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: THE WATSONYOUTH who wrote (47008)	7/10/2001 6:55:08 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

TWY, re: I'm sorry but I think the decision on what is to be displayed can easily be influenced by payoffs. Of course it can, and is. Just not by the component manufacturer's, but by the OEM's. The whole thing is about trading profits from the consumer dollars, and the way they trickle back up the chain. Everyone from the component guys to the manufacturing guys to the retailers, trying to maximize profit from a given retail selling price. Everybody trying to get a larger chunk of the share. You can call it payoffs or you can call it discounts or you can call it advertising funds. Bottom line, it's standard economic competition. And you can whine all you want, the only way to win is to be smarter or more generous than your competitor. re: I just do not believe that Intel funds are not involved in this. It is simply obvious. What's obvious is that folks do what's in their self interest. A buyer for Curcuit City isn't going to make a decision that is going to cost him/her their bonus. And their bonus is based on making the most money for Curcuit City. They are part of that economic chain. Now if you are claiming that Intel is paying off the Curcuit City buyers directly, under the table, that's another thing. That's illegal, and the folks taking & making the payment risk losing their jobs and going to jail. It's happened many times, these are multi million dollar decision, and the temptations, on both sides, are great. $100K bribe doesn't seem like a lot on money when you are talking about a $50 million decision. But you better be right if you make that accusation, because if you are wrong it's slander. No, I think you are just a sore loser. The sales history that you have so much confidence in, from three sales clerks at one store, that are underpaid and wondering who the hell this guy is that keeps asking them questions, is probably not the same data base that CC uses to make it's decision. Probably their decision was based on chain wide sales trends. And AMD lost. "It's simply obvious". John