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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (18185)	3/26/1998 10:46:00 AM
From: Reginald Middleton	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24154

<Celeron is pretty funny, even though I don't make fun of Intel in general. I was going to rag Reggie about it, but it's hardly worth the effort.> It may be funny, but I guarantee you people will buy it. <Medium/long term, nothing stays production bound. Intel could triple prices, and AMD/ Cyrix/ IDT/ IBM/ whoever would either increase production, or do their own gouging.> AMD hasn't made money in who knows how long. If they could increase production they would do it right now. That pretty red ink across thier financial statements is not what mgmt. had in mind when they made the K5/6. Obviously teh chip business is a black art. Nobody seems to be able to even come close to INTC in this arena. Once teh PII architecture fills in the low end (coming to your neighborhood soon) and the Merced is released in tandem with NT 5 (even Sun. DEC, IBM, HP, SCO and the rest of the usual RISC/Unix crowd are cowtowing to INTC) there will be an effective monopoly in the chip business. No Wintel complaints please, this one is due "SOLELY" to superior management execution.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (18185)	3/29/1998 7:29:00 PM
From: damniseedemons	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Dan, There isn't enough capacity in the world to take up Intel's slack if they all-of-a-sudden decided to triple prices. You're right that "medium/long term, nothing stays production bound," which is exactly what I was saying myself. But the point is, it takes 2 years and 2 billion dollars to get one fab up and running; so if Intel were thinking short term, they could price-gouge like hell if they wanted. Yeah, IBM is certainly one to watch. Personally, I don't know why they didn't get into x86 a long time ago. They were Cyrix's and NexGenn's foundry--could have easily bought one of the companies but instead stuck to the PowerPC chip. And just so you know: I haven't owned INTC for quite some time, and don't see myself owning it again any time soon. Like I said, 1998 is in the toilet for them, so I'm not interested. Right now, it looks like 1999 will be better, but it's still a long way off. And I am not "in awe" of Intel, or even close. With Celeron, perhaps they believe that when real PentiumIIs reach that price point, Celeron will still be far cheaper? Looks like the longer-term position of it isn't for sub-1000 PCs, but sub-500 or internet appliances and the like. I don't know. But if it really isn't meant to be in the PC market, then that explains why Intel didn't keep the Pentium brand name on that chip (that's what I think).