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: Dan3 who wrote (171242)	9/26/2002 12:39:02 AM
From: BelowTheCrowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

I would suggest that that can work only in a growth business. In a slower growth environment, if you stop investment in new products, you never give customers a reason to upgrade. They have even LESS reason to buy stuff at your high prices. I suspect that in a no-competition world, we would have somewhat slower progress and somewhat higher prices, but the imperative to move volume would still force the prices down and capabilities up over time. Arguably, things have moved a lot faster than most consumers care about anyway, so it might not be such a bad thing. (I know my position on this is controversial, but I'll stand by it, at least with regards to the vast majority of business PCs out there.) mg

To: Dan3 who wrote (171242)	9/26/2002 2:28:19 AM
From: John Hull	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Dan, Absolute horse crap. You don't really believe the stuff you write do you? You do it just to get other people, like me, to send messages to you. Right? jh

To: Dan3 who wrote (171242)	9/26/2002 3:23:15 AM
From: NITT	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

re"What Intel did in the late 90's was not jack up prices, rather they stopped investing in new plant and new products but kept charging the same high prices - in a capital intensive business, this let them increase their profits considerably." You are either a complete idiot, or you just like to flame bate... I'll assume you just like to flame bate. For others on the thread interested in the facts: Intel did not "stop" investing in new plants and new products in the late 90's. They did reduce capital spending in '98 and '99 versus '97, but they still spend more in both of those years then they did in '96. '97 was a major capital addition years for fabs that handled the ramp beyond 100Mu/year. Intel increased R&D every year in the past 10 years with the exception of 00' and 01' and that has not appeared to slow down their pipeline of new products. Intel probably left some profits on the table for AMD to pick up when capacity could not keep up in late '99 and '00... and I will agree Athlon has given Intel strong motivation. But Dan, I can't imagine may people on this thread taking anything you say seriously with posts like your last one. See Intel's Spending here: intel.com See AMDs spending over the same period here, and remember, they are the ones who have decided to "partner" for manufacturing capacity in the future for their most important products: corporate.amd.com click on financial highlights. To look at the highlights for years prior to '97 go to the archive and look at the '97 annual report. Nitt