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: AK2004 who wrote (162304)	3/15/2002 6:28:42 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

albert, Re: "few times barrett announced of share gains as a justification for his strategy and each time it proved to be either draw, share loss or very insignificant gain. Instead of treating his announcement with some skepticism they are assumed to be true without question by most here. I question Jerry's actions all the time so how come barrett is above that." I'm sorry, but you're going to have to back that up. Last time someone here accused Intel of out-right lying about market share gains, they came up with a comment from Paul Otellini about how Intel "held" market share after the fourth quarter of 2000, when they obviously did not. Paul clearly made the claim in error, but in all fairness, he made the claim a week or so before AMD announced their quarter, so it seemed that he didn't have the right data at the time. As for Craig Barrett, I never remember him making any kinds of claims regarding gains in market share, especially under the conditions that you explain. If Barrett speaks at all, it's usually conservative and non-committal. I don't think Barrett has uttered a prediction yet that hasn't come true. Of course, that's mostly because he doesn't usually utter predictions, and when he does, it's usually like, "I believe we are well positioned to take advantage of a recovering economy," and predictions like that have a hard time being proved incorrect. As for Jerry Sanders, I rarely see you question any of his wild claims. Maybe you can show me a link proving that as well. wbmw

To: AK2004 who wrote (162304)	3/15/2002 6:41:56 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

albert, Re: "ok one more thing or rather more on price-war, on a number of occasions I spoke against intel pricing strategy. I have not built a complete model (did not really have time) but it seemed that there was no real benefit from decreasing prices. AMD always lowered them after intel so the balance would not be upset. Now it would make sense to me if there would be extra no constraints on intel but the expected gm created a constraint. So intel was not really capable of going low enough to hurt amd. It seems like barrett was determined on hurting intel and amd shareholders without even remote possibility of success." I think the argument of "who started the pricewar" is completely moot, not to mention your wild speculation regarding Barrett's intentions. Usually, any company will lower prices when they are in a competition for market share. If you'll recall, nobody really cared about market share until Jerry Sanders made a big deal out of it (with his constant goal of 30%). Usually, I think you'll find that the company on the defensive ends up lowering the prices of their product lines in order to compete in sales. It's within both AMD's and Intel's interests to sell out of inventory, and in a market of limited demand, extra incentives in price are necessary to move products out the door. In the first half of last year, Intel was facing stronger competition, because the Pentium III ran out of gas, while the Pentium 4 was overpriced and non-competitive. They were on the defensive, so the solution was to lower the price, and they did. In the second half, Pentium 4 ramped in in frequency, and AMD was late with Palomino, so AMD was on the defensive. Their solution was to lower prices of Athlon. It's the same solution as Intel, but also somewhat based on Jerry Sanders' desire to ship record volumes every quarter. Clearly, in order to do that, prices had to reach a bottom, and AMD's ASPs dipped farther than they had in many years. Intel's ASPs were more than double AMD's, so I don't think you can make a convincing story about Barrett propagating the pricewar. In fact, your comment about Barrett being determined to hurt his own share holders is quite out of his character. I think that line was placed here to provoke me, and that's pretty naughty of you, albert. Do you still remember our agreement? <ggg> wbmw