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: Elmer Phud who wrote (252248)	5/21/2008 6:25:35 PM
From: NITT	Respond to of 275872

re"The question was, why didn't AMD get the business?" My guess it they liked the Core architecture and specs better. They like that ability to get supply of parts as promised. They liked the roadmap better. They saw it as less risky than AMD parts. They probably got a good price, but I would guess AMD would have met it. They thought they could make more money selling system with Intel parts and/or they though the Apple brand would be helped when tied to intels... even though they don't participate in Intel's branding activity.

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (252248)	5/21/2008 8:28:41 PM
From: graphicsguru	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

The question was, why didn't AMD get the business? Actually, the question is "Why didn't AMD get part of the business?" After all, there's not a single OEM anymore that's AMD-only. Yet all the OEM's but Apple and Sony seem to think that AMD has a better solution in some niche. I think the answer is that Intel viewed this as a strategic collaboration, different from its relationship with Wintel OEM's. As such, they offered special terms, not only with respect to pricing, but also with respect to other issues of importance to Apple. Were any of those terms conditioned on exclusivity? Implicitly, I'll guess they were. Apple can probably expect better treatment from Intel if they're Intel only. What exactly this entails would be very difficult to identify and prove in a court of law. Because of Apple's uniqueness, Intel probably has a bit more legal room treat them specially. Another factor is that Apple's volume's may not be high enough to pay for the engineering and validation staff required to support both AMD and Intel processors, given that they run a unique OS and can't rely on MSFT's efforts. I'm sure this is the sort of answer Apple would give if provided with one of AMD's 486 subpoenas.