Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Mas,
You can scratch one of your complaining companies from the list as it has gone bust ....owing AMD money !
Yeah. AMD paid them money to sell AMD based computers, and the result was a bancruptcy.
Sheesh, talk about biting the hand that fed you !
You ain't kiddin'
IMHO
Keith,
once AMD´s products are given access to OEM sales channels, even if just by some OEMs and in limited configurations, they sell very well in the marketplace based on their merits - exactly what AMD claims in their Complaint.
How much control does Intel have over SUN? None. SUN has bent over backwards to accomodate AMD and stick it to Intel. Yet SUN's ability to win over the Opteron market is, by your own admission, horrible. Why is that?
Search the AMD lawsuit for SUN Microsystems. Find anything?
Think about this. It is not what AMD is telling you, but what they are not.
IMHO
New FORM 4
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001192006%2D05%2D000003%2Etxt&FilePath....
Pretty much a non-event, holdings up 1000 shares after the transactions.
I think that you are sugar coating it. True, we do not know why he made this transaction. Could be one of need. But the transaction itself is revealing. The person exercised options only 3 months after he was allowed to. Furthermore, of the 9722 shares he could have allowed to appreciate (until October 2012), like any bullish investor in AMD would do, he sold 8722 or 90% of it. Another way of looking at it, instead of being fully invested with 28380 shares, he sold off 30% of his total holdings and is now the owner of 19658 shares. Now from this you or anyone else can draw your own conclusions. Similar transactions and you should be running for the exits.
IMHO
SemiconEng,
"It's head to head between the [IBM] Power 5 and Itanium," said Krewell
Is'nt Krewell a former AMD employee? Now, that would be something?
IMHO
Chipdesigner,
Gartner? The PR-for-pay shop? And you're surprised by this?
Yes, I am surprised. You seem to know a lot of things few others know about.
IMHO
Tecate,
Really, what is your proof that Gartner is bought and paid for and by whom? I want to email Intel legal and let them know..
Chipdesigner is also a witness to Gartner's sleazy business operations.
Gartner? The PR-for-pay shop? And you're surprised by this?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6977387
IMHO
decaw,
Seriously I can't help but laugh at your comment "Intel on the other hand, can use the three stooges to win this one"
That was the idea.
With all do respect, I have a different opinion than you about the outcome of this case. I also know that it is no laughing matter for Intel. Which is why I think they will win.
IMHO
chipdesigner,
re: Intel "gives permission" for firms to buy AMD chips
I hope the OEMs kept the letters/taped the calls.
I have personally called them up and asked them to destroy them.
Here's a link for you NOT written by "Olga"
http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/07/14/amd-intel-lawsuit-cx_vnu_0714amd.html?partner=yahootix
IMHO
decaw,
Intel given extension to AMD complaint
Me.. (<ggg>)
Intel wins another one in front of a judge.
I am not impressed with Intel's legal counsel in Delaware (Potter, etc etc). Their lead attorney lacks the experience & gravitas IMHO. Still he's only there doing appearances at present. In terms of experience in antitrust matters this firm is way down the list.
That is because AMD's case is so weak, it requires THE BEST legal team. Intel on the other hand, can use the three stooges to win this one.
Seeking an extension in time to file its answer shows weakness by Intel. Better would have been to attack the pleading IMHO.
Thank you Perry Mason...<ggg>
And as always I try to back up my opinions with a link:
http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/07/14/amd-intel-lawsuit-cx_vnu_0714amd.html?partner=yahootix
IMHO
chipdesigner,
I replied:
I think a judge or jury is going to believe the testimony of the many OEMs, distributors and retailers that dirtbag Intel has been illegally bullying over the years.
I proved to you that Hector lied. You are doing nothing more than repeating your opinion. See.
IMHO
Chipdesigner,
Great comeback! Can’t make a response with substance, so you start swearing and cussing. ROTFLMAO.
