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: Charles Gryba who wrote (152404)	12/13/2001 12:17:06 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 186894

Elmer has still not answered my academic question on whether a tiny incremental profit is worth enough to create a hostile ( and uncertain ) marketplace. Charles, seeing as you've been beating your wife for years now, do you think it would be better to use your fist or will you go back to using a club? Stop avoiding the question. EP

To: Charles Gryba who wrote (152404)	12/13/2001 12:26:52 PM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

My point is that if you start it don't claim you did not and that the other guys don't matter and all that BS. Elmer has still not answered my academic question on whether a tiny incremental profit is worth enough to create a hostile ( and uncertain ) marketplace. Helloo???? Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear: About what, 1998, Intel came to the conclusion that NOBODY wanted the bottom end of the power curve. I have no special knowledge, but Cyrex had been around for a long time. Then came Emachines and the Incredible IPO Internet Polaroid Land Camera Givaway. The concept being that if you were going to give away a computer to get an eyeball or two, you wanted to give away a 286, not a Zeon. All of a sudden, in the space of about 8 months, this became a 16 Billion Plus dollar market, my guess, about 10% or more of a 160 Billion dollar market. Amd was ALREADY THERE, undercutting Intel on the price of processors!!!! And if memory serves, the Celeron and the CeleronA were still MORE expensive than the k6's or whatever AMD was shipping. If the dotcom mania lasted with the free money, this segment promised to get even larger. It is a business profit decision, you just happened to be there, that's all. Elmer has answered you question about 6 times now. This is the seventh.

To: Charles Gryba who wrote (152404)	12/13/2001 12:31:31 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Constantine, Re: "You guys have been maintaining that Intel never started a price war to terminate AMD ( among others )." That's right, and yet you maintain that it's self-evident that Intel did. Instead of attacking the argument by assuming that your point is obvious, maybe you should think harder about what Elmer and Tench are saying. They aren't disagreeing that Intel launched a Celeron at a lower price to compete in the sub-$1000 space; rather, they are arguing against your attempt to prove that it was a competitive tactic to force AMD out of the market. I think it's quite reasonable to recognize that there are other factors in Intel's decision making besides AMD. wbmw

To: Charles Gryba who wrote (152404)	12/13/2001 12:33:34 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 186894

C, <You guys have been maintaining that Intel never started a price war to terminate AMD ( among others ).> Did Intel sell the Celeron below cost? Was Intel's microprocessor business ever not profitable? If AMD can't keep up, that's AMD's fault, not Intel's. This ridiculous notion that Intel started the price war is a popular AMDroid myth based on sheer denial. As usual, you'll try and corner me with second-guessing Intel's motives to compete. Give it a rest. Tenchusatsu