To: Bill Jackson who wrote (30193 ) 3/4/2001 10:40:56 AM From: semiconeng Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872 Semi, Well, you may feel you are correct in your assessment of GTW strategy, however I do not agree with your assessment. GTW failed the same way CPQ failed. Both did not adhere strictly to the Dell model. The dell model is to do one thing to perfection. You see no dell stores that lose money on their own and also ruin the mail order business by 6-7% in most states. In todays environment 6-7% is a huge amount, it is fully equal to a wholesale tier....and dell does not have it. ---Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah...... It's funny how AMDroids pound Dell as an idiot company, who doesn't know beans about the computer selling business when it suits them, but then hold them up as an example of good business practices when it also suits them.In addition when you sell to the civilians that buy AMD then that 6-7% makes an even bigger difference as those people are the cheapest of all and readily switch for a few % difference. Some want the better performance of AMD and those clients are growing as we speakhem. ---Right, let's go after the sales that are the "cheapest of all". That ought to help the bottom line. Forget about those Servers and laptops. Durons and Celerons are the cash machine BABY...... Not.As for them firing the wrong person for the wrong reasons, well Intel has done that too. One day GTW will realize this and sell products based on AMD parts as well as Intel parts. ---Ummmmmmm..... Wake up Bill, Gateway DOES sell products based on AMD parts, I'm guessing that they just weren't selling as well.Secondly you have supplied direct evidence that Intel applies coercion...."pissed off their supplier". The FTC wants to know this kind of stuff, this means Intel makes threats to GTW and they responded, and this also means that dell is kept in line the same way. Bill ---I'm basing that on the comments of the people around me at that time. If you think that Gateway running around the media, at the time blaming their poor sales on intel, and then making a big deal about how they were "Going AMD", made intel happy, then you don't know business. I'm simply saying that a buyer that bad mouths their supplier isn't going to be first in line with allocations. It doesn't mean they won't get them, they just won't be first. Nothing illegal at all. ---It's interesting that you can give your opinions about AMD, and that's O.K., but when someone else has a different opinion, and it concerns intel, then it's "you have supplied direct evidence that Intel applies coercion". ---You certainly have an interesting concept of "Direct Evidence". Oh man, we need to get the FTC involved. Let's pound em with the lawyers. How typical...... Semi