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 (47597)	7/13/2001 5:57:31 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

John, <AMD needs to raise their brand perception. I don't think it will happen while Mr. Sanders is in charge, judging from the CC I listened to yesterday.> Given the bitter comments made by Jerry "I got out at 29, suckas!" Sanders, I think he's trying to trash Intel's brand perception more than raise AMD's. Kind of like negative political ads that you see on TV. Tenchusatsu

To: Road Walker who wrote (47597)	7/13/2001 7:03:09 PM
From: that_crazy_doug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

<< It's still a marketing issue. It's obvious. If you can't sell an equivalent product for an equivalent price, you have a perception issue. >> Sure there's a perception issue. When you build a reputation for being #1 in an industry over 10 years, and all other players have always had lower quality components, it's difficult to change that mindset. That's one of the reasons why Intel is so successful and the main reason they haven't been hurt nearly as much as they could have been considering how far they were behind. << AMD's customer won't pay the same price to AMD as they will to Intel. WHY? That's the question you should ask Mr. Sanders. >> I certainly don't think it takes a whole lot of figuring out the answer to that question, but I do think the longer AMD stays competitive with Intel the less and less premium there will be. Of course, this gets on to an entirely different subject then we were originally discussing. << Once you solve the marketing (perception) problem, you can compete performance to performance, dollar for dollar. >> The perception problem just takes time to work itself out, look at how long it took for people to change their minds about japanese vs american electronics or cars. Certainly better marketing needs to be done here, but even with little marketing I think time will slowly solve this problem as long as AMD remains technological viable. << AMD needs to raise their brand perception. I don't think it will happen while Mr. Sanders is in charge, judging from the CC I listened to yesterday. >> I think they've raised it considerably in the past year, but it certainly isn't raised enough to keep them making huge dollars in a slowed economy. I think we can trace a lot of the current problems to both companies just making more then people want to buy, and both companies cutting prices instead of production. I'm not faulting either one for their logic, it's really a giant game of chicken where neither company wants to give up share to raise ASP's of the industry, and I don't blame either one on that one.

To: Road Walker who wrote (47597)	7/13/2001 8:43:22 PM
From: niceguy767	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

John: "AMD's customer won't pay the same price to AMD as they will to Intel. WHY? That's the question you should ask Mr. Sanders." That's where the 30% market share comes in to play...Perhaps price autonomy can occur only when backed by about 30% market share. I've heard that said about the cell phone sector so why not the microprocessor sector. Below 30%, it's tough to "stick" a price! Two problems compound the situation for AMD: Weak global demand for processors and even weaker demand for P4's which has resulted in INTC's caving in on P4 pricing in attempt to sway top end purchasers away from the Athlon...but I suspect that the problem is much greater for INTC given the higher cost structure of the P4 and INTC's critical dependence upon the success of the P4...For INTC to be competitive over the next 2 years, the P4 has to fly and, to date, INTC does not appear to have been successful in establishing a successful pricing schedule for the P4 even at 50% of planned q2 pricing and volume targets...Scarey scenario confronting INTC and, unfortunately, AMD may have to absorb some of the negative P4 spillover as INTC continues with P4 loss leader pricing for Dell in q3. Don't think that INTC can play this game for longer than 6 months though before the red makes the INTC financials almost impoossibble to read...So far so good for AMD, though!