SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Jules B. Garfunkel who wrote (105447)7/11/2000 12:58:40 AM
From: Paul Engel  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894
 
Jules - Re: "I am learning how to gain from Drew’s exaggerated reports,"

Superb point !

18 months ago, after the Xeon had been out on the market for about 6 months, most people saw it as Intel's ticket into the LUCRATIVE Server Business ---- but NOT THE PECKER !!!

In March of last year, Pecker claimed he didn't understand the Xeon --

" Drew Peck is waiting instead for the Xeon processor
for servers that Intel will launch this week. "And that's a new product we know nothing about," Peck said. Cowen is not an
underwriter of Intel.

Peck's fear is that business customers will show the same
level of excitement for the Xeon that Steve Lowe, director of
computing and information services at Aurora University in
Illinois, is showing for the P3.

Lowe maintains and upgrades a network of 250 computers
on the campus. "We are constantly upgrading. But for now
we are staying with the P2," Lowe says. "For the average
user the P2 is fine
"

Now that the Xeon is adding BILLIONS to Intel's bottom line, Drew PeckHead STILL HASN'T SAID THAT HE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THE XEON !!!!

And I'll bet Pecker still thinks the Pentium II is FINE FOR EVERYBODY !

What a complete buffoon !

Paul

{===================================}
TECH STOCKS >> SEMICONDUCTORS

For Intel's Fast P3 Chip, Customer
Appeal Spreads Slowly
By Marcy Burstiner
Staff Reporter
03/15/99 09:00 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO -- Intel (INTC:Nasdaq) is spending $300
million to promote the new, high-powered Pentium III chip,
twice as much as the company has ever spent on marketing
any new product group. Yet despite the big bankroll, the
premium chip's big splash is turning into something more
like a trickle.

Intel may have won the support of hundreds of developers for
its Pentium III chip, but interest from customers seems to be
won at a price -- a low one. To stave off competition from rival
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD:NYSE), Intel had
announced severe price cuts on all its chips except for the
P3. But in the market, P3 machines are appearing at bargain
prices. That might disturb investors, since traditionally Intel's
newest chips have carried the highest sales prices and profit
margins.

To hook consumers and developers, Cahners In-Stat
Group analyst Max Baron says, Intel may be sacrificing
margins -- temporarily at least -- on the P3. Computown is
now advertising a full P3-powered desktop computer for
$999. At that price, Intel has got to be selling the P3 for
close to the price of the P2, he says.

The perception is clear in the marketplace. Bruce
Duttenhofer of Marietta, Ga.-based Flexible Products, said
the only reason he is updating his company's desktops with
the P3 is because he found it at close to the cost of the P2.

"Why not?" Duttenhofer asks. "I am purchasing new
machines with the P3, but that doesn't mean I endorse it or
think it's better. We haven't put it through its paces yet."
Other managers were even less enthusiastic. Three said
they knew little about the P3, while two said they had looked
at the chip and decided that the older Pentium II was a
better value.

"The P2 is working fine, along with some of the older
Pentiums," says Larry Urick, director of information
technology at Indianapolis-based Pictorial. "There did not
seem to be a significant performance difference with the P3.
I'm not looking to replace equipment with it at this time. I
don't see any features there that would make me want to
pay the premium price."

This ambivalence about PC chips is also reflected in Intel's
stock price. After the company first unveiled the chip to great
fanfare Feb. 17, the stock climbed about 8% over the next
five days. Since then, however, it has dropped 12%.

Reservations about the chip are due to its somewhat
nebulous place in the technology spectrum. Some analysts
say the P3 isn't a true next-generation product. Nathan
Brookwood, an analyst with Insight 64, says that with a top
speed of 550 MHz, it's better described as a half-generation
ahead of the P2's 450 MHz.

And while the P3 includes new technology that speeds
Internet use, that level of improvement won't be noticeable to
the average user, Brookwood says. Even speeds of 500 MHz
and 550 MHz aren't enough of an improvement to justify the
official price of the chip, which is a $220 increase over the
P2's $476 price tag.

Brookwood expects the current P3 to languish until Intel
produces the 600 MHz P3, code name Coppermine, later
this year. "At 600 MHz, you'll notice the difference," he
says.

