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: Scot who wrote (108829)	5/1/2000 11:51:00 AM
From: Scot	Respond to of 1576081

Here's something I saw on AMDzone that looks interesting: We just got the following e-mail from AMD's public relations department. Something must be up. Stay tuned. Monday, May 1 at 4 p.m. ET, The W Hotel on Lexington in NYC 12 HIGH TECH COMPANIES GATHER IN NEW YORK TO ANNOUNCE THE FORMATION OF A NEW INDEPENDENT COMPANY WHAT: Press Conference WHO: CEOs and senior executives from 12 of the biggest names in technology. WHEN: Monday, May 1, 2000 ---- 4 p.m. ET WHERE: The W Hotel (New York City) 541 Lexington Avenue, between 48th and 49th Streets The Forest 1 Room (2nd floor), 212-755-1200

To: Scot who wrote (108829)	5/1/2000 12:43:00 PM
From: Steve Porter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576081

Scot: re: A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 ? there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable ? but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price. Well, a personal study shows Intel could have been profitable selling the PIII at an asp of $100. However, Intel's studies show that $180asp maximixes their revenue. How is pricing your product at the maximum point a bad thing. You can't yell at these companies, WE (shareholders) DEMAND they screw the consumer, and don't for a minute think we don't. If AMD made $.01 a CPU they would still be profitable, but we demand they make as much per CPU as possible. Regards, Steve

To: Scot who wrote (108829)	5/1/2000 1:45:00 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576081

Scot, A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 ? there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable ? but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price. You (or actually judge Jackson) make it sound like MSFT is the first company in the world that tried to maximize revenue (more accurately profit) in deciding how to price a product. Maximizing profit is something normal, all companies do this. Joe

To: Scot who wrote (108829)	5/1/2000 4:14:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576081

Scot, RE:'I don't disagree with you about the tobacco cases. Those were money grabs by trial lawyers; the states willingly went along because of the $$. Nobody likes cigarette companies and no one is crying any tears for them or the prospect that people may stop smoking because of higher taxes (a somewhat dubious principle behind the settlement). But tell me what the states receive out of MSFT breakup? And two, where are the trial lawyers? I don't think this situation is anyway or how comparable...unless the suggestion is that because lawyers and the government are involved...that we should be read between the lines. " The states will want money for damages. The states will employ litagation (trial) attorneys who will want do it for a percentage. They are licking their chops now. This is what happened with the tobacco companies. The state of FL didn't willingly give the attorneys what the wanted but the attorneys had made a deal for what percentage they got going in. When the settlement came down the attorneys were supposed to get a $billion...yes one billion dollars. 10 Lawyers. Turns out the state didn't make a very good deal and tried to re-nig. They had to sue the state. Settled for less but still came out smellin' like a rose. The gist was that the state was stupid to even give the Lawyers a percentage, should have been a flat fee. But we have Lawyers regulating Lawyers. You think this is bad...if this goes through...dreams of sugar plums like AOL, CSCO, SUNW and Intel will be in their minds while they sleep. The key to all this is "what can we get on someone with BIG pockets"...this is the way Lawyers think. Jim