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: SilentZ who wrote (152146)	12/11/2001 11:31:12 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

The situation today is much harsher than it was then. What are they teaching you in school anyway? Your business vision seems to only extend to the end of the week. What a shocker! Conditions change! Who could have foreseen that? No doubt MSFT figured things were going great and they'd always stay that way. No need to pick a partner with a long term track record. Go with the lowball bid. If MSFT can save a buck then it's worth taking a risk and going with the lowest bidder regardless of their track record, right? That's more important then selling software, right? Intel was so intent on screwing AMD that they were willing to sell at a loss for years to come. Just to prevent AMD from filling up a fab they can't spare with products they couldn't make any money on. Now that's a brilliant thesis Z. You're sure to get an A. Sounds like your education is worth less than you paid. EP

To: SilentZ who wrote (152146)	12/12/2001 2:11:56 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Elmer and Z, Elmer: <MSFT may have decided that an unreliable source wasn't worth it regardless of the lower price. Pay a higher price and get a reliable supplier.> Z: <For a piece of hardware they're taking a loss on already? Doubtful.> I'm not necessarily agreeing with Elmer, but having a reliable supplier is very critical, especially for launch. Do you recall the very tight supply shortages of Sony Playstation 2 when it was released last year? Sony couldn't even meet their original commitments, much less the demand which far exceeded their expectations. Luckily for them they didn't have any competition during their supply crunch. Fast forward to today, and Microsoft wanted to make a big splash with X-Box. They not only had to compete against Sony, the current king, but they also had to compete against Nintendo who was introducing their GameCube around the same time. Imagine if Microsoft couldn't supply enough X-Boxes due to CPU shortages? That would quickly kill any hope of ever competing against the formidable Sony and Nintendo. Tenchusatsu