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: Jacques Newey who wrote (59749)	7/11/1998 5:41:00 PM
From: Steve Porter	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 186894

Jacques, I have to just jump in here too: The facts seem to support the conclusion that direct competition to Intel in building microprocessor (for a profit) is the lowest it has ever been. True? I don't think the majority of market analysts realize this. With AMD's ever continuing losses maybe they will get the picture. Have you figured out why that is.. maybe it's because Intel's ASP is the lowest it has been in many many years.. And you know what that means... that's why Intel's sotkc price is depressed. It has nothing ot do with competition. I has everything to do with the way Intel has chosen to respond. Intel was damned if they did, damned if they didn't. So they did. That's all there is to it. Did it work.. well maybe.. but last I checked AMD and NSM still existed.. infact others have entered the market since the little pricing tyraid began (IDT and Rise (although I still haven't seen product from them). We would all be MUCH happier if it was for the "Sanders" fellow over at AMD. Cyrix would have been quite happy to sell chips at the "old" Intel prices (hell they introed the 6x86 at more than a Pentium).. but good old AMD with their "let's sell at a 25% discount to whatever Intel charges ruined the whole f*cking industry. Now why did AMD do this.. well it's simple they couldn't compete techincally with the K5. So they had to discount the price a lot. When that happened everyone had to follow suit. Why Cyrix cut their pricing is a little different story, but still it pretty much wasn't their choice. The problem there was IBM got 1 for 1 (i.e. for every 1 chip they made/make for Cyrix they get to keep one (well the 6x86 line anyway)). IBM decided to undercut their own design partner and customer on pricing!!!!!.. All in all if AMD hadn't done what they had done, we would be arguing performance.. just performance.. not price/performance as so many are now. Intel would have very healthy margins (which would actually IMHO been at about 63% by now). Cyrix would have lots of money, and the whole industry would be making a lot more $$$$.. As it is AMD is severly hemoraging (I know it's not spelled correctly). NSM is so confused they don't know which end is up, despite the clearly marked box. IDTI is a little fly buzzing around.. it's hasn't done anything yet, but who knows what kind of disease it is carrying.. all it takes is 1 bite you know. Intel's profits have been slipping.. they will probably be close to 50% of what they were 5-6 quarters ago. Rise is entering the market. STM and IBM are jointly developing PC on a chip solutions (albeit based on a 486DX Cyrix core) that will sell for about $50.. the market is a bloody (literally) mess.. why? All because of AMD.. Steve