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: f.simons who wrote (23056)	12/20/2000 3:00:22 PM
From: niceguy767	Respond to of 275872

f.simons: "I am an Intel partisan, but it truly seems to me that AMD is mostly to blame here." And spoken like a true Intel partisan :-)...

To: f.simons who wrote (23056)	12/20/2000 3:13:24 PM
From: 5dave22	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Frank <Their pricing schemes have been designed to reduce Intel's profitability even at the expense of their own. This, not the Athlon, is Jerry's biggest legacy. When he shot Intel in the foot, he forgot that Intel was standing on AMD's foot at the time. His hatred for Intel still intact, he does not seem to have learned that lesson yet.> Good post, and very true, IMO. I really do not understand Jerry's actions over the last few months. Lets see if it worked on increasing market share. I doubt it. Dave ps - how is PDC?

To: f.simons who wrote (23056)	12/20/2000 4:44:37 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 275872

I am an Intel partisan, but it truly seems to me that AMD is mostly to blame here. Their pricing schemes have been designed to reduce Intel's profitability even at the expense of their own. If Intel had a doubleing of capacity ramping up, would they decide it would be a good idea to sit on that much inventory unsold? Both companies thought the market would have a lot of demand. Both companies were wrong. Another factor for AMD is for the long term health of the company it is important to gain market share. If AMD has 15% of the market it wont get much support. At 30% infrastructure companies and potential customers will treat AMD more seriously. Of course Intel does not want to yield any market share. All of this combined with a surprise soft market leads to the declineing ASPs that both companies are experienceing. Tim

To: f.simons who wrote (23056)	12/20/2000 6:20:41 PM
From: jeff_boyd___	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"AMD To Blame For Pricing" Someone posted something the other day about how Intel was the Saudi Arabia of the chip business and AMD was Angola. The argument over who is to blame has been argued countless times here, but at the end of the day AMD has no choice but to try to increase market share. Jerry has specifically said that he wants no more than 30% market share and he should never build capacity that would threaten to take more than this. Intel is to blame for the weak pricing; not AMD. That said, if they feel a monopoly is necessary for their business model to work, they are absolutely right to not cede market share to AMD. Regards, Jeff