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 (259339)	4/1/2009 11:26:36 PM
From: fastpathguru	Respond to of 275872

A) Following the lawsuit, AMD gained major traction in the server space. That does not demonstrate cause and effect, only sequence in time. This has already been explained to you. OEMs do not immediately drop everything and switch over to a new architecture from a previously unreliable non player. A great set of PP slides doesn't turn the market on a dime. To expect it to shows a general lack of familiarity with the topic. LOL, you're making my point for me. I state a simple fact, and you come rushing to Intel's defense with a long winded explanation/excuse presented as if it's definitive, loaded with patronizing language and personal insults. While your explanation may be plausible and even possible, it is not the only possible explanation. B) AMD's lawsuit alleges that Intel's conduct had been excluding them from the server space. AMD alleges a lot of things. Unfortunately for them nobody corroborates their claims Speculative, as you have no idea what evidence AMD has. (Yes, I know, you'll bring up Toshiba... Whose behavior would be consistent with a company that rolled over for Intel.) and their market share tracks their competitiveness with the understandable lag time for evaluation and validation. Got market share data for all market segments with correlations to product time-lines between 2002 and, say, 2007? You were all up my ass a couple of posts ago re: "unsubstantiated" claims (that were nevertheless accurate). Now you confidently base your own argument on a far more vague claim without any proof whatsoever. Nice double standard. This is exactly how the market is supposed to work and exactly the way it is working. That's why AMD's share is disappearing due to uncompetitive products. And your whole theory s*ts the bed if AMD shows that Intel contracts were exclusionary. As was found by JFTC, KFTC, and soon (I speculate), the EC. I have no problem with anyone saying AMD's allegations could turn out to be bogus... It's your constant attempts to authoritatively prove* them bogus that are laughable. Just look at the simple realities you've had to rail against, today and recently: * AMD lost significant OEM support in the timeframe surrounding Hammer's intro. Could not accept without "proof." * AMD gained significant market share following the launch of the antitrust lawsuit. Could not accept without "proof." * JFTC ruled against Intel. Not a "real" court. * KFTC ruled against Intel. Not a "real" court. * EC cutting off Intel's delay tactics, re: an imminent ruling in their antitrust investigation. Neelie Kroes hates successful American companies. A world-view that denies the possibility that Intel could have abused its market power requires the dismissal of a great many facts and events that would otherwise integrate consistently. fpg