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: tcmay who wrote (76208)	4/2/2002 5:13:11 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

Tim, Paying an "industry analyst" a fee to knock a competitor's product is just the latest example. Misleading FUD papers and "seminars" just compound the matter. I don't understand why Intel feels the need to hit below the belt, even when they are winning, and there is no need to do so. The only explanation I can think of is that the executives, the culture at top of Intel management is to be sleazballs. * 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. You are missing the point of Rambus. The point was to corner the industry. * 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) low prices in general are fine, but a low prices by a monopoly to to target a small competitor are highly questionable. For example, there were cases of monopoly airline (one owning a hub at a large airport) charging for example $200 to fly to a smaller city from the hub. A startup airline started flying the same route, charging say $150, and the monopoly airline undercut them to say $120, while not changing prices on any other routes (not facing copetition). Something like that is illegal. 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. I have no problem with Intel winning on merit. But your statement of "Niceness is not valid" just confirms how ethically bankrupt the business world can get. Joe

To: tcmay who wrote (76208)	4/2/2002 6:29:19 PM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

tcmay ...Re..* 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. <<<<<<< Sorry, but the article by THG on Rambus was a killer, because Van showed that Intel purposely fudged the tests and the figures were lies and damned lies. Van showed that the PIII at that time ran better on SRAM than Rambus in all situations except the one Intel used, which was with 800 rambus against 1/2 of the slowest SRAM. If Intel would have put the fastest Rambus against the fastest SRAM, Sram won, if you put the slowest RDRAM against the slowest SRAM, SRAM won, even if you put the slowest SRAM against the fastest RDRAM, but kept the amount of each even, SDRAM was even. In other words, Intel cooked the test. Even Dell put out test results verifying Van's results. That was the problem, Intel tried to get rich by cooking the tests; and that to me was sleezy. <<<<* 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).<<<<< Elmer always like to claim that, however by definition, a price war is a lowering of prices to drive the competitors out of business. There is no conceivable way AMD can lower the prices enough to drive Intel out of business, as at that time Intel had 90% of the business, and 90% of the manufacturing. Even CNET agrees with me. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-273975.html?legacy=cnet Analysts shouldn't be surprised by the toll Intel's price war has taken on AMD. Earlier this week, Gerard Klauer Mattison analyst John Geraghty cut his sales target to $788 million and predicted that average selling prices would fall to about $66. Robertson Stephens analyst Eric Rothdeutsch also said Intel's aggressive pricing was hurting AMD. "Solid unit gains appeared to come at a price, with steeper-than-expected price declines driven by weak PC demand and aggressive pricing from Intel," he said. <<<<<<<<