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: TGPTNDR who wrote (56156)	9/24/2001 3:27:36 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Respond to of 275872

TGPTNDR, I'm glad we found a common ground that we can agree on some things. The only thing I want to mention is regarding: "I keep seeing INTC make decisions that I think are foolish. I worked for an organization like that once. They did stupid things because they could. They were in a position of power and thought they could do anything. Eventually, the company dismembered the organization. If INTC doesn't start acting wisely I think the market may dismember it." As a question for the general audience of this forum, what makes you think that the decisions that Intel makes are all bad ones? Is it because they somehow don't fit your personal opinion of what a good decision is? Everybody here likes to play the part of the Armchair CEO (tm Tenchusatsu, I believe), but I bet if you polled all the AMD investors here, or even all the investors here, you'd find that each of us has our own idea of how best to run a company. But I'm sure one thing some of the AMD investors I know will agree on, if AMD is doing it, it must be the right thing! Now, at one point or another, almost everybody here has agreed that these companies have made mistakes at one time or another. Most agreed that Intel made a terrible mistake with the Pentium 4 architecture (and some people still do <g>), but I think a greater percentage have already realized what a marketing gem the Pentium 4 is, not to mention something of a decent performer. Once things like this play out, things that previously had no visible advantage all of a sudden look very advantageous. People said that the i810 would be a lousy chipset, but it ended up being Intel's greatest money maker and entrance to the value PC market. People said that the Pentium Pro was a waste of time, because Intel couldn't touch the RISC market in terms of performance. Well, Pentium Pro, and later Xeon, won Intel the majority market share. Skeptics continue to think that Itanium is a losing proposition, but look at the industry support. People said that RDRAM was a horrible memory technology, but it's still the highest performing memory combination for the Pentium 4. There are many examples, but let me assure you, most of them can be argued over, and I'll admit that. RDRAM and Itanium are still not airtight, as I'm sure some of the AMD investors will remind you. But the fact that total failures on the part of some people turned out to be decent products later on shows that Intel's decisions may have merit... it's just that you cannot possibly understand what the people inside understand. I am willing to let the decision making be handled by the experts. Intel didn't get to where they are by idiotic management, and I won't buy any of the B.S. that Intel is only where it is through dishonest strong-arming. It's too easy an excuse for people who don't want to admit that Intel has ever come up with a good product. So knock them if you want, but Intel has shown in the past that they can make good decisions, even when the rest of the community doesn't think so. Intel moves, and the industry moves with it. If you don't keep up, you'll get lost. wanna_bmw