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 (47381)	7/12/2001 8:09:08 PM
From: 5dave22	Respond to of 275872

<I know I'll get flamed for saying this, but some would attribute this to a failure of AMD marketing.> MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME!!! It's funny how all the INTC people on this thread know this is a major shortcoming of AMD, and most of the AMD fans will not acknowledge it. I think da proof is in da puddin. Dave

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (47381)	7/12/2001 11:19:22 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 275872

I know I'll get flamed for saying this, but some would attribute this to a failure of AMD marketing. I find it quite odd that someone is asking you to explain why AMD has 0% share in the business market. The market has spoken. Isn't that clear enough? EP

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (47381)	7/13/2001 12:04:38 AM
From: jamok99	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Tench, <<I know I'll get flamed for saying this, but some would attribute this to a failure of AMD marketing.>> No flame from this quarter. I don't know enough to comment on an approach to business marketing, but in retail they had an ungodly opportunity by relentlessly hammering home these points in a retail advertising campaign that included Athlon branding: 1. Mhz does not equal performance. 2. 1.4ghz Athlons outperform 1.8ghz P4s in thousands of 'real world' applications. I had even tentatively thought up some sample ad ideas to post on the thread, until it became apparent that with INTC's bumping up of higher p4 speed grades and Amd's seeming continual roadmap miss, the latter point of such a campaign may become much cloudier, if not outright untrue. (I recognize that I might not have the tech facts absolutely sstraight, this is my best interp of the situation as I understand it). Jamok

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (47381)	7/13/2001 1:08:00 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 275872

Tenchusatsu, I know I'll get flamed for saying this, but some would attribute this to a failure of AMD marketing. You have a point in that AMD marketing has not shown to be the sharpest knives in the drawer, but that doesn't explain 0%. If the overall penetration is 22%, the consumer and white box must be some 40% or more. I could se the business segment be below that, say 5 to 10%, but zero is impossible to explain, given the quality of the competing platforms, and cost competitiveness. If Intel always wins, there is no reason not to offer out of this world deals deals to OEMs, to which Intel has to respond with an offer that has to beat it (all things considered), which is lowering ASPs overall. In a normal scenario, if you are facing a totally low-ball offer from a competitor, you sometimes just pass, and say that you are not going to, and can't match the offer. But since Intel's policy is not to allow a single AMD business win, we have the collapsing ASPs. In my opinion, AMD has become competitive with Intel only in late 2000. This new competitiveness was accompanied by not only supply catching up with demand, but with an overall slump in demand, so the increase price competition was inevitable, but the extend of it has been greatly exaggerated by the Intel's fierce defense of commercial sector. Joe