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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tony Viola who wrote (140708)	8/2/2001 11:15:50 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Tony, <<<This argument is getting old, and getting nowhere. We're right, they're wrong, and that's it for me on this subject.>>> The funny thing is, I am not really an Intel loyalist. I normally root for the underdog. But, I also like to see the better team and/or the better person win. I could easily root for AMD if the AMDroids could convince me that Jerry Sander is an unselfish person and that AMD, although much smaller, is developing innovative new products to thwart the evil empire and providing new capabilities that Intel is suppressing. But, the way the AMDroids are going at it, they obfuscate, go into denial, make up things, and use deception that gets me very upset. And, what makes me even more upset is when I hear "so called experts" repeat the nonsense on cable television. I really feel for Tenchusatsu. He is like that commercial on TV - the cowboy that is all bruised and bandaged - doing his job - herding cats. The toughest job on the range. Mary

To: Tony Viola who wrote (140708)	8/3/2001 4:55:12 AM
From: pgerassi	Respond to of 186894

Dear Tony: If I go to Mike Ruettgers and purchase a RAID Array and insert into my server then sell it to my customer and it goes into IDC's $60 billion figure, what does he care what category it is in? You know it could very well be in both. It is no different than say lumber and construction. $500 billion in construction could use $50 billion in lumber. Just because there is a $100 billion lumber market figure does not mean that all of it is not in the construction number. This is a common misconception. There is a number for corn production. Some of that is used as a feedstock for corn syrup. The market for corn syrup includes that portion of the corn market in it (if there is no corn market there won't be a corn syrup market). This is the same with storage. A part of storage goes into servers. Whether half of it does or 10% does is no skin off either the storage maker or the server maker (even if it is the same). Both got their money. Ford has their windshield maker (Visteon IIRC) and they sell to all the US car makers and the aftermarket sellers. Their windshields are part of the new car market in every new car. But they do not care how much of the car market revenue is windshields, just their portion of the windshield market. All this means that the storage market can not be added to the server market to get the overall total for both markets (they overlap). Just because they are divided that way in your company internally does not mean that IDC divides them that way for its market figures. If Cisco sells a router with an internal disk drive, and the sale gets counted in router sales, IDC doesn't take the disk cost out (there is no way they can tell what Cisco paid for it) of the router revenue. What Cisco pays the disk drive maker goes into the storage sales revenue. It is easy to see how this expands to the entire market for servers or anything else that is composed of many things purchased from other markets. Would it just as easy to have revenue debited entire for IBM Server division and credited to A/R, a cost entry (credit) for the storage array and a debit to IBM Storage revenue. Server then has its profits and Storage has its profits. The cost moved is the only thing debatable (and even could be contracted to keep everything on the level and to resolve disputes). This is done at many integrated manufacturers like GE and Ford. Revenue is thus correct for both and profits accrue correctly to both. No one is hurt and it is a win-win way to satisfy both. Perhaps you need some accounting courses to see how a vertically integrated manufacturer does accounting. You do not see these things stuck at a division level. I do, but only because I program accounting systems and thus have to look at the GL accounts and transaction journals to solve problems. As a small shareholder, I do not see these journals for either AMD, Intel, or any such company. Your argument is not how things are done in these companies. Pete