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: Road Walker who wrote (163231)	3/29/2002 10:09:54 PM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 186894

John re: Does "larger" mean better in this business? I do not know what "better" means. Intel got more resources and "economy of scale" (used to be favorite buzzphrase here). I can understand "better managed" or "better" products though. It used to be that Intel was managed better but the success with virtual gorilla on amd's side is very impressive so "better managed" is out. "better" products? So far Itanium does not sell and athlon is more than adequate competition to p4 and it is going to be replaced by the next generation chip soon, so you tell me...... re: It wasn't Intel's actions, it was AMD's. AMD raised prices on their MHz scheme, the retailers wouldn't buy it. So (my best guess) Intel took over a lot of low margin business, hurting their overall domestic GM's. that is not even an excuse unless intel sells their low end at below cost to drive competitors out. Otherwise, entering low end should help earnings even though that asps would be smaller. OTOH, athlons US asps are improving while intel's are going down re: I would bet that Intel expenses a lot of things in the US, that may not be sold in the US. And in the end, who cares? Intel is a global company, with profits, AMD is a global company, with losses. I think you should care. It is not that intel earned much more outside of US it that they earn much less in US and that is the bottom line. US market used to be Intel's main breadwinner (70%). Yes, AMD is a company with losses but do not forget that price is determined by future expected earnings rather than todays. re: You can think they are sinister if it makes you happy contrary to popular belief :-)) I do not think that intel sinister. What I said is that it may not be such a bright idea to use the startegy that is already failed in desktop retail market. re: What the hell do you expect Intel to do, raise prices? I expect intel to optimize for profits re: And that seems to be the bottom line, for the AMD 'Droids, and Jerry's team. Target a category, sell at a loss, hurt Intel. I think we agreed that when intel tried to suffocate amd in US retail amd moved out. The point of amd selling cheaper is they need to to have minimum market share in order to justify cpu business, back to "economy of scale". Amd is not aiming at dominant role in x86 market just as long as it can share benefits of it. And you are forgetting about intel's "only paranoid survive" that rules out any possibility of competition. While Jerry sounds like it is his personal war, intel acts like it is. re: I can never figure out what it is anybody LIKES about AMD. I do not really know, maybe making money has something to do with it :-)) Regards -Albert