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 (152464)	12/13/2001 5:34:38 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Respond to of 186894

C, <To be honest with you I don't know exactly what would have happened had intel not entered the value market. All I know is that Intel made it a valid market.> Most people across the spectrum, from AMDroids to Intelabees, from press reporters to company execs, would disagree with you. It was not Intel who made it a valid market. Instead, Intel was admittedly late to the game. Even Andy Grove acknowledges this. <I know a lot of people who bought a value PCs and 12 months later they complain because all the new software (games) runs like crap on them. A more expensive PC can last 2 years or so.> Even "expensive PCs" have come down in price to well under $2000. And the original value PCs were crap because the market for them was immature. The initial poor quality is hardly proof that the value PC would have just faded away without Intel. The high-tech industry constantly changes. Intel was not responsible for "validating" the low-end PC market as you claim. Rather, Intel responded, and that's how Celeron was born. And none of this has anything to do with the supposed desire to cause AMD malice. Tenchusatsu