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 : Ampex Corporation (AEXCA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ed Newman who wrote (6042)	3/4/1999 9:52:00 PM
From: Carl R.	Respond to of 17679

I suppose you could argue that if Intel didn't have a brand name, their market share at retail in the US would be worse than 40%. That is a definite possibility. Obviously AMD computers are less expensive, so no one would select an INTL if not for a brand name. Frankly I think that the main reason for their success at the current time is that a large percentage of computers sold to business come from the larger firms, and so far Intel has managed to keep them Intel only, though with Gateway selecting a K6, there is a chink in even this armour. A service of Semiconductor Business News, CMP Media Inc. Story posted 4:15 p.m. EST/1:15 p.m. PST, 2/26/99 AMD takes retail lead, rolls out faster K6-2 By Will Wade SUNNYVALE, Calif.--Advanced Micro Devices Inc. today introduced its fastest K6-2 microprocessor, which is expected to help to company solidify its lead in the basic PC segment. One market research firm has now reported that AMD is the dominant MPU vendor in the U.S. retail market, with 44% of all sales. "This is a major milestone for AMD," said Stephen Baker, senior hardware analyst at PC Data Inc., a Reston, Va.-based research firm. "This is the first time that a processor family other than one manufactured by Intel led the U.S. retail market." He estimated that AMD's K6 family accounted for 43.9% of all desktop PC processor unit sales for the January domestic retail market. This was partly the result of strong demand for the sub-$1,000 PC, which represented 65% of the total market last month. AMD's long-term goal is to control 30% of all MPU unit sales. AMD's newest K6-2 is a 450-MHz device, which is expected to compete directly against Intel Corp.'s Pentium II family. The slower K6-2 chips are currently positioned against Intel's Celeron line. Intel today introduced its Pentium III chip, and will eventually phase out the current Pentium generation (see today's story). Although AMD's chips are finding wide acceptance in the market, the company has faced recurring manufacturing issues, which have hindered its revenues. AMD chairman and CEO William (Jerry) Sanders warned last month of a potential operating loss, stemming from an inability to produce enough of the 400 MHz K6-2 chips last quarter. The problem was exacerbated this month by steep price pressure from Intel (see Feb. 4 story). According to Baker, Intel placed second in the retail market with 40.3% market share, while National Semiconductor Corp. trailed with 15.8%. Carl

To: Ed Newman who wrote (6042)	3/4/1999 10:43:00 PM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17679

I should add that I also agree that the novel attempt by Intel to brand a component also had an impact on prolonging the retail domination by Intel of the US market. Had Intel not done brand name advertising earlier microprocessors such as the 6x86, the K5, the Winchip, and the early K6's would have no doubt been more successful. My main point is that when a product provides no real benefit to the consumer over a competing product, attempts at branding will normally break down in the long run. Thus since the PII and PIII provide no real benefit to consumers over the K6-3, consumers (and store clerks) have figured out that an AMD processor is perfectly acceptable, and price is gradually becoming a more important selling point than CPU name. Note that I am not currently invested in either INTC or AMD, so I don't have a bone to pick. I am just calling it like I see it. As for AXC, there is no way they have the resources to establish a dominant brand name. In fact the major risk in holding AXC is that competitors such as BCST and CMGI have many more resources than AXC, as well as a much better known brand name in the Internet world, and thus could establish dominant brand names before AXC ever gets off the ground. This is a great concern to me, and it worries me a great deal when a publication such as the WSJ does a feature on video on the web and completely overlooks AXC and their associates. As far as differentiating with quality, I can't see how AXC can produce a noticeable difference in quality without a new player, and I don't see a new player in the cards. The only other difference that they could make is by having faster serving of movies with less interruptions for buffering and thus better video on demand service. Even here, the player with the most money probably has the edge, but at least here AXC has a chance of making a difference. Carl

To: Ed Newman who wrote (6042)	3/5/1999 2:36:00 AM
From: flickerful	Respond to of 17679

solid point, ed. my experience is the same: the persistent phrase among the non-techsavvyinevitably echo a what do you have under the hood mentality. in fact, people are pleased to say, with authority, that they just bought a [pentium] 300, etc... as with xerox , and kleenex, intel has achieved generic status... regardless of inroads made, or about to be made by amd . the intel campaigns are among the all time advertising greats... especially its current iteration as the brain of homer simpson: a stroke of marketing genius, DOH !!! [ and yes, apple's think different is another one.]