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: Elmer who wrote (47396)	7/12/2001 11:16:35 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

RE:"Intel cannot start a price war by setting their prices above the competition". Who says they were ABOVE AMDs prices? What does Mikey D pay? Jim

To: Elmer who wrote (47396)	7/12/2001 11:21:33 PM
From: hdl	Respond to of 275872

Message 16069467

To: Elmer who wrote (47396)	7/12/2001 11:47:07 PM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

>Intel cannot start a price war by setting their prices above the competition any more than you can start a shooting war by hurling your cities into the path of an incoming ICBM.< Bull! Commodore started a price war with TI while charging more for the Commodore 64 than TI charged for the 99/4A. A price war is started by the first company willing to sacrifice more in ASP than either can be potentially gained or lost in market share. Up until Q2 AMD was not engaged in a price war because they were gaining both ASP and market share. Intel's price war was started with the introduction of the P4, as was evidenced by their inability to retain sufficient market share to offset loss in ASP.

To: Elmer who wrote (47396)	7/13/2001 1:28:51 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer, There you guys go again with that nonsense. Intel cannot start a price war by setting their prices above the competition any more than you can start a shooting war by hurling your cities into the path of an incoming ICBM. I am sure you are aware of the fact that there are factors other than the price of the microprocessor that go into the decision (by OEMs) in which platform to use. It's a whole package with some intangibles, like the inertia, strength of Intel brand, advertising dollars, terms of payments etc. Suppose these add up to $50 per CPU, and Intel offers to sell this CPU for only $40 more than the price of AMD CPU, it is Intel who is accelerating the price war. Joe

To: Elmer who wrote (47396)	7/13/2001 3:27:49 AM
From: Petz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

In April, Intel dropped the price of the 1.7 P4 to below the level of the 1.5 GHz P4 and barely above the current price of the 1.33 Athlon. Now THAT was stupid. Intel had NO competition from AMD at 1.5 and 1.7 GHz, right? 213.219.40.69 Chipzilla will make further, large, price cuts to its Pentium 4 range on the 29th of April when it will now introduce the boxed Pentium 4 at 1.7GHz. This will arrive in two boxed versions, depending on the amount of Rambus bundled. The Pentium 4 1.5GHz price will then plunge by 51 per cent, the Pentium 4 1.4GHz price will slump by 48 per cent, and the Pentium 4 1.3GHz price will fall by 27 per cent. A few days later: By Mike Magee, 23 April 2001 06.12 BST THE INTEL CORPORATION today upped the stakes in its price war with AMD by introducing its fastest desktop processor, a 1.7GHz Pentium 4, at a price of $352. The unexpectedly low price, predicted here, and at the beginning of April, will cause a domino effect in the rest of the Pentium 4 family, with price cuts across the range. Intel made smaller cuts on its Pentium 4 family just two weeks ago. Why didn't Intel try to maximize profits by keeping the 1.5 and 1.7's priced far above the TBird 1.33? Is there something wrong with these products? Petz