Wouldn't it be great to see Barrett frog-marched out of Intel HQ in cuffs?
Yes, but not as funny as watching men in white coats corralling certain AMDroids who “snap” after the judge or jury finds in favor of Intel.
IMHO
Chipdesigner,
Yeah like these adjectives coming from Hector from January, 2005 CC, will make everyone line up to piss their money away:
http://epscontest.com/transcripts/04q4_amd.htm
but frankly a freaking dismal quarter in flash.
In our flash business we had an awful quarter
we lost $39 million which I hate, it makes me puke
But that is old news, what you are looking for in AMD is its future, right? And the person you entrust AMD's future is Hector, right? Well, check this nugget out from January of 2005 CC,
Yet overall we begin the new year in flash in much better shape than a year ago.
Really??? Let's see, January 2004 began worse than this year, but the 2004 first quarter saw profits from AMD flash. January 2005 begins better than the previous year (right Hector?) but 2005 first quarter saw losses from AMD flash. Hmmmmmm?????
Hector bends the truth to his own people, you think a judge or jury is going to believe anything this guy says?
IMHO
Darbes,
I just sent the following to Eliot Spitzer:
No doubt ... wah, wah, wah...
Very truly yours,
I encourage others on this thread to do the same to their respective AGs
You sound desperate. You should be.
"You go girl"...
IMHO
Smallpops,
The problem I have is that if anyone posts anything over here showing that it is possible that AMD did not completely make up every single complaint, well we all know how that person is treated. That person is a deslusional AMDroid living in the Matrix and has no idea what is really going on
It is not the complaints that are created in the “Matrix”, it is the conclusions that are drawn that require the “tin foil hat” ;) Ok, excuse me for saying that. But the argument is not on what happened, but why? It is the intent that is being questioned. In this case concerning the Intel compiler, the question is: did Intel do this deliberately?
If you check your article and follow the authors conversations with Intel on the complaint forum, you will glean some more information. Not only did Intel fix this “bug” in its later compilers, but the “bug” was not there in previous versions of the compiler. The accusing author states:
No, the problem is deliberate. The older versions of IFC (version 7) produce code that works perfectly well on both Intel and AMD chips. The latest version does not.
http://softwareforums.intel.com/ids/board/message?board.id=11&message.id=1583
Well, the author has his own opinion. To me this seems to be a strong indicator that there was nothing deliberate in what happened, but a classic case of a bug rearing its ugly head further down the road. If this was deliberate, I would think that Intel would have had this “bug” since the Athlon XP introduction in 2001. That was not the case. But, if you are AMD and can’t possibly explain why you make great products and still can’t make money, then it is easy to blame your competitor and jump to conspiracy theories. That does not mean they are right.
IMHO
Dan3,
So, if AMD were to pay off the local power company to cut off electricity to Intel's FABs that's OK in your book?
Are you suggesting Intel paid off the local power company to cut off electricity to AMD's FAB's?
Would Intel be "whining" if it called foul after AMD got the mob to hijack half Intel's chip shipments and dump them in the ocean?
Are you suggesting that Intel got the mob to hijack half of AMD's chip shipments and dumped them in the ocean?
How about if AMD were to hack into Intel's banks and siphon off their funds?
Are you suggesting that Intel hacked into AMD's banks and siphoned off their funds?
In short, what the #*&ll are you talking about?
Is this the type of reasoning AMD lawyers will use? LOL. How far out on a tangent must the arguments and counter-arguments of AMD and you Droids go to even come close to "making a case" for this lawsuit?
Face facts. Intel plays hard. Intel kicks AMD's ass. Intel is the winner. AMD is the loser. Crying is not going to change it. The lawsuit is not going to change it. I said losers mistake playing hard with not playing fair, and you come strollin' into the conversation. Hmmmmmm?
