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: wanna_bmw who wrote (76206)	4/2/2002 5:04:55 PM
From: tcmay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

"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." WannaBMW, you said in another post that I had made a point more eloquently than you had. (Thanks.) But here, it's "back at ya." You have made this point above more eloquently than I did in my "Crushing AMD" post. This whining by the droids that "Intel is beating up on us!! Waahh!" is getting tiresome. The way for AMD to excel is for them to excel, not redefine what success is and go running to the EU to complain that Intel is beating up on them. --Tim May

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (76206)	4/2/2002 5:15:17 PM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 275872

wbmw, As for me, I agree that Intel is getting more vicious That's my point, and if there ever was a point in time when it was just completely unnecessary, it is now. Intel has a good, competitive product out, one that is winning on merit. Joe

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (76206)	4/2/2002 9:27:10 PM
From: hmaly	Respond to of 275872

BMW Re..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.<<<<<<<<< What rules are you talking about? Market share and higher asps are goals, something one strives for; not something to be followed. 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". <<<<< First of all, when did the PC community ever follow AMD's specs, instead of Intel's. Secondly the Quantispeed is just a modeling number indicating a model's performance, just as the 2400 P4 is a metric defining P4's performance. Who says's that AMD doesn't have the right to name their products? ANd what rule? Intel certainly hasn't had to name their processors after Quantispeed modeling numbers, nor has any other manufacturer. The Abeerdeen article was bought and paid for, by Intel, and the writers, in fairness, should have disclosed who paid for their opinions, much as CNBC requires all analyists and stockpickers to disclose all stocks that they own. . 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.<<<<<< Of course the readers loved it. Chris Tom smelled a rat, and everyone agreed; just as Van's diatribe about Rambus struck a raw nerve. Why does Intel feel the necessity to treat all of us like children who will believe every word they pay for. Business is business, and as long as AMDroids take it personally whenever Intel lashes back at AMD, <<<<< And pray tell, just what was Intel lashing back at AMD for? Did AMD pay Aberdeen previously to print rubbish about Intel products? Link Please.

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (76206)	4/2/2002 11:44:44 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

bmw re: Other than Federal rules, which apply to all companies, no one has defined a sense of "fair play" in a capitalistic playing field. yet for some reason we know it is "unfair" when doj looks at Intel re: Jerry makes all the rules, including his new rule that model numbers tell the more "honest" and "truthful" side of performance there is no contradiction in your mind between what you said and that you are comparing p4 2.4 to axp 2100+ re: Surely only the sourest of critics can find something negative to say about each and every slide like outright lie? <gggg> Of course each lie is open to interpretation and can be called "Intel honest"(tm). Are you the same bmw who criticized amd for dishonesty because of their qs? :-)) re: 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 they have the right to be as vicious as they want just as long as the facts are not changed and data is not made up. That sounds borderline criminal. Come to think of it you can take away "borderline" re: and as long as AMDroids take it personally whenever Intel lashes back at AMD How do "Intel lashes back at AMD". Is that by exposing disadvantages of amd products? Maybe by introducing some so much better that amd does not have a prayer of catching up? Possibly a price war? Why bother if Intel can just be "Intel Honest"(tm)? :-)) Regards -Albert