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: wbmw who wrote (241513)	10/1/2007 11:06:00 AM
From: fastpathguru	Respond to of 275872

wbmw, The way you described it, absolutely. Take Intel's desktop ASP last quarter of $83. siliconinvestor.com You realize this means that half of all of Intel's desktop volumes are sold for under $83, right? No, it doesn't. Increasing prices by $50 across the board would have a devastating effect on market demand. overclockers.com It wasn't too long ago that Intel's desktop ASPs were significantly higher than they are now. They've dropped precipitously since AMD filed its lawsuit (which could be coincidence; I'm not arguing a causality chain here.) Nevertheless, Intel's ASPs dropped specifically due to competition with AMD. (See all the battles about who started the price war; whoever started it, "it" exists and is due solely to competition with AMD.) Now: Imagine AMD is out of the picture. What exactly would stop Intel from raising prices again, now that there is NO alternative? Where is the incentive to drop prices? Waterfalling prices on new releases would, at the very least, be a thing of the past. Would Intel still be foisting Netburst on us today if AMD hadn't pushed Intel so hard? Would Intel be pushing IPF as the high-end architecture? Be careful of what you wish for. fpg