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 (247880)	2/16/2008 12:33:06 AM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Wbmw: More stupid remarks from you. If markets always grow, why is the housing market shrinking? Why is desktop units shrinking? Why does Q1 sell less than the previous Q4? Yeah, in Wbmw's fantasy world, markets always grow. The another billion people don't want to spend the money else they already would have. This is the inelastic market because they are on the tail end of the demand curve. Because segmentation only works. if the CPUs can't move between segments. And we all know that isn't true. OEMs do it all of the time. So do DIYers. Thus the CPU market is all one market. So for your theory to work, the costs must be low, but so must be the performance. Else it will leak into the higher margin market, pulling all of those prices down. negating the gains in volume. Actually its worse, it usually lowers overall revenue. But if the performance is low, it doesn't sell much. Again dashing your theory about a big market. If you don't believe it, think of PIC and OLPC. Both are much cheaper than entry level desktops and laptops, but have lower performance. Given your theory, they should have sold in the hundreds of millions a year (they are less than half of what regular desktop CPUs cost). You and I both know they didn't. And the CPU costs about $25, but since that includes a NB, video, SB and such, it is much cheaper. If the market is abpout an additional 5-10 million units a quarter given that the overall market is 60-70 million units a quarter, that alone shows the market to be inelastic, for a more than halving of CPU cost, the market increased only 7-15%. Far from the more than doubling required to make it neutral. Low enough to mark it as quite inelastic. As far as the four 45nm fabs, you ever consider that it might take that many to produce the same as 4 65nm ones especially given that Intel uses the much slower double patterning technique and step heavy add ons of HiK and MG? As to the last, you must control supplies in order to segment. And segments leak. When OEMs thought laptop CPUs were too expensive compared to desktop ones, they designed their laptops to use desktop CPUs. And if one segment is uncontrolled, it will leak into the others and steal high margin sales away. You said new users hate to see controlled supplies. I do agree there. But I know from experience that new users look at the other segments too. IF a company is controlling some segments, there will be the real fear that they will do it to your segment. So why should they take a chance? IBM didn't with the old PC. No alternative supplier, no deal. As to pricing, if you state that Nehalems would be priced 10 times as much as Extreme Editions (XEs), my argument still stands with more emphasis. You are the one who claimed that Nehalem would be priced only twice as much as a $200 chip even when XEs were priced 5-6 times as high, $1K-1.2K. I simply stated it would be more than XEs and priced as such. As for your last argument, it may make sense for the customers, but not for Intel to price it that way. Why should they lose potential revenues and profits? They are a monopoly. They don't have a pesky competitor at their heels. There is no price war and no need to deny revenue to a competitor. They don't have to match advertising dollars with your OEMs and retail outlets to make their name more recognizable. They are the only game in town. Pete BTW, if you observed that CPU clock pricing curve is not linear, why do you assume constant demand elasticity?