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: Scumbria who wrote (67204)	10/22/1998 7:02:00 PM
From: Fred Fahmy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Scumbria, <We've been through this before. Intel sets the pricing. AMD sells at the highest prices their customers will accept.> I now you have said this before. I just happen to strongly disagree. Intel sets pricing and AMD reacts. They don't necessarily sell "at the highest prices their customers will accept". It is ridiculous to think that they would have had no share and no customers had they only priced 10 or 15% below Intel. They just wouldn't have had as much volume. FF

To: Scumbria who wrote (67204)	10/22/1998 7:30:00 PM
From: Paul Engel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Scumbria - Re: "as an INTC investor you have reason to be concerned." With AMD's stock stuck in neutral and Intel rising, you have to be concerned, Scumbria, with your short position and/or PUTS in Intel. Paul

To: Scumbria who wrote (67204)	10/22/1998 7:59:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<We've been through this before. Intel sets the pricing. AMD sells at the highest prices their customers will accept.> You have it backwards. Originally, Intel sold at the highest prices their customers will accept. Then AMD came along with its promise of a "25% discount" (which they later withdrew). That made OEM's ask Intel, "AMD gives us this part for $100. Can you give us yours for $120, instead of the higher price you were asking before?" Intel's own late reaction to the sub-$1000 market should prove to you that AMD was the one who first set these low-ball prices. Determined not to make the same mistake again, Intel now seems bent on pre-empting AMD's pricing strategy at every turn. But the pre-emptive price cuts on Intel's part never occured before AMD's low-ball strategy. Fred is arguing that AMD didn't need to price their products so low, and in hindsight, I agree with him. But it's hard to guess whether AMD would have done the exact same thing had they had more competent leadership instead of a CEO with an ego and an obsession. Tenchusatsu