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 (241896)	10/5/2007 1:10:10 PM
From: Petz	Respond to of 275872

$14.89 per PC is the estimate of direct damage to the consumer from Intel's actions. The damage to AMD, and the benefit to Intel, may be more or less than that. Petz

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (241896)	10/5/2007 1:35:36 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Dear Tench: How thick headed of you. If a customer has to buy a $1,015 Intel PC instead of a $965 AMD PC, they are still out $50. When that AMD PC was 10-20% faster, its even worse because either they need to work more to get the same amount done or they have to buy an even more expensive Intel PC, since as you know, 10% faster costs a whole lot more like double the CPU ASP. So that $1,000 PC now costs $1,115 taking $115 out of the consumers pocket. Also that $1,015 PC uses more power, requires more cooling and more expensive accessories, the actual costs are higher taking even more out of the consumer's wallet. Soon that $14.89 increase is $100-200 out of the consumer's wallet. You do know that Intel illegally extended their CPU monopoly into chipsets? They attempted to do it with memory, remember Rambus? Into their wireless chips? Each adds a few more dollars to the consumers cost. And then the OEM's gross margins increases that increase even more. And then there are the time sensitive costs. Less money to the competitors (you think AMD was the only target of Intel?) meant that not only that they couldn't sell CPUs that were better, they didn't have the funds to design better ones faster. How much would the consumer save, if the K8 gets released a year sooner? How much quicker would Intel have moved to Core, if the P4 stopped selling? How much faster would Intel rid itself of Rambus, if consumers could have bought third party chipsets that used SDR and DDR? Would they even have considered an exclusive arrangement? Would thay have dropped billions into Itanium, if they weren't a dominant supplier? Those are the illegal monopoly costs that are hardest to figure, but that have the most impact. Damages are supposed to cover these costs, but usually given the slowness of these kind of cases, rarely do, even when tripled. You think that rebates are always good no matter how they are structured. Then consider this example. A city is by a big lake. They feed their citizens by local companies fishing that lake and selling those fish to them. Those companies have a vested interest in keeping a large breeding fish population in that lake. Now comes a company from the coast. It gets its fish from the ocean and sells more expensive fish (hey trucking them in refrigeration units costs money and we have to have good margins to come to them to boot) to those cities without lakes. It takes its large revenue, buys drift net trawlers and fishes the lake by the city above. It strip mines the lake fish and sells them at half cost to the city. Great right? After a year there is no fish in the lake. All of the local companies are broke. The ocean fisher now sells expensive ocean fish to the city by the lake. Not so great anymore, isn't it? Now they are paying twice as much for fish that are a few days old rather than fresh local fish. Pete