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: gnuman who wrote (65478)	9/26/1998 1:06:00 PM
From: Joey Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

re:I continue to assert that Intel's PC segment is transforming into a commodity business. You're wrong. Intel still has brand equity in this segment. Why else do you think AMD has to price their chips at a 25%+ discount to equivalent Intel chips? I know...I know... this is changing or the OEM brand name is more important. I disagree. AMD will have to spend tremendous resources to build their brand name, resources they don't have. joey

To: gnuman who wrote (65478)	9/26/1998 2:37:00 PM
From: Barry Grossman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Gene, Re: <<future StrongArm businesses are also commodities>> I sure hope so. Try to remember that commodities can be very profitable too. After all, besides sophisticated products doesn't GE also make light bulbs? I think you'd call them commodities - VERY PERVASIVE COMMIDITIES. Wouldn't you say that a future StrongArm chip, even if it is a commodity, has the potential of becoming a huge source of profit? A reminder - Try to keep in mind that Intel has always said it is profit dollars and not profit margins that are important. A pervasively used StrongArm line would contribute mightily IMHO. Barry

To: gnuman who wrote (65478)	9/26/1998 4:11:00 PM
From: Fred Fahmy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Gene, <How many servers do you think will be sold in 1999? Total and Intel's share? Anyone else on the thread?> I wouldn't pretend to have a good estimate but I think the key trends (i.e. increasing demand for servers and Intel's rapidly increasing share of these) are in the right direction. Since I am here for the long term, this is what I find most relevant. <but I think you're discounting the impact of volume on profits> No, not at all. I just have serious doubts as to whether or not they will be able to sell these volumes. They obviously can't increase throughput to reduce cost if they don't have sufficient demand. IMO, earlier yield problems (although real) were a very convenient smoke screen. In other words, I am not convinced that sales would have been much better had they had 100% yield. My guess is that they (and their channels) would simply have had more inventory. <I think there will be an upside surprise.> Given that the estimates call for them to once again lose a boat load of money your guess is entirely possible. Perhaps they will only lose a few truck loads worth <gg>. <I'm guessing 1999 at $25B revenues and $3.40/share.> Assuming Asia remains soft, I estimate $3.75. <Always a pleasure bickering with you...> Likewise, I think a rational contrarian view is very useful and thought provoking. Except for your belief that Intel is going to miss Q3, I think your arguments fit the definition of "rational contrarian views". FF

To: gnuman who wrote (65478)	9/26/1998 6:37:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Gene - Re: " While there is no guarantee, we've already seen vast improvements in manufacturing . And based on their small die size, I think 5+M units/qtr is a piece of cake. Can they sell that many? Remains to be seen, but I think you're discounting the impact of volume on profits. They'll ship fewer than that this quarter as they ramp up, and I think the earnings report will be a good indicator of the future. Again, I think there will be an upside surprise. " Your entire argument - posted several times daily - is that AMD is doing everthing perfectly correct and Intel is doing everything backasswards. With AMD's history of f*cking up more than Bill Clinton, and Intel's record of superb technological, financial and marketing achievements, how can you keep coming to the same bizarre death-wish scenario? I say "deathwish" because you continue to claim you are an Intel shareholder while pounding the table, drums, and everything else in sight in praise of the failed AMD and in detriment to Intel, the most successful semiconductor manufacturer in the history of the world. Paul