BTW, The lawsuit will change if you testify on behalf of AMD, since you have first hand experience with Intel's crimes against AMD. So are you going to answer my previous post to you? http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6923585
Are you going to answer my questions in this post?
IMHO
Chipguy,
We have already seen some indications that AMD is p***ing off at least some of the OEM's
Just like the CPU suppliers, the same is true at the OEM level. There are winners and losers. No doubt, you are going to get some OEM's who simply picked the wrong supplier and did not do so well as their competitor. This is an opportunity for some of these OEM's to vent off, and blaming Intel for their screw-up is just the excuse. I sense that there are posters on these threads that have done business in this area, and have also felt the consequences of picking the wrong "horse". Their ill will towards Intel is nothing more than experiencing Intel's or their partners fierce and fair play. That's business.
BTW, I agree that a wider audience to AMD's charade may have different and unexpected results.
IMHO
mas,
Play hard but play fair and everyone goes home happy.
What planet are you living on? On the earth, since the dawn of time human beings have survived by competing. In your mind, every game in the Premiership and Bundaslega (footbal/soccer reference) would wind up a tie. And you think everyone would go home happy? LOL. Teams, companies, people compete and the reason they play hard, is not to go home in a draw, but to go home winners. Face it, Intel plays hard and is the winner and AMD files a lawsuit and is the loser. Live with it.
Ps. Don't give me this "Intel is not playing fair", crap. Playing hard is always mistaken by the loser as not playing fair.
IMHO
Dan3,
I have actual contacts in the industry because I buy servers from vendors and I talk with them about the business.
Intel, or at lest their marketing operation, consists of a bunch of crooks committing crimes.
Have you been asked to testify?
Do you want to?
Have you told AMD about these "crimes"?
IMHO
Dan3,
What has happened in the past few weeks is that a great many (for AMD) new skus have been introduced
Fine, I will grant you that. The more SKU's the merrier, as long as they can deliver in quantity. But any percentage gains by AMD will be negligible (IMO), especially during the coming 18 months, as the analyst is predicting. Discounting the analysts opinion on a number of other critical issues (like Spansion) in favor of the "Intel has no place to go but down" argument is akin to sticking your head in the sand. AMD needs to deliver on Turion and other products, deliver on a successful Spansion IPO, and make a near flawless fab transition, while hoping the economy stays healthy and perhaps an execution glitch by Intel. AMD is cuttin' it close. It is not the rosy picture that you and a few others paint. Read the UBS report again, there is more fact in there, than fiction.
IMHO
wbmw,
Re: The truth hurts, huh Dan?
Yep. After posting that reply, I kinda felt bad for Dan because I made no effort to respond to the contents of his post. But it is difficult to take what a Droid says as worthy of a response. For example, his main point to the UBS analyst:
Consider his first point: The base assumptions underlying our thesis, which we review in more detail in a section below, include:
Intel's lead in notebooks widens with the upcoming Centrino/ Napa and Santa Rosa platforms to be released successively over the next 18 months.
The reality is that until recently, Intel had almost the entire notebook market - there was essentially no remaining share to gain. What has happened in the past few weeks is that several dozen very competitive new notebook models featuring AMD Turion and Mobile Sempron chips have been released - that will undoubtedly reduce Intel's notebook share, and more important, reduce Intel's margins on that reduced share. The reverse will happen at AMD. Intel's present notebook position is great, but by definition they have nowhere to go but down.
Baloney. AMD has always had notebooks SKU's for sale. They could not sell them. The past few weeks, they simply introduced new SKU's. The implication by Dan is that they have been selling like hotcakes. No. They were introduced much like their predecessors, which did not sell. Also, the fact that they will undoubtedly reduce Intel's market share is pyrrhic and not worth mentioning. For example, to Dan it is a victory when, of the next 1 million notebooks sold, 1 will be a Turion, thus backing his claim that Intel's share has nowhere to go but down. Wow!
IMHO
Dan3,
I can't believe UBS let this go out under their name.
