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: wanna_bmw who wrote (162361)	3/16/2002 1:13:09 AM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

bmw <edited> re: market share in Q2, and it was above 20% yeh, right, and mid year is not the end of 2nd quarter re: Since Intel did* have 80% market share in the past, the first part of his comment is true.* are you breaking our agreement here? Clinton jokes would not do re: So it seems that it is you who owe me an apology. I won't hold my breath, though. that was funny, I take it that you are not a man of your word then, sad <edited> you forgot to quote "Speaking in London, Barrett denied the chip giant's rival any quarter in the fight for processor marketshare. Well, all but 20 per cent of the market, at any rate." that refers to current time

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (162361)	3/16/2002 1:20:15 PM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 186894

Re: When Barrett said in June (your link) that Intel "has had" 80% market share, he didn't mean at that moment. "Has had" is the past tense Wanna_BMW, Sanders has been very upfront about AMD market share, when AMD's was up, he talked about it. When Intel's big P4 push bought back some share, Sanders gave out numbers that reflected a loss of share by AMD. The Intel / Barrett / Otellini press statements and releases, on the other hand, never admitted to their loss of 10% to 15% of the market from 1999 to 2001. They just used words like "essentially flat" or talked about a particular sector. Throughout a period in which Intel was hemorrhaging market share. In the terms you, Paul, and Elmer love to use in bold case, Intel lied. Repeatedly. To their investors. And it wasn't a near term forecast that represented wishful thinking rather than an objective look at how things were likely to pan out - something AMD been caught in, when some sales it was expecting at quarter's end didn't come through. Maybe I missed it - can you show us any examples of press releases or the official statements Intel used to explain their earnings statements that clearly showed investors that Intel was steadily losing market share during that period. You know, like when Jerry gave out unit sales numbers last quarter that indicated that AMD lost some share during the quarter. Effectively, Intel's spokesmen flat out lied to investors about their market share losses, and they did it after the fact when there was no chance of anything saving the quarter for them. And they did it repeatedly. At least, that's the recollection I have. If I'm wrong, please show me links the official statements from Intel that I missed. You know, clear, unequivocal, statements about market share like the ones we've repeatedly received from Jerry Sanders. The Intel stuff is alwasy couched in the terms that refer to narrow segments, not clearly defined, and they never seem to report on same segment twice. And the "segments" they select have often served to mislead investors about Intel's actual condition, rather than inform. USX will tell you how many tons of steel they shipped, GM will tell you how many cars they shipped, AMD will tell you how many PC CPUs they shipped. What's Intel hiding? Why are they so shy? Enron issued lots of glowing, but vague, reports for a while - if it was a bad idea to trust them, why isn't it a bad idea to trust Intel? Intel made a lot of money for a while, but if you look at what's been happening to their assets, they haven't made much money lately. What's really happened to Intel's unit volume during the past 3 years? What's the big secret? How come their assets keep dropping at the same time they report billion dollar profits? Assets were down $3.5 Billion during the past year, while they reported net profits of $1.2 Billion Like I posted before, maybe I'm wrong. If I missed the press releases, please post the links.