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 (60907)	10/29/2001 4:15:39 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer Re...AMD started the price war and Intel simply responded. <<<<<<<< I already have shown my link to businessweek several times, which says Intel started the price war. Show me a link to show otherwise., and nobody starts a war by pricing higher than the competition. <<<<<<<<< First off, Intel is the name brand, and as a name brand, Intel would normally carry a 25% price premium. In addition, in that 25%, Intel also pays for advertising costs, and engineering costs. So Intels 25% premium includes several enhancements. If Intel drops the price to 10% over AMD, Intel actually is pricing their product below AMD's, because Intel's price includes branding, advertising and engineering services. I don't call driving a company into a $100 million loss an example of outdueling his profitable competitor, but then again you can't figure out who started the price war so I guess at least you're consistent.<<<<<< Ahh, but I have figured it out and I have provided you links. Why don't you provide more than hot air. Secondly, Tench and I are talking about a 3 yr period, when Barret took over for Moore, which encompasses 9 q. not just one. Is there any question Barret can drive AMD into the red. No. Has Intel profited from it. No. So why should Intel continue to start another round today? Got me.