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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dhellman who wrote (21878)	12/7/2000 7:11:06 PM
From: jcholewa	Respond to of 275872

> "no significant change in (market) share." > Anyone believe this line? I do. There is no significant change in market share. Well, it depends on how you define "significant". I expect it would have been more accurate for Bryant to use "substantial" instead. But a change from, say, 17% to 19% market share (that's not my projection, it's only outtadearse numbers) ... do you consider that at all significant? Perhaps for AMD, but not really for Intel.     -JC

To: dhellman who wrote (21878)	12/7/2000 7:29:20 PM
From: Charles R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

<According to Bryant, the shortfall is an industry issue and does not reflect a loss of market share to rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD). In fact, he said, there is "no significant change in (market) share." > This is more accurate - still misleading but more accurate. <Anyone believe this line? > Why not? There is a qualifier here - "no significant". Who is defining what significant is? 2-3 percentage may not be significant for Andy ;-)

To: dhellman who wrote (21878)	12/7/2000 10:45:35 PM
From: jamok99	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

dhellman, Re:<<For yet another consecutive quarter, Intel Corp. (INTC) warned revenue would not meet expectations, but this time the chip giant blamed a worldwide economic slowdown and slack demand for personal computers. >> Hehe, yeah, well, Intel does seem to be 'raising the stakes' each time it needs a new excuse as to why it isn't executing financially. Last time it was Europe, this time it's the Whole World economic slowdown. So what would be the 'escalation excuse' for next quarter? "Everything was going along great until Jesus ruined our wafer yields. Jesus hates our company, that's the problem!" ;-) Actually, and I may be in opposition to much of the thread on this (haven't yet read the reactions posted yet), I think it most likely that Intel's announcement may be bad for AMD for two reasons: 1. AMD has never sufficiently differentiated itself from Intel. This is still true, and manifest by the fact that with almost every 'stock picker' I see on CNBC, their opinion is almost uniform: Intel is the leader, and the quality of the sector. So the old saw that what's "bad for Intel means worse for AMD" may be the perception that sticks. (Admittedly, if AMD had a great quarter in contrast to Intel's warning, this might do something to wake the (brain)dead analysts, but that leads to 2. There seems to be too much evidence that there really is a bear in the woods - i.e., a demand slowdown does appear to be a widespread economic condition, and not just in computers. If so, either AMD will be one of the next to warn, or they'll have to do some quick pumping to meet estimates - in which case they might still be screwed, just as happened last quarter with forcasts cut because of suspected 'channel stuffing'. I'd just be surprised to see AMD get much traction out of the current conditions. But we can hope, can't we?