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: Mary Cluney who wrote (50985)	3/23/1998 10:33:00 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary, "Maybe I have missed something. Let me know. I'm open to any flaws in my logic." What I am saying isn't that IDT, AMD and Cyrix/NSM are going to make a bunch of profits but that IBM is waging a not so secret little war against Intel...once removed. Like I've said to Paul before, I don't particularly like any of the chipmakers right now...I do like IBM though. Intel currently -1. Jim

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (50985)	3/23/1998 10:56:00 AM
From: ratan lal	Respond to of 186894

Mary the cost of entry to the microprocessor business is more prohibitive. True. But cost of marketing software to individuals is more expensive (and with millions of titles - prohibitive) than marketing microprocessors to a few companies that just need to test and compare performance/price. In other words there is no free lunch in any business. ratan

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (50985)	3/23/1998 11:28:00 AM
From: gnuman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Mary, I doubt anyone disputes your points. However, the clone makers provide a lot of value to the makers and the consumers. I doubt if the rapid growth into the home market would have happened without the presence of Cyrix and AMD entering the market. (Whether they be new users or second and third PC's for the home). Do you think Intel would be on these steep learning curves and rapid product introductions without competition? And now that perfectly adequate PC's are available at greatly reduced prices the business community has latched on to this major shift in price/performance. Trying to maintain market share is a challenging job for any company. And when you go from an essentially sole source to a commodity market bottom lines can be greatly impacted. I think it's more difficult for Intel to protect market share, earnings and profit margins than it is for AMD/Cyrix/IDT to pick up 25% market share. (One thing I learned a long time ago, low margins for small companies ain't all that bad if you have high volumes. And 25% share is high volume for the clone makers). I used to believe that Intel' exorbitant margins and market dominance were good for the industry, and at one time it probably was. (PC technology wouldn't be where it is without it). But I also believe that Intel took advantage of its' early partners to achieve that position. For example, I think IBM made Intel. Motorola was strongly considered as the source for the first PC. (The brilliantly executed Intel Sales/Marketing efforts to "CRUSH" Motorola are well documented). So IBM chose Intel, but it's interesting to speculate where Intel would be had IBM not made that decision. And I also think IBM went out of it's way to insure Intel's success in the PC arena, (to their mutual advantage, of course). Now it appears that IBM and others are going to make sure there is viable competition for Intel, and the consumer will be the beneficiary. And there's nothing wrong with that. So I think that with the help of its' partners, AMD will make it. They'll never be an Intel, but they will continue to have an inordinate impact on Intel and the market. And Intel will/is learning to adjust. All good for the consumer.