SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (266914)4/18/2011 4:52:47 PM
From: rzborusaRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
You have an answer for everything Fuddy. From Rogue Salesman to "oh, well, it worked didn't it".

First you trot out the "better product" challenge then move the goal posts. enough



To: Elmer Phud who wrote (266914)4/18/2011 5:00:03 PM
From: fastpathguruRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
You are making progress grasshopper. This is the first time you have acknowledged that additional factors, invisible to you, play a major role in determining which vendor wins a design. Keep in mind, Dell operates under Dell's business model, not the model followed by other companies. As such, just because another vendor used AMD doesn't mean it fit Dell's business model.

Do YOU have any visibility into the role these factors played at DELL?

Didn't think so. You're just making the assumption that they played THE key role in the decision(s), without any evidence.

I HAVE multiple, corroborating streams of evidence that Intel payed DELL to stay Intel-exclusive. You simply dismiss them in preference to your imaginary excuses.

Was DELL's business model to NOT serve their customers? DELL's customers were demanding AMD, and voting with their feet for DELL's competitors who WERE offering AMD. The only thing keeping DELL afloat was Intel's massive payoffs. It was YOUR position that AMD was profiting during a period of relative product superiority.

Yet despite the pressure on DELL to offer AMD systems, and despite AMD's superior, successful products (which YOU conceded, as a rebuttal to the exact same Intel bribe argument, no less!), the fact that DELL maintained 100% Intel-loyalty (when they could have easily produced an AMD line as were the competitors who were taking their customers) had nuuuuuhh-thing to do with the BILLIONS of dollars Intel was stringing DELL along with, that were BTW completely misleading DELL investors of DELL's market situation/predicament in the process.

Your argument is laughable. A Joke.

fpg



To: Elmer Phud who wrote (266914)4/18/2011 5:05:39 PM
From: Mahmoud MohammedRespond to of 275872
 
Elmer,

Re: "fpg - ... You're doing it again. You have no idea what the other factors were but they don't matter
anyway because "parts is parts"."

Not surprising as Mr Guru has stated that AMD is a "middleman" for wafers ... "wafers is wafers" mentality.

Mr Guru back to the "Moe, Larry, Cheese" circular argument.

Mahmoud



To: Elmer Phud who wrote (266914)4/18/2011 5:28:09 PM
From: fastpathguruRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 275872
 
Just a little reminder of how Elmer kicked off this little rollercoaster:

Message 27315815

To: rzborusa who wrote (266900) 4/18/2011 11:05:51 AM
From: Elmer Phud

>the answer is yes AMD did surge ahead of Intel. Intel had a better Threaten & Bribe Department.

When AMD has better products they prosper. When AMD has worse products they suffer. It's really not very complicated.


The DELL exception to the above doesn't count though. DELL is special, plays by their own rules. They don't have to listen to their customers, component-selection criteria differ from those that affect competitors, they don't have to keep their investors informed, and the $6B they got from Intel was simply a "reward for loyalty" (Elmer's words) and definitely not payment for exclusivity.

lol...

fpg