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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (45814)	1/16/1998 3:27:00 PM
From: miraje	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

<<All this says to me is that Intel is losing control of the market and price is becoming more and more the determinate factor...which is the way markets are supposed to work...>> Jim, I beg to differ. Intel controls the market and pricing. Their 80% plus market share and huge cash reservior allows them to manipulate AMD and Cyrix/NSM any way they want. Supporters of Intels competitors go on and on about "my chip is better than yours" and miss the point about these companies as investments. As Paul Engle has consistently pointed out, Intel makes big money every quarter while AMD and Cyrix struggle to break even. Intel is the big gorilla and could pound these competitors into the ground if it wanted to. The point is, Intel needs them to flounder around as token competition to keep the feds at bay. They won't prosper and they won't die. They do make good products but I doubt they'll make you much money going long their stocks. Fuchi knows this and that's why he continually urges everyone to complain to the regulators. Regards, JB

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (45814)	1/16/1998 4:26:00 PM
From: Randy Ellingson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

WHO IS KIDDING WHO? <G> I agree with your post, but don't you agree that Intel's current ASP and earnings 'pain' (if they even feel it) is lessened considerably by the likelihood of this scenario: that the worldwide penetration of computers and people who are comfortable using them only strengthens their base for future sales. Essentially, while Intel may be dropping prices faster than if they were the only supplier, they are paving their own road by playing the sub $1k game. Much like the auto inductry, computers will always 'wear out' (in this case, the technology will become insufficient to participate in the information, entertainment, communication, etc. activites ) and require replacement/upgrading. Intel believes they can continue to dominate at any level, and will always try to drive demand through innovation, price, brand name, etc. In other words, the world's going forward, not standing still. And Intel feels they can beat any competitor in the x86 processor business, at any price. Randy

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (45814)	1/16/1998 4:54:00 PM
From: Shahen Petrosian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

> OK, where is the killer app. that you "need" a Pentium II-300 to run? What was the killer-app that demanded an upgrade from 486 DX2/66 to the first generation of Pentiums? Also, in my opinion the term "killer-app" hasn't applied since the MAC/PC wars of the 80's. In an era when only a handful of applications were available, single applications could make or break a hardware trend. Spreadsheets helped the popularity of PCs and Adobe fonts and WYSIWYG created a market for Apple. These days however, software grows in sophistication by pushing the hardware envelope for "best performance" while catering to a lower common denominator for "acceptable performance". This in turn creates a gradual but constant push towards faster hardware performance. I don't see this trend stopping in the near future. Shahen Petrosian.