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: combjelly who wrote (46617)	7/8/2001 3:34:58 PM
From: Robohogs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Here is a stupid question - when is each company supposed to shrink to 100 nm. I know both are in process of 130nm shrinks with conversion nearly complete by YE 2002, but what about 100 nm? Thanks. Jon

To: combjelly who wrote (46617)	7/8/2001 4:17:48 PM
From: Mark A. Forte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

You must agree none of the boxmakers want to see AMD disappear. That would leave only Intel to supply them. I am really surprised Dell hasn't used an AMD chip for something.

To: combjelly who wrote (46617)	7/8/2001 4:19:37 PM
From: Milan Shah	Respond to of 275872

Excellent post, IMHO. I'll bring up the case of Vickers Systems vs Parker Systems, the two largest hydraulics equipment manufacturers in the world. In the 60s and 70s, they too were considered very cutting edge high technology - indeed, the fluid circuits they designed were in some ways similar to chip designs of today (with tiny grooves tunnelling control fluid to achieve some complex logic). Today, they are both still in business, and only occassionally make money. The competition is intense, neither can command much technological lead over the other, and every once in a while, the (new and improved) management in one or the other decides to make a grab for market share by cutting prices on the expectation of making money on spare parts and service, only to realize that the strategy has been tried an upteen times before and doesn't quite work. The point being that a very reasonable outcome for Intel and AMD could be that in a few years time, microprocessors become commodity items, and their profit depends purely on a finely tuned business cost control system. They'll still be large, they'll still have cutting edge technology, but no one will be willing to pay any premium for it - all that technology will be just the price of staying in the business. So, why do these large behemoths stay in business, painful year after painful year? They just ask themselves "What else do we know how to do?" Hydraulics is the only game they know to play, so they play it best they can. Milan

To: combjelly who wrote (46617)	7/8/2001 7:49:54 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

Predatory pricing is a strategic behavior that sacrifices near term profits for longer term market position. The premise is that by depriving competitors of capital, or simply building a reputation for ruthlessness that convinces potential competitors of of the futility of investing in this market, the dominant firm can eliminate competition and eventually return to charging monopoly prices without the worry of being undercut by competitors. That is the model that Intel has adopted this last year. It is, by the way, illegal for a company with Intel's market share to price this way, though the current Antitrust division probably won't do anything about it. How convenient to make up a definition to suit your purposes. It's just plain nonsense. Intel cannot be accused of predatory pricing(except of course by an AMDolt) from a higher price point than AMD. One does not wage a price war from above. It is AMD who is practicing predatory pricing and always has been. No one can reasonably fault Intel for simply trying to hold on to market share. They didn't start the price war but they are allowed to respond when challenged. Competition means competition and Intel is allowed to compete. It the perverse AMDolt view, competition is only fair when Intel is not allowed to respond.

To: combjelly who wrote (46617)	7/8/2001 8:54:22 PM
From: Yousef	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

combjelly, Re: "It is, by the way, illegal for a company with Intel's market share to price this way, though the current Antitrust division probably won't do anything about it." ROTFLMAO ... Quit the "whining". TIA Make It so, Yousef

To: combjelly who wrote (46617)	7/8/2001 10:47:18 PM
From: Paul Engel	Respond to of 275872

Re: "This is the model that Intel followed with K6 where they allowed AMD to gain whatever share they could based on their limited manufacturing capacity and the technical constraints of the K6 design. They did not adjust their pricing model to compete. " Complete and UTTER BULL CRAP ! {=======================================} To: Barry Grossman (40308 ) From: William Hunt Thursday, Nov 13 1997 8:40PM EST Reply #40309 of 40310 TO ALL-------Dow Jones Newswires -- November 13, 1997 Analyst: Intel Accelerating Pentium II Price Cuts By Christopher Grimes NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Intel Corp. (INTC) is said to be enacting further prices cuts on its Pentium II chips in order to speed up the market's acceptance of them. Drew Peck, an analyst at Cowen & Co., said Intel is offering discounts to selected customers that go beyond the price cuts that went into effect Nov. 1. As an example, Peck said Intel is selling the 233-megahertz Pentium II chip for $250 to $300 to some of its customers. Those chips were reported to cost $401 at the beginning of November. Intel didn't immediately return phone calls for comment. As part of its regular regimen of cutting prices three a year, Intel cut chip prices by 13% to 40% on Nov. 1, with most of the cuts at about 20%. In August, the company reduced prices by 30% to 50%. In a note Thursday, Lehman Brothers Inc. analyst Michael Gumport wrote that he had heard from clients that Intel was planning to cut prices in December. He wrote that if this is true, it would be "a very unusual move." Gumport wasn't available for comment. Peck said he had heard the cuts would begin in January. But he said if Intel is offering reduced prices to some companies, it may not choose to formally aanounce price cuts later on. "The issue of a formal price cut becomes academic," he said. He said aggressive price cuts are a good strategy for Intel in the long-term, although there could be short-term problems with gross margins. "It makes good sense to be doing that," Peck said. "Intel's highest priority is to move users to the Pentium II as quickly as possible, and if they can't do that based on technical merit alone, then they'll do it through pricing." Intel spokesman Tom Waldrop said the company doesn't comment on future pricing moves. But he did say the company tends to have some price moves each quarter. Those moves, he said, are revealed only to Intel's customers. BEST WISHES BILL