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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wolff who wrote (96904)	1/20/2000 2:45:00 PM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Wolffman, For a company with a motto of "only the Paranoid survive", its amazing the advocates seem to act the like the three monkeys see, hear,say no bad stuff. I asked for discussion, and you tell me to go to Yahoo. Open your eyes, and quit the snipping Snipping is what I do with overgrown plants. <g> Of course all serious and prudent Intel investors should look at all competitive threats. I do. Looking at 2 you just presented, AMD. Sure they've gotten a lot more competitive with Athlon, but Intel has said they're expanding four fabs and planning on a record $5 billion this year for cap ex. I have to believe they've very carefully analyzed customer demand, and the competition, before going ahead with these very bullish plans. Also, with the surplus of Athlons that's come to light, and the fact that Intel is sold out, sounds like buyers still prefer Intel. Notebooks. The consensus by Kash (neutral), Saturn V (Intel holder) and the articles I've read say they think Transmeta is a niche player with no hardware makers yet with plans to use their chip, not available anyway 'til mid-year. That's a good portion of a generation in the microprocessor business. What else do you have? Tony

To: Wolff who wrote (96904)	1/20/2000 4:22:00 PM
From: Burt Masnick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Wolff - Intel has positives and negatives. One may disagree over the degree to which each is a positive or a negative, but reasonable people can probably agree as to which is a positive or a negative. I see Intel positives as Manufacturing prowess (yeah I know what you're gonna say) Marketing prowess Financial strength Server market strength (current and future) Financial support for new companies that exploit Intel technology New Product Pipeline New Business Initiatives I see negatives as Newly competitive AMD (finally got a chip design right though they were way late on production - May, June announcement - Sept delivery of chips) AMD attempts to crack server market (gonna be tough due to RAS and the ever tough for AMD businesses of cache on chip and SMP) Hard to quantify Transmeta initiative (I view this as minor) Possible shift away from PCs to other devices (Jury is still out and this ain't gonna help AMD either if it's true). What is true is that there were several product development snafus that were totally uncharacteristic of Intel in '99. The psychobabble on the threads attribute all the problems to one man or a breakdown of the corporate will to succeed. I personally think that a bunch of bad breaks occurred in the same time period and I also note that, in the past there have been very few prior Intel problems that haven't been fixed so that the problem went away and Intel was simply a more capable competitor after the fact. Painful as each flub was, I am predicting that the flow of coppermines and willamettes in 2000 is gonna give AMD some agita. A lot of judgement calls here, but that's my view. Speaking of psychobabble, you are pretty good at that stuff. My daughter just got her PhD in Psych from Cornell and is now doing a post-doc at Carnegie Mellon. We had discussed Meyers-Briggs, and it's shrugged off in academic circles as wildly overhyped and underproved. But hey, if it makes you happy to castigate my hypothesized by you Meyers-Briggs score, be my guest. Staying cheerful despite strange attacks, Burt