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: tejek who wrote (126329)	10/17/2000 3:14:36 PM
From: milo_morai	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580450

INTC CC: Link nasdaq.com

To: tejek who wrote (126329)	10/17/2000 3:16:17 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1580450

CSCO and Intel have both gone green in the last half hour. Is this the signal for a market bottom? Damn, I wish I knew!!

To: tejek who wrote (126329)	10/17/2000 3:35:03 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580450

Ted, AMD's price cutting has been extremely aggressive...beyond what I think is necessary to steal market share....considering that there is little P3 volume above 900 Mhz. AMD sells chip to maybe 30% of the market (noncommercial desktops). It already has 17 or 18% of that market, and some players like Dell will never buy AMD product. AMD has just about saturated the segments where their chips can be sold, and you can either end up with unsold inventory, or price your chips to sell, hoping they will be adopted in segments beyond the 30% or so, namely commercial segment. Once AMD makes the breakthrough to the commercial sector, the pressure will ease. But to get the breaktrhough, AMD has to push very hard. Given the $100s of billion of Intel market cap lost, Intel management could have just gone to the gray market to buy excess AMD parts and throw them in a dumpster. The expense would have been less than $100 million vs. $200 billion lost. <g> Joe

To: tejek who wrote (126329)	10/17/2000 3:49:54 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580450

Ted. Re...The price wars benefited Intel greatly. They did? How? Maybe initially....$$$ wise.....but why do you think they are behind the eight ball now? <<< Ted, most wars are fought over territory. In this case, the territory is market share. Past price wars have kept the opposition down by not allowing them to make enough money to mount an effective opposition. I.E. By depriving Saddam of money, you can effectively limit Iraq's army. By limiting AMD's, NSM's and Rises profit both near and long term, Intel could maintain their monopoly and thus could reap great rewards because of lack of competition. AMD's problem and Intels problem is that neither can win the war in that neither can drive the other out of business. AMD DOESN'T HAVE THE CAPACITY and Intel has the SEC. You can bet Intel will try to get their monopoly back, but Intel can just sit back, lower production schedules and start another shortage and keep their prices up until P4 is out in vol., then have a go at it again. AMD on the other hand needs to gain market share while Intel is weak. If the war gets too costly, it may be likely Intel will abandon the field for greener pastures, because Intel has that option; which in turn would give AMD a great boost in prices. We might get a clue how this will play out tonight. Should both companies live with each other? Yes; but Intel has wanted it all in the past. It is Intel who will have to decide if they want to live with AMD , or pay the price and try to regain their monopoly.