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: Timothy Liu who wrote (63531)	8/28/1998 1:18:00 PM
From: Gary Ng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Timothy, Re: Slow demand for chips (or recession for that matter) is bad for Intel, but much much worse for the competition who need a good economy and strong demand to stay afloat. Haven't heard the theory that for every 1 dollar Intel's competitor lose, Intel would lose 10 ? Gary

To: Timothy Liu who wrote (63531)	8/28/1998 1:18:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Yim, RE:"You know what, I remember one of the Intel exec mentioned something I agree with. Slow demand for chips (or recession for that matter) is bad for Intel, but much much worse for the competition who need a good economy and strong demand to stay afloat" There is a lot of truth to that. However, AMD is taking market share from Intel... JIm

To: Timothy Liu who wrote (63531)	8/28/1998 1:33:00 PM
From: Paul Fiondella	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

The problem with this strategy is that it focuses on AMD and Nat Semi Intel has no real competition in the microprocessor business. It already is a monopoly. Driving AMD out of the market isn't the key to Intel's success in the future!!!!!!!!!! This is precisely the problem with this thread. Everybody here has been brainwashed into thinking an Intel monopoly is good for Intel. (I think Engel has had that particular thought "implanted" if you know what I mean.) An Intel monopoly only means Intel gets whacked by oversupply in a slowdown with no alternative profit centers. IT has been Gates strategy all along to reduce Intel to a commodities producer. He's succeeded because he has Intel's execs brainwashed. They are afraid of crossing him. (and possibly also afraid that despite their circuits on a chip bragging they are no match for an integrated hardware/software company like IBM. If anybody at Intel had any guts or any brains they would have made a buy-out play for NOVL. It should be done now before the success of Netware 5.0 makes Novell too expensive and while MSFT is in the midst of litigation and cannot fight back. Such an acquisition is the type of bold move that Intel requires at this point if it is ever to be something more than a commodities producer. On the other hand I absolutely enjoy Intel execs groveling before Gates. Do we have a video tape to play for the employees?