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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tcmay who wrote (136795)	6/6/2001 3:44:55 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 186894

TC - Re: "CRUSH II--Slapdown in the Silicon Valley" Good synopsis. Paul

To: tcmay who wrote (136795)	6/6/2001 3:48:00 PM
From: andreas_wonisch	Respond to of 186894

Tim, Re: CRUSH II--Slapdown in the Silicon Valley Ah, this explains why Intel did allow AMD to achieve more than 21% market share in Q3. This must be a secret ploy to keep the EU commission at hand which recently started an investigation in Intel's business practices. If so, that's an extremely clever move for Intel. I expect more of those over the next few years. The best solution would be probably to fight DOJ, FTC, Naders and all those other anti-economic communists with their own weapons. Just allow AMD to get 90% market share. And then sue them. Perfect. Andreas PS: Crush II, is this a new Nvidia chipset?

To: tcmay who wrote (136795)	6/6/2001 3:57:45 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

TC, RE:"A company like AMD, which currently exists as a parasite on Intel (and I mean no disrespect by that term...it just describes the biological relationship correctly), is always sensitive to being affected by how fast the big fish swims. "Hey, you're swimming too fast! How do you expect me to hang on?" Just what is the biological definition of a parasite? I don't think AMD fits that profile unless you consider Intel owns the entire CPU market by birthright. I haven't seen AMD complaining to the DOJ that Intel is swimming too fast, unlike the likes of AOL or Netscape vs Microsoft. It appears that Intel is still in scramble mode although not nearly as much as they were one year ago or before they regained the MHz lead with the P4. A better example of a parasite would be Rambus. Or just Lawyers in general. OTOH, Intel invited them to attach. For greed and domination purposes no doubt. Rambus has a lot of Lawyering experience, I expect them to continue to bring Intel to it's knees as long as possible. Do you honestly think Intel Execs sit around worrying that the DOJ is going to sue them? Maybe... Jim

To: tcmay who wrote (136795)	6/6/2001 4:31:45 PM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 186894

Re: the b.s. "fairness" cases filed by the FTC. I agree. It's so unfair. It's like when some guy decides to let me have his garbage hauling business of his own free will, all by himself, and all of a sudden the cops want to get involved. Just because I happened to be holding a gun to his head during the "negotiations". They're a bunch of communists trying to thwart a hard working businessman! Tony Soprano

To: tcmay who wrote (136795)	6/6/2001 4:50:20 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tim re:it staves off an Antitrust case. remind me why intel tried to go rambus then? And why did intel jumped into slot 1, 2, 3,...,99 only to come back with proprietary socket? re: Intel clearly has the manufacturing muscle and the cash in the bank to outlast AMD in a price war. the assumption is that price war would lead to small to negative margins. True, amd value would go to zero while intel value would just get close to zero. OTOH that would imply hundreds (plural) of billions in losses for intel and only 10 bil for amd. Intel would be a penny stock then. But if you decide to deal with reasonable scenarios then amd's structure require less profit margin than intel's. IOW $100 average asp is not the end of the world for amd but it is the end of the world for intel. Re: we punish people and companies for being successful. that is not true at all. Successful company still have a way to make money as long as it does not interfere with progress. Monopolies did make us great by exploiting the existing ideas at low cost but they failed to remain competitive. The shining example is intel's effort to pass amd if not for that effort we would still be using pentiums-100MHz. re: squawking that Windows "costs too much." and here is the example of how bad monopoly can get. It is not the price that is the issue but rather the lack of competition. re: "dumped"...because it's pretty obviously the case that chips are often introduced at prices way below their manufacturing cost, at least early in a cycle you need to look at the present value of the product line re: A company like AMD, which currently exists as a parasite on Intel Is that because amd is eating intel's lunch? As I said before intel's success was created by ibm and without amd there would not be intel today. Amd introducing faster products while intel is introducing products with higher frequency so you tell me who is swimming faster. AMD got a series of innovations that were followed by intel like 3dnow, ht so you tell me who is parasite And the bottom line is that don't blame amd's success for intel's failures..... Regards -Albert