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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (47361)	7/12/2001 7:35:03 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Tenchusatsu, There it is again, the notion that Intel "started" the price war just to maintain or increase market share. The 100% business market is not a coincidence. There is no technological reason for AMD to have 0% of that market. If there was a reason in the past, I think the Thunderbird/Duron line eliminated any real or perceived shortcoming, and is actually well ahead of Intel's business products (Piii and Celeron). Just as a exercize, (try to be fair), tell me why AMD would be at 0% of the business segment. My explanation is that Intel has used it's might to build a dam (in form of incentives, punishments) to maintain 100% of the market (it is starting to be costly), and all AMD at this point can do is apply a pressure (also at a signigicant cost) with attractive prices hoping that the pressure will be at some time burst the dam. Anyway, looking at the markets in various goods or services, do you think it is a natural thing in a free market system that there is a monopoly controlling 100% of a market while there is a perfect replacement available, which is as good or better at lower cost? It seems obvious to me that if there is someone at fault, it is the company that is trying to maintain a status that is unnatural (Intel). Funny how Jerry Sanders has gone from "Don't wrestle with pigs" to "Well the pigs started it." I have no idea why you keep coming back to this statement. Does it justify something in your mind? To me, it is just just Jerry's shtick (sp?) Joe