I think that a major tier 1 player like GTW probably expected some help in allocation. Most companies do do this kind of thing when a major customer is having problems. Certainly if Intel was producing great volumes of product and exceeding all forecasts then they may well have allocated even higher end chips to meet GTW's low end needs. There is clearly a deep personal rift here that hasn't been seen in the industry since CPQ/Eckhard lost it with Intel a few years ago. regards, Kash

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (86188)	1/9/2000 9:33:00 PM
From: Goutam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583736

Tenchusatsu, re:I wonder if Gateway's CEO knew that he was risking retribution from their number one supplier of CPUs, i.e. biting the hand that feeds it. I'd like to see Intel go with full retribution to teach a lesson to Gateway which is a parasite and feeding off of Intel anyway. This could become a great Harvard case study ;-) Regards, Goutama

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (86188)	1/9/2000 9:40:00 PM
From: Charles R	Respond to of 1583736

Tenchusatsu, <Gateway could have easily picked up AMD once again as a supplier without much hoopla, but the tone of Gateway's statements sound much more harsh on Intel than they had to be.> Man, talk about being partial. This company has just posted a massive earnings surprise and they shouldn't have been harsh on Intel - the supplier that screwed them up? Think what people would be saying if AMD was in Intel's position! By the way, I predicted something like this could happen over a month back. Note the word backfire. Well, it happened! Intel took a gamble and it didn't payoff. Might as well face the results. Message 11816382 <I wonder if Gateway's CEO knew that he was risking retribution from their number one supplier of CPUs, i.e. biting the hand that feeds it.> Man, you got this bass-ackwards BIG TIME. Customer feeds the suppliers not the other way around. Being Intel doesn't change that! Chuck

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (86188)	1/9/2000 10:28:00 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1583736

I wonder if Gateway's CEO knew that he was risking retribution from their number one supplier of CPUs, i.e. biting the hand that feeds it. Tench, this falls right back into the discussion we had a few days ago.....when is the customer ever right with Intel? I don't think a breach like this is good for either party but in my opinion, it's Intel that will get the worst of it if it goes any further. Maybe Michael Dell is chuckling in private right now. I imagine Dell is freaked right about now, and probably is wondering if he should be talking to AMD. You forget that Dell had its own problems with Intel this quarter, and I would not be surprised if they don't preannounce after their quarter ends at the end of January. ted