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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (241845)	10/5/2007 6:48:24 AM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: there goes that $14.89 "premium" argument ... 1.) It's closer to $148.90 on a cost basis - which is the difference in ASPs from when Intel was competing in a competitive market and after they'd weaseled out of the contract they agreed to with IBM before IBM handed them the PC market. Damage to the consumer is somewhat more than that, per PC. Check out the cost of Intel CPUs prior to their violating their contract with IBM to allow second sources and 1998-1999 which is the last time they had AMD on the ropes and were able to abuse their monopoly. 2.) Try really, really, hard and maybe you'll be able to comprehend what "the last 10%" means. Though it's probably beyond you.... Inside Intel you must all be very, very, pessimistic regarding the expected outcome of the lawsuit. The stench of the synthetic "grassroots" blitz is very strong.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (241845)	10/5/2007 8:27:48 AM
From: gvatty	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Rebates are good for the consumer. They allow vendors to charge less for their PCs. If AMD had to compete by providing even deeper discounts, so much the better for the end user. Why give rebates to the oem? Why not charge them less for the chips and not tie them to predatory practices. Btw a consumer can benefit in the short term from Intel predatory practices. It's when all the competition is wiped out when the consumer loses. Would you have a problem if Microsoft bought AMD, reduced AMD chip prices by 75% for the next 5 years to benefit the consumer, and rewrote all their software so it could only be used by AMD chips? I would assume if Microsoft did this and was not stopped by any government agency that AMD chip prices would rise in year 6. Also, the Sherman Antitrust Act allows for treble damages.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (241845)	10/5/2007 12:07:48 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Tench: Get off this $14.89 estimate per PC. Like most, it fails to consider cumulative effects like by illegally interfering with AMD sales, it deprived AMD of money to expand its fabs. Thise fabs would have generated more CPUs, increasing its share which then makes AMD more money money and begines the cycle again. After 5 years that doubles its share. Those effects of compounding are typicaly missed by those estimates. Factoring those in, the illegal tactics to expand the monopoly cost far more than $14.89 a PC. Given desktop and mobile prices, its more like $100-200 a PC. And it reduces the speed of innovation. The tactics probably delayed the release of faster and more innovative processors. And these rebates didn't really translate into lower prices as they inflated the OEM's pockets, like Dell's. Favoring one vendor over others causes the price to be higher than necessary. Anything illegal tactic that increases the overhead also causes the resultant prices to rise to cover it. So the legal monopoly might have caused the prices to rise per PC by $14.89, although that is probably low, the illegal tactics costed far more, $100-200 each. Pete