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: Elmer Phud who wrote (155749)	4/12/2005 4:52:39 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Ephud: All the analysts that cover Intel agree with the statement that Intel lost money in flash. The amount that the other stuff in those divisions would have to lose so much money wrt their revenue so that flash would even be able to just break even, that the numbers are just too incredible. Losing $100 on a $10 part over long periods just isn't supportable, yet thats what you want others to believe. And Intel has cut such operations before (except for that catch all, "Other", where they stick expenses to show greater profitability in the named divisions). Thus, a good deal, if not all, of the losses came from flash. And you have not been able to prove that Intel made any money on flash in any quarter of 2004. In fact the division with flash had losses that tracked more with the revenue and prices of flash than with any other underlying subdivision. That is even more proof that flash is responsible for those divisional losses. But even if someone proved it, you would conveniently forget that every time the subject came up. Pete

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (155749)	4/13/2005 3:56:38 AM
From: Rink	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Elmer, re: The link was to page 2 of an article. I was unable to access page 1. You tried?! I'll leave it to you how difficult it is to get from page 2 to page 1: thestreet.com thestreet.com Article is called: "AMD's Fate Approaches a Flash Point" I quoted only one line from it: "Intel says that it wants its memory unit to be profitable but said that profitability might not happen until 2006." Like I said yesterday, after a dragging discussion, I'm not going to discuss the meaning of this any further with you any time soon. Regards, Rink