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: Road Walker who wrote (47030)	7/10/2001 10:54:40 PM
From: THE WATSONYOUTH	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

I don't know what the decision was based on, but the best guess is sales data. Your best guess....not mine. Based on AMD's market share gain in Q1 and strong anecdotal evidence of particular strength in US retail, I think the decision was NOT based on sales data. It doesn't fit. If AMD loses shelf space, somehow the fix is in. It doesn't have anything to do with the consumer appeal of the systems the OEM's were offering. It doesn't have anything to do with sales data. It's the evil empire corrupting those poor folks at retail. It's not a fix. It's a cash incentive to NOT display AMD systems. By all accounts, customer appeal for P4 systems has been weak. So the logical solution is to not display AMD systems??? Really now. As I said, I think this is between Intel and the OEMs... not CC. You can believe what you want. My reality check says you don't go from 10 AMD display systems to 2 AMD display systems after a quarter of large AMD market share gains. Your reality check appears to be that consumer appeal for Intel systems is so high that a large scale display of AMD systems is not warranted. So be it. THE WATSONYOUTH P.S. Apple desktops out numbered AMD based desktops 5 to 2. I'm sure Circuit City sales data will support that also. Right???