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: matt dillabough who wrote (182459)	10/25/2005 2:15:20 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Consumer Confidence Unexpectedly Falls biz.yahoo.com NEW YORK (AP) -- The outlook for the holiday shopping season darkened Tuesday as the latest consumer confidence reading showed Americans even more pessimistic about the economy during October. ... The Conference Board said its Consumer Confidence Index fell to 85 in October, the lowest level since October 2003 and down from September's revised reading of 87.5, which had been the sharpest drop in 15 years. Analysts expected an October reading of 88 for the index RE: "Analysts said Intel's latest moves, while not monumental, suggest the co hadn't seen its original lineup measuring up with the competition's" While other analysts said it's because Intel accurately anticipated an economic slow-down thus realized it made no sense to have a zillion different versions of a high-end product during a possible upcoming recession. AMD doesn't have anything in its lineup that measures up with Intel on the higher-end so there was no need to have a zillion versions at the high-end, but of course, leave it to only the WSJ to put a negative spin on anything related to Intel - it's like a Rovism: WSJ states the opposite of what's true.

To: matt dillabough who wrote (182459)	10/25/2005 2:40:53 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

AMD doesn't have anything in its lineup that measures up with Intel on the higher-end so there was no need to have a zillion different versions at the high-end when Intel accurately anticipated an economic slow-down, but of course, leave it to only the WSJ to put a negative spin on anything related to Intel - it's like a Rovism: WSJ states the opposite of what's true. WSJ doesn't understand basic 101 Product-Line Economics, where you: 1. Expand lower-end product lines, when entering recessions. 2. Reduce # of (or delay) releases of higher-end product lines, until an economic slow-down ends. Rather than complimenting Intel on accurately adjusting its product-line for the much anticipated economic slow-down, WSJ punches a cheap Rovism - only the clueless in hightech would follow WSJ.