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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (76203)	4/2/2002 4:30:29 PM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

Jozef, Re: "People have a general sense of fair play, and even though they may root for the underdog, they respect the winner, if the victory is deserved, and achieved by playing fair." Ok, but "playing fair" suggests a set of rules, right? What set of rules do you think Intel is following in their desire to maintain their level of success in the semiconductor market? Other than Federal rules, which apply to all companies, no one has defined a sense of "fair play" in a capitalistic playing field. The only rules that you guys seem to get upset over are the ones that Jerry Sanders defines - and that man only defines rules so that he can claim himself a winner in all events. If AMD won a few points in market share, then the rules will change so that market share is the most important goal to work towards. If AMD has recovered ASPs, expect Jerry to call out from the rooftops that AMD has had a much larger sequential gain in ASPs versus their other competitor. Jerry makes all the rules, including his new rule that model numbers tell the more "honest" and "truthful" side of performance, and that any attempt to argue with the "truth" is an attempt to enforce a "lie". So now AMDroids everywhere are willing to change the rules in his favor. No matter what Intel does to defend their market share and success in the business, it will always be perceived by some as an "underhanded tactic". Look at the way Chris Tom wrote about Intel's presentation. Surely only the sourest of critics can find something negative to say about each and every slide. Most realists will give an honest overview and impression as a whole, but not Chris Tom. He did what many people on this thread would also have done - be gave a sarcastic diatribe for each and every slide of the presentation. And why not? He readers probably loved it. As for me, I agree that Intel is getting more vicious, but I also think they have a right to give their side of the story. Of course, I think AMD has equal right to defend their half as well, and in the end, people will make up their own minds. There is nothing underhanded about it, as I see it. It's simply two competitive companies in a disagreement over how their products should measure up to the market place. And let's be honest - neither company is doing it for the benefit of the consumer, but rather the benefit to sell more of their products. Business is business, and as long as AMDroids take it personally whenever Intel lashes back at AMD, the more they will foster a hatred that will lead to more bad investments. It's not my problem. I am merely commenting on the phenomenon. wbmw

To: Joe NYC who wrote (76203)	4/2/2002 4:41:49 PM
From: tcmay	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

"I am probably not explaining myself clearly. People have a general sense of fair play, and even though they may root for the underdog, they respect the winner, if the victory is deserved, and achieved by playing fair. Crushing AMD "The latest episode of underhanded tactics of Intel (I guess some slimeballs at Intel just can't help themselves) takes away from the achievement of Intel engineers, and what is left is not admiration of good products, but resentment of sleazeball Intel management." I don't know which decisions you're thinking of as "sleazeball" or "unfair." More on why "sleazeball" and "unfair" are mostly useless terms in a bit. But first, some guesses as to what you might be thinking of (feel free to add more): * Intel and Rambus. This was a decision which turned out to be a bad one, it looks. So? This was not "sleazeball." In fact, AMD benefitted from this misstep by Intel. * Delays in some chips. Delays happen. So? Nothing sleazeball or "unfair" about a delay...it has happened much more often with AMD lately. * chipsets and server chips...I'm not versed in this as many of you are, so I'll say little. Again, delays and screwups happen. And sometimes other companies even get burned. The give and take of competition in this fast-changing world. * Itanium. Don't like it, then don't use it. * Low prices cutting AMD's ability to make a profit? AMD started the price war, let's not forget ("we will be priced 25% below Intel"--which they pretty much _had_ to be to get any business a few years ago). AMD can't make money in today's climate? Boo-hoo. Not Intel's problem or responsibility to ensure profits for AMD (in fact, to do so would no doubt violate the Sherman and Clayton Acts). * P4? Don't like it? Don't use it. Where's the problem? I see an Intel that is rolling out new products, expanding 300 mm production more rapidly than many of us expected, shrinking geometries, and basically expanding its lead. As for "sleazeball" and "unfair," companies have no responsibility to make things nice for other companies. Schumpeter called it the "creative destructionism of capitalism." Niceness is not valid, and anyone who claims here it does is naive, a simp-wimp wuss-ninny. "Crush"? A great program, circa 1979-82, designed to crush the competition. We buckled down and kicked ass. A lot of companies folded during this period. So? Crushing one's competitors is how business works. --Tim May