The truth hurts, huh Dan?
IMHO
Dan3,
Re: AMD's case looks weak.
Not to me, and I've been an active participant with a number of contacts in this business for the past two decades.
Coming from you, this scares me. ROTFLMAO.
IMHO
64. Intel exacts a severe penalty from OEMs who fail to meet their targets. For example, during the fourth quarter of 2004, AMD succeeded in getting on the HP retail roadmap for mobile computers, and its products sold very well, helping AMD capture nearly 60% of HP’s U.S. retail sales for the quarter. Intel responded by withholding HP’s fourth quarter rebate check and refusing to waive HP’s failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal. Instead, Intel “allowed” HP to make up the shortfall in succeeding quarters when HP promised
Intel at least 90% of HP’s mainstream retail business.
You and your fellow droids, quote these "claims" as if they are the bible. Like they are definitive and offered as proof. They are not. There are a number of scenario's which can exonerate Intel from these allegations. You guys have your interpretation, now I will give you mine. Let's take this claim and examine it line by line. I will make several points on each. Anyone of these points, if considered by a judge or jury, can sway them to Intel's side.
Intel exacts a severe penalty from OEM's who fail to meet their targets.
1) Say's who? AMD. Big deal. "severe" and "penalty" are AMD's vitriolic description. It is AMD's opinion that this happens. There is no fact to argue about in this sentence. Just AMD's statement of hatred for Intel and a set up for the rest of the nonsense that is about to come.
2) So what? If an OEM agrees to such "severe penalties" (again AMD's words) and they "fail to meet their targets" what is wrong with this? Agreements, and targets, are sometimes not achieved and there are consequences in most cases. Nothing wrong with this. Note that this sentence talks about an OEM-Intel relationship. Nowhere is their any implication that it is linked to AMD. This is AMD's opinion on how Intel acts in its Intel-OEM contracts.
For example, during the fourth quarter of 2004, AMD succeeded in getting on the HP retail roadmap for mobile computers, and its products sold very well, helping AMD capture nearly 60% of HP’s U.S. retail sales for the quarter.
1) This is AMD's attempt to somehow link itself to Intel-HP agreement.
2) "AMD succeeded" is AMD's opinion. "it's product's sold very well" is AMD's opinion, because to HP, they may have not sold "well enough". No one from HP is quoted.
3) While it is "obvious" to you droids, it is not clear what AMD's numbers are talking about. They start out with "retail roadmap for mobile", which is a smaller market, then talk about "60% of HP's U.S. retails sales". Is this 60% retail mobile or all of retail. It makes a difference because they are trying to emphasize size and success.
4) It has been established that AMD dumped a bunch of processor for free. Is this how they got 60% of the HP's business? It could be. We do not know. If it is, then this is either a one time event or a trap for Intel. In this case, HP is not too happy about being the unwitting third party in the AMD charade. Further, this would be a distorted view of the relationship between Intel and its OEMS, because AMD does not normally operate by giving its CPU's for free.
Intel responded by withholding HP’s fourth quarter rebate check and refusing to waive HP’s failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal.
1) "Intel responded". This is AMD trying to tie the events of this sentence to it's previous sentence of "AMD success" and "AMD capture of 60%". There is no evidence in this claim that there is a connection between AMD and the HP-Intel contracts. Just conjecture, by AMD. You droids may think there is a connection. There is'nt.
2) "by withholding HP's fourth quarter rebate check and refusing to waive HP's failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal". Yeah, so what? If that is what HP-Intel agreed to. If AMD is not mentioned directly in the agreement, AMD will find it hard to prove a link to itself. This claim does not say AMD is mentioned directly. Nowhere in this claim is there evidence that Intel forced HP to sign this type of agreement. HP could have opted not to sign and pinned their hopes on AMD to get them to their internal sales goals. They probably did not feel that selling AMD could help them in their internal sales goals. Now, perhaps they were wrong. But it does not matter. It was HP's decision to accept more rebate money, for the more they sell. Nothing wrong with this type of agreement as long as AMD is not directly excluded. Satisfy the agreement and get paid. If Intel did not live up to its side of the bargain, then HP should have taken them to court. It did not, because Intel did nothing wrong. Again there is no AMD connection shown. You droids think otherwise. You are wrong.
