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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (56565)	4/27/1999 12:28:00 PM
From: Process Boy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571806

Bill, - <Process boy, so when they cut the price that fixes them at a low price? My comment was an example of the power a rich monopolist has to destroy a lesser competitor. > Understood Bill. Disregarding the fact I disagree strongly that Intel is a monopoly, the argument last year (maybe not by you), was that prices were too high and/or artificially inflated. I am under the firm belief that Intel's current business model was brought about by free market forces, and not predatory pricing motives. I also disagree very very strongly that Intel's profits are "being destroyed" in the low end. There is a model and a plan in place, and I can assure you Intel is making a decent profit across it's entire processor line. It has been estimated that $227 ASP was the number last quarter. Does this number suggest that Intel's profits are being decimated? Andy Bryant has hounded the point home every time he has talked in public for the last year that Intel has institutionalized cost cutting. Again, I can assure you this is happening. In summary, Intel responded legally and fairly to a valid threat to it's business. It has done so aggressively, but not with predatory pricing. This is my firm opinion and I'm sticking to it. Whew. PB