SI
SI
discoversearch

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: wbmw who wrote (237646)7/30/2007 1:06:08 PM
From: economaniackRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 275872
 
Key phrase is "reasonable stepped discounts"

It is no crime if Intel can produce more efficiently than AMD and undercuts them on price. However there are limits on their ability to discount marginal products without discounting everything, and that is what is at issue.

Intel must offer economic justification of its volume discounts - ie specific savings from shipping or contracting in volume that are reflected in the discounts.

Intel’s Sewell has a simple response: His company doesn’t offer first-dollar rebates. “We offer a discount program,” he asserts, “which is stepped at basically 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%. So if you buy below 20%, you get no discount. If you buy 20% to 40%, you get a discount, but it applies only to the units between 20% to 40%. By the time you get up to 80% or 100%, you’re getting the highest discount. If you’re at the highest discount rate, and you were to normalize that across all units, you get a better price across the board if you buy more parts from us, but you don’t have this dramatic incentive, where you get nothing below 90%, and everything above 90%. In our view, this is a very traditional discount that scales with volume.”

If this is actually the case - that Intel discounts are based on the percentage of product a company buys from Intel then they should just write a check now cause they are screwed.

Understand the difference. Intel can reasonably argue that the cost of selling, delivering and servicing a contract for 100,000 processors is less than 1000 times the cost for selling 100 processors, and they can set prices to reflect that difference. They cannot plausibly argue that the cost depends on the share of the buyers systems that use Intel, and they cannot legally reward customers for using fewer or no AMD processors.

We have today an EU finding that Intel used not just illegal pricing but also direct extortion to exclude AMD products, and an Intel statement that appears to confirm an illegal pricing scheme. From AMD we have the concession that if neither of these is true and Intel is behaving legally then they have no further complaint.

e