3) "refusing to waive", this is Intel's prerogative if it is what both parties agreed to.
Instead, Intel “allowed” HP to make up the shortfall in succeeding quarters when HP promised Intel at least 90% of HP’s mainstream retail business.
1) "Instead," this is AMD trying to tie the events to it's previous sentence of "AMD success" and "AMD capture of 60%", again. There is no evidence in this claim that there is a connection between AMD and the HP-Intel contracts. Just conjecture, by AMD.
2) "allowed" is AMD's wordsmithing. Note the quotes. AMD wants to get across that HP is controlled by Intel. Nice try.
3) "when HP promised Intel at least 90% of HP’s mainstream retail business." The word "promised" is again wordsmithing. Companies do not promise each other. They agree to contracts which are thoroughly examined by lawyers on both sides. If HP does not gain anything from an agreement with Intel, it refuses to sign, unless they have a "gun to their head". I am talking literally. If HP can achieve its sales and profit goals by giving more business to AMD, they should take it in a heartbeat, as it is their duty. Otherwise, though it may "pain" them to do so, they simply have to "bite the bullet" and buy from Intel. Note that when talking about business, terms like "gun" and "bullet" are not meant literally. I say this because I know, some droids actually think that Michael Capellas, literally had a gun to his head. We shall see. Until then, "droids" that think this need not reply to my messages and waste my time.
Conclusion: This entire claim is trying to show that AMD is directly tied to these HP-Intel agreements and Intel forced these agreements on HP. Almost everything in this claim is conjecture, clever wording, and AMD's opinion. Nothing is proven. It is just as likely that any one of the scenarios I have brought up can explain away what really happened, as AMD's allegations. Anyone of the above points, if considered by a judge or jury, can sway them to Intel's side.
AMD's case looks weak. AMD is going the way of DEC. In 3-5 years they will no longer exist as a company. AMD investor's have everything riding on this, Intel does not. If the flash thing has taught AMD anything it should have been that a fraction of an expense to Intel is 10X expensive to AMD. I am talking attorneys fee$. Only an act of desperation would cause AMD to risk so much on this.
IMHO
Dan3,
But when those on the other side of the argument can't think of anything to refute your position, and simply engage in a series of personal attacks,
Right. Like your friend, "chipdesigner" here:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6864634
He can not refute what was said in the article, so he attacks the author. Yeah, you guys stand for justice and fair play alright. Hypocrites.
IMHO
Dan3,
Between FAB 36 and the Chartered arrangement, AMD is tripling its current capacity,
I have been hearing this from a number of you AMDers, and I have a question. Can you point me to a situation in the past, in which AMD has successfully used a third party manufacturer (Chartered in this case) to help it in its capacity battle with Intel? Not deals and agreements, but proof that AMD had sustained, profitable products produced in someone elses fab. I know Cyryx had all sorts of problems in its attempts to manufacture its products. I think the assumptions you guys are making with respect to Chartered, will prove to be fruitless.
IMHO
GordonH,
Anyone who puts you [Dan3] on their ignore list is just missing out on some good laughs...you crack me up with your droid superiority crap
LOL. I agree. I really like Dan. He makes you laugh, makes anyone arguing with him, smart, and makes AMD and their investors look bad.
IMHO
wbmw,
As for shipment delivery, Intel has by far the best track record for meeting commitments.