An Intel spokesman says that it's hard to gauge how well the
P3 is selling currently. "It's too early in the product's life
cycle," he says, adding that Intel has no plans to speed up
introduction of Coppermine.

Another issue has drawn analysts' concern. CIBC
Oppenheimer analyst Ken Pearlman says Intel's strategy
behind the P3 puzzles him. Intel has focused on Internet
capability, but the P3 is priced for high-end users and
business customers. People who buy computers purely for
the Internet often go to low-priced models, so the Internet
capabilities would have made more sense on the Celeron
chip that Intel makes for low-cost PCs. Oppenheimer is not
an underwriter for Intel.

For the past year, AMD has been selling its 3D Now! chip,
which offers the same Internet streaming capability as the
P3. AMD has already sold 8.5 million 3D Now! chips,
establishing a strong platform for developers. "AMD has 12
very large companies that write games for 3D Now!," says
Baron of Cahners In-Stat Group.

Some analysts have given up on the P3 altogether as a
driver of Intel's revenue and profit growth. S.G. Cowen
analyst Drew Peck is waiting instead for the Xeon processor
for servers that Intel will launch this week. "And that's a new
product we know nothing about," Peck said. Cowen is not an
underwriter of Intel.

Peck's fear is that business customers will show the same
level of excitement for the Xeon that Steve Lowe, director of
computing and information services at Aurora University in
Illinois, is showing for the P3.

Lowe maintains and upgrades a network of 250 computers
on the campus. "We are constantly upgrading. But for now
we are staying with the P2," Lowe says. "For the average
user the P2 is fine."

TOP

GET STOCK QUOTES

Symbol Name

TALK TO US
Send your feedback
and comments to
letters.

Check out reader
letters here.

TECH STOCKS
ARCHIVE
Read past stories.

SEND US FEEDBACK

Send your feedback to letters@thestreet.com.

© 1999 TheStreet.com, All Rights Reserved



To: Jules B. Garfunkel who wrote (105447)7/11/2000 7:25:23 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
Jules,

Thanks for the note and your experiences at E.F. Hutton.

Sometimes the timing of these calls leads to suspicion of alternate motives. If I were looking for a perfect time to lower prices in the tech sector, for accumulation, it would be a couple of weeks before what is expected to be great earnings reports. It's very difficult for most folks to assume that if you have the power to move the sector, that you wouldn't use that power to your own and your clients benefit.

A question, but feel welcome not to answer. When you were an analyst, did you advise some clients before you made a call on an equity? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the ethics/policies at the brokerage houses.

John



To: Jules B. Garfunkel who wrote (105447)7/18/2000 8:28:03 AM
From: Amy J  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 186894
 
RE: "Last week, ...predicted the end of the semiconductor boom within six months or so."

Jules, my post to John stated I believe the boom could be with us through Q1 of 2002.

RE: "Unlike Amy though, I do fault Jon for not having the facts for not having the facts to support that conclusion."

Your statement misstates my opinion so I'll repeat my point again:

My point is: I do not fault an analyst for reporting MORE information, like the change in TC pricing. ( Please tell me what semi analyst pointed out the ensuing TC shortage back in August of 1999, when the industry really needed analysts to do this type of leg-work? ) So, when I see an analyst write a report which points out a change in TC pricing, they get a compliment from me FOR pointing out this change in TCs (and only for that), which is MORE information than the next analyst who just states opinions and doesn't back them up with any information or facts.

Let's take a look at someone who does it right: Kumar. I like Kumar's style a lot - he lists out a plethora of facts - facts after facts. He's not a guy with just an opinion. This is exactly what I like to see. I want the facts and the facts had better be there.

Back to your comment. So, I will give credit to an analyst who mentions a significant fluctuation in TC pricing (which Jon did), since this is potentially an important indicator.

However, contrary to what you said, I do fault an analyst for not providing enough information. If you go back, you'll see this essentially stated twice in two of my posts. My style isn't to get too strong when someone makes a mistake when I am pointing out another important point which is:

Analysts should have been a lot more vocal on the TC shortage earlier last year, so, when I see an analyst highlight a change in TC prices, I'll give him/her a compliment (even in the face of another error).

So, as an investor, I encourage analysts to please keep an eye on them (and overall caps) --- that's my point. And, yes, include all caps (TC replacements) and factor in #cap design reductions.

Regards,
Amy J