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: Charles R who wrote (113668)	6/1/2000 11:17:00 AM
From: minnow68	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573344

Chuck, You wrote "So, in the times when you are capacity constrained, you are making an argument for letting chips sit on the shelf because the marketing group made the mistake of introducing a $2000 ASP part into a consumer segment that typically wants to pay $600 for the whole system and where systems over $2000 have become rare?" Yes, I would rather have some chips sit on the shelf. There is feedback. If AMD introduces a 1.5 Ghz T-bird at $5,000, AMD will see what the demand is. AMD can always remark the parts and sell them at lower speed grades. IOW, parts never have to sit on the shelf more than a few weeks. But, if 1.5 Ghz T-birds are production quality and ready, then why not put them up for sale at $5,000? Even a sell rate of 1000 a week would bring in an incredible amount of money. Mike

To: Charles R who wrote (113668)	6/1/2000 11:39:00 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573344

Chuck, So, in the times when you are capacity constrained, you are making an argument for letting chips sit on the shelf because the marketing group made the mistake of introducing a $2000 ASP part into a consumer segment that typically wants to pay $600 for the whole system and where systems over $2000 have become rare? I am not sure what you mean. Suppose AMD has a chip that can run at 1.5 GHz (or let's say 50,000 of them). Are you suggesting that AMD sells them as 1 or 1.1 GHz for $750 to $1,000, because that's the limit of how much a consumer PC can bring? I don't like that strategy. The second strategy is to let them sit on the shelf, let them depreciate in value, and sell them when the marketing is ready to introduce the speed grade. I don't like this strategy either. What I suggest is to offer them for sale at premium price. If somebody buys them for say $2,000 a piece, great, AMD just earned extra $50,000,000. If there are no takers immediately, the worst thing that can happen is that we go end up with the "marketing" approach, that is the chips will be sitting on the shelf until the "marketing" is ready. If the chips have the "available" sign on them, it is up to the OEM's to figure out what to do with them. Maybe they would fit into the category of performance workstation well, or a single CPU server. I think the last thing AMD should do is to follow Intel and cripple their products to fit into the various segmenting schemes. To tell the truth, I am not overly thrilled about Duron. The savings in the die area is not great compared to Thunderbird to be meaningful, and the expense of designing and marketing another variation of the chip is most likely greater than the savings in the die area. I think AMD should have just made all Thunderbirds, and sell the lower speed Thunderbirds from Austin at the Duron prices (or slightly less). The classic Athlons comparable to Duron speeds are already close to the Duron prices. Joe