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 : AMD:News, Press Releases and Information Only! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Petz who wrote (6512)	6/2/1998 11:38:00 PM
From: Elmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6843

<Its called "predatory pricing" by DOJ. If Intel is truly selling Celerons to Taiwanese boxmakers for $75 they are breaking the law by using their monopoly profits in one market (high end PC's) to attack a new market (sub $800 PC's) in which THEY ARE CURRENTLY A MINORITY PLAYER.> I haven't seen anywhere that the DOJ is accusing Intel of "predatory pricing". In fact, at $75 it would be easy to show a profit. Why would Intel have to charge depreciation to the Celeron? With such high volumes on their highend chips, there is little depreciation to go around. Intel is currently producing 233 & 266mhz Celerons so it seems that they are coming from their .35u process, which is already fully depreciated. The Celeron is in fact a N-1 product, meaning it is using the older non leading edge process and equipment. It's a coattails product where the R&D was spent on the highend version. The cost will showup as very low. EP

To: Petz who wrote (6512)	6/3/1998 1:55:00 AM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6843

Petz - Re: "Its called "predatory pricing" by DOJ" Boy - oh Boy - AMD just ruined their DOJ/Antitrust effort and proved you wrong again. Check out this quote from Rob Herb, senior marketing executive at AMD, in Sunnyvale, Calif. techweb.com "Herb lectured about 100 reporters in Tokyo about how Intel's monopoly had created a price umbrella held so high AMD could easily undercut Intel's pricing by 25 percent and still offer better-performing silicon. That claim, of course, will be tested during the rest of this year and next." You claim predatory pricing and AMD is bragging about Intel's HIGH PRICES! You guys can't get your stories straight and engineer a good excuse for LOSING MONEY HAND OVER FIST! Just read that line again, Petz: "how Intel's monopoly had created a price umbrella held so high AMD could easily undercut Intel's pricing by 25 percent and still offer better-performing silicon. That claim, of course, will be tested during the rest of this year and next." Paul

To: Petz who wrote (6512)	6/3/1998 12:43:00 PM
From: Larry Loeb	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6843

John, So why do AMD and Cyrix continue to lose money Its called "predatory pricing" by DOJ Actually, it seems to be more a problem of manufacturing yields, which are - as I believe you know - a critical part of the expense equation. If, as we have been led to believe, AMD was only yielding 2 to 5 good die per wafer, their costs were over $1,000 per good die, on a variable cost basis (forgeting overhead charges). When you sell those die for $300 or less, your going to lose money (and may be accused of predatory pricing). Until AMD gets control of its manufacturing process (which is rumored to have happened), they are doomed to lose money in the processor area. Competition in their other businesses hasn't helped either. Given the manufacturing prowess of Intel (which was not always the situation if you read Jackson's book), they are able to profitably sell chips at $75 (although the margins on those chips are pretty low). Larry