Agree with your response totaly. CPU designs are a game of leapfrog, benchmarks, and debate. Manufacturing ability is what this business is all about. IBM must be having a difficult time delivering CPU's to Apple or whatever Apple is projecting it needs. IF the rumor is true, this could be the reason to tip the balance in Intel's favor.
IMHO
Chipdesigner,
You are probably right about the low end. How about the high end?
But IBM believes Intel, not AMD, is the best way to go for high-end servers.
"We continue to evaluate whether that makes sense," Bretzmann said of IBM's Opteron evaluation. "But in the commercial space, all we would really do is confuse the sales force and maybe suboptimize our investment. We think we've made the right bet with the Intel architecture. It's the most validated, the most reliable, and customers accept it."
http://news.com.com/IBM+debuts+new+top-end+Intel+server/2100-1010_3-5728282.html?tag=nefd.top
IMHO
morrowinder,
Interesting AMD PR spin on yields and X2 paper launch...
Straight from the horses mouth, describing the Turion launch:
Question – Tim Luke: Okay. And then if you could possibly comment on the Turion and how we should think about that in terms of a framework for expectations.
Answer – Henri Richard: Sure. Well, you know we announced the Turion 64 platform during Q1. We made very good progress in terms of the designing activities with all our OEMs, and you should look at Q2 as the quarter where you’re gonna see those design wins turned into platforms launched into the market by our customers with acceleration in terms of the volume in Q3 and Q4. So, Q1 announce the technology, Q2 you’re gonna see the products, and then Q3 and Q4 we’re gonna start to see the ramp of sales.
05Q1 earnings transcript here:
http://epscontest.com/transcripts/index.htm
Note the obfuscated first two sentences. Think the X2 is any different? Don't count on it. And to think there are AMD posters who are making an issue of Intel's Pentium D sales projections? <g>
IMHO
Dan3,
Intel and AMD both make flash and CPUs (plus some other stuff, which is of minor import to either company.
Intel and AMD have about equal shares of the flash market.
Intel has 4 times the share AMD does in the CPU market.
Intel stock price (market cap) is priced 26 times as high as AMD's stock price.
ROTFLMAO
First, AMD owns 6/10 of Spansion. So Intel "owns" a lot more of the flash market share than AMD. Stop bending the truth.
But why stop here. Intel has higher revenues, higher margins, higher earnings, more cash, less debt, more market share, better brand, sells more chipsets, sells more communications chips, sells motherboards and on and on and on.
You see Danny boy, Intels is better than AMD in a lot more than 26 different areas of comparison. So it is no surprise it should be 26 times more expensive.
Equalized for shares outstanding, Intel is priced at $422 and AMD is priced at $16 while Intel holds about a 4 to 1 market share advantage.
Well lets apply your "logic" to a random statistic. PE ratios. OK.
Let's see, AMD has a trailing PE of 209. Now "Equalized" for Intel's trailing earnings of 1.25, we have a price of $261. Wow, Intel stock is selling at a huge discount, DON'T YOU THINK?
Your are a funny guy <g>
IMHO
"In fact, it is tilted to AMD, because I read that some Japan agency has requested a period when Intel PC's can not be purchased."
Sure you did.
At a boy, chipdesigner. You step up and chalange these Intel posters from spreading lies and misinformation. "Sure you did". Valiant and clever comeback if I ever saw one :^)
Now, fetch:
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=4&id=334710
Now take your foot out of your mouth.
IMHO
KeithDust2000,
It will be interesting to see if the JFTC ruling can have a positive effect there.
It will be interesting to see? It should be a slam dunk. Afterall, AMD is now playing on a level field. In fact, it is tilted to AMD, because I read that some Japan agency has requested a period when Intel PC's can not be purchased. Why the doubt Keith? You think that perhaps the AMD PC's are not as compelling as the Intel PC's? What excuse will the AMDroids have if by the end of the year, the JFTC decision has NO or little effect on market share?
IMHO
Chipguy,
"But will Apple consider using the Itanium ?"
