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 : Micron Only Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carl R. who wrote (44795)	4/3/1999 5:02:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 53903

no carl, you have it backwards. those that can play the game play it. those that can't, can't. the bottom line is this... the us dept of commerce said many foreign competitors weren't dumping as defined by selling below gross cost. mu was selling below gross cost. clearly, it is the position of the us doc that mu's gross cost was higher than their competitors. since they've seen the numbers on both sides, i'll side with them vs the dribble from a bunch of wrong way analysts and mu fans. define "compete." why did mu make the transition and then GO BACK?</> could they not initially compete? the bottom line is they knew that 64 mb was the way to reduce cost per mb the most. since they can't compete there either, they are going back to get some 16 mb crumbs. what will they get? $2 per 16 mb chip? their 64 mb counterparts are going for less than $8. we all know in your paradigm that demand for 4 mb modules is robust! ;-)