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: Charles Gryba who wrote (57177)	10/4/2001 2:08:58 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 275872

Constantine, <AMD had a very small percentage of market share and could not possibly hope to satisfy more than 25% of them market at any time in recent history no matter what their pricing was. I can see how Intel responded to AMD but they did not have to.> I find this argument to be bogus. Intel's so-called monopoly is not unassailable. If Intel didn't respond, AMD would have surely gone for more than just 25-30% market share. Either that, or other CPU makers like Cyrix (now Via) would have followed in AMD's footsteps and taken more market share away from Intel. <Besides, the discussion with wanna_bmw was about how cheaper cpus can be attributed to AMD's pressure on Intel and enable the PC sales explosion we've seen in the last decade.> Cheaper CPUs is the result of a maturing PC market. There is nothing AMD did that is different from what they've always been doing for the past 15 years. AMD has always provided low-cost alternatives to Intel's CPUs. The difference is that very few people wanted AMD's CPUs until about three years ago, when "sub-$1000" became the first sign of a maturing market. Tenchusatsu