Too expensive and no desktop software.
Probably right on Itanium. But, how about XScale? I realize the news headlines mention Macs, but headlines have a way of sensationalizing things. If it is about the Mac, then I can't see how this is nothing more than a negotiating ploy against IBM. But given the recent success of iPod, perhaps Apple is targetting another product. XScale may be the CPU in question. Nice Intel win if that would be the case.
IMHO
Jhalada,
re: Inquirer and Register
With the exception of the ocasional inside info that leaks from an employee, the rags you talk about do nothing more than regurgitate what internet chat sites and newsgroups spout as "fact". Delirious investors who will grasp at anything to satisfy their preconcieved view of what is right will jump on this information and state it as fact. The cycle repeats.
PS: This is a challenge to every Intel acolyte: When knocking The Register or the Inquierer, please provide the links of alternate sources that were more accurate, and just as timely.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00001ZWV7/indrasnet/104-9708445-3340719
IMHO
wilco,
re: WiMax / Intel alliance
A few months ago Intel and Alcatel (France) also anounced an aliance.
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/wimax/article.php/3484001
The more the merrier. Besides Sprint, I would like to see another competing carrier express interest in the US. This would help accelerate adoption and go a long way to guarantee WiMax success.
IMHO
imho - And just how much money did Intel's flash make??
Intel is not the one who wants to dump its flash business. Would you buy Spansion LLC?
IMHO
"Spansion LLC is currently ranked first in the NOR market and second in the overall flash market."
and they still lost money! Yep, I am sure the IPO is going to fetch top dollar :)
IMHO
Mas,
Re: Intel dropping prices: It could do but it hasn't in the past when there's been no competition.
It has in the past because there has always been competition. The 8080 had the Z80. The $100 price of the 8080 your history professor recalled was under $10 a few years later. Prices almost always come down. Competition is NOT the only reason prices come down, however. Don’t you get it?
Surprising how Xeon got seriously developed from 2 Ghz when Opteron appeared or how it acquired 64bit as well. This track record proves that Intel will not add features or cut prices without AMD competition
Not really. There are only so many features one can put in product at any one time. Even in a vacuum of no competition, it is common practice to add features in a piecemeal and evolutionary manner. Granted, competition no doubt accelerated some developments.
hell it would have been Itanium or nothing if they had got their way in the 64bit server space.
Competition is good. No arguments here.
How many ads have you seen that are joint Intel and Amd ? Where do you guys dream this stuff up ?
No dream. Perhaps I picked a bad example and you misunderstood. Intel is not excluding OEM’s from selling only AMD products. My guess is that the issue is related to advertizing. A better talking point on what I am saying is in my response to Keith.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6214808
BTW, this is my last post on the subject, so your final opinion will become fact.
IMHO
Tiger64,
What opinion? its fact!
Well you should have posted this a few days ago and we could have avoided the wasted messages. LOL. Great way to finalize a thread, I admit.
IMHO
Combjelly,
The AMD poster suggested historically higher prices, prior to competition from AMD, as proof Intel would not drop prices. I disregarded what he said based on my opinion that new technologies are inherently more expensive when they are first developed due to volumes and initial costs, not because Intel wanted to keep prices artificially high.
The $100 or so Intel was selling 8080s to Altair for is about $375 in todays dollars.
Are you saying this is artificially high? If so, see my response above. The $100 8080 was under $10 a few years later. Prices dropped and it was a profitable business. What is your point?
Competition may accelerate the drop in prices, but it is not the only reason prices go down. Manufacturing advances and smaller geometries are major factors, especially with regards to profitability. Here’s a clue; respond to the above, not preach to me about history.
You don't have the slighest clue about the history of the industry, do you?
I don’t need to. Your history lesson was a waste, “professor.”
BTW, this is my last post on the subject, so your final opinion will become fact.
Also, I use the term “professor” because of your reference to me as a “student”
IMHO