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: Elmer who wrote (57033)	5/2/1999 10:29:00 PM
From: Mani1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576972

Elmer Re <<Well then, rather than falseifying my posts,>> I did not intend to falsify your post. I misread it. I apologize. Mani

To: Elmer who wrote (57033)	5/2/1999 10:54:00 PM
From: Mani1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576972

Elmer Re <<why don't you clarify your theory?>> It is not a theory, Here is another try, using an example. **************************** Here is a example. Numbers are arbitrary but I hope it gets my point across. In 1997 computer market, 20% of the market is under $1000, 80% is over. Of the 20% "company A" owns quarter of it (5% of the over all market), and 100% of the rest. "Company A" has a 85% of the over all market share. In 1998 computer marker, 80% of the market is under $1000, 20% is over. Of the 80% "company A" owns half of it (40% of the over all market) and 100% of the rest. During 1998, "company A" doubled their market share in the sub $1000 market (from 25% to 50%) while losing over all market share(from 85% down to 60%). ******************** Again these number where completely arbitrary and only used to get my point across. When the Intel executive said that they have regained all the marker share in the sub $1000 market, it does not mean that there total market share has increased over the past year. That statement was very deceitful. I hope it is clear now, Mani