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.
wbmw,
I believe that AMD and TMTA complained to the JFTC about Intel's behaviors, not the vendors.
If what you say is true, then it supports my claim that the only party harmed is the competitor, AMD, not the OEM's (and customers). I believe that has been Intel's claim as well and thus their belief that their practices are legal.
IMHO
fastpathguru,
Why couldn't Intel just offer the discount WITHOUT the exclusivity stipulation?
We do not know the details, but the exclusivity stipulation you state as fact, is the issue under debate and interpretation. The US FTC dismissed such allegations. JFTC seems to think they are valid. I have made posts to others that reflect what I think is the main issue.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=6214808
IMHO
Keith,
http://acer.de/acereuro/wr-resource/4248348578/upload/aent19/1/AMD_DE_MAY.pdf
Just what I was looking for to help me make my point to Mas. You notice this is a 4 page flyer highlighting ONLY AMD products from Acer. Acer also sells Intel products and uses the Intel inside logo, thus eligible for discounts. Now, does Intel have the right to hold back a portion of those discounts because this particular ad clearly highlights its competitor? Why should Intel subsidize Acer’s ad costs showcasing AMD products? You can see how easily the folks at AMD can interpret this to mean that by holding back this discount, Intel is forcing Acer to primarily sell Intel only products and thus exclude AMD. Intel is doing no such thing. This is an issue (assuming it is at the heart of the dispute) relating to advertising not selling.
Of course I do not know if this indeed is at the center of the JFTC case, but I am guessing it is something like this. If you can provide a link that shows Intel directly states to an OEM that they will not receive a discount because they sell AMD parts, then you have a valid point. Otherwise, Intel refusing to subsidize OEMs because they advertise AMD ONLY is not the same as forcing OEM’s to sell only Intel systems. Whatever the issue, keep in mind that it is an issue of interpretation. One in which the US FTC interpreted in favor of Intel, while the JFTC interpreted in favor of AMD.
IMHO
No...Intel got caught with its hand in the cookie jar
Tiger64,
You are welcome to your opinion. I stated mine.
IMHO
Mas,
the consumer would be hurt by future lack of competition and one only has to see Intel's past track record of prices when it had no x86 competition, PII, Xeon etc.
Baloney. No one is arguing that competition does not help in keeping prices down, but as I said in a in a previous post, Intel can drive the prices down while still making a profit because of advances in manufacturing and smaller geometries. Neither you nor the JFTC can make a statement of fact about the future of competition. Past prices reflect lower volumes and start up costs.
Also I told you before and I am telling you again
Who the heck are you???
Intel can continue to offer discounts, period,
That is your opinion. Intel’s discount often come in the form of advertisement subsidies. I am of the opinion that Intel will not offer discounts to OEM’s who subsidize part of a print ad (for example) which showcases a competitors product alongside Intel’s. Intel’s hand is forced.
Stop twisting the facts to suit your agenda and biases !
Stop crying. I am stating my opinions on a very debatable subject.
BTW, In 2003 Intel was the top seller of flash. In 2004, AMD took over and was the top seller. There was no government interference in the change of fortunes. It was poor business decisions on the part of Intel that made this happen. Market forces have an uncanny ability to punish poor business practices. A lesson AMD and you need to learn.
IMHO
they can't pass discounts which include excluding AMD as a vendor stipulation. It's called fair and open competition
Mas,
Intel has argued that it’s practices are fair and competitive primarily because it can not be shown that the Japanese consumer is harmed. In my post, I went further and made a case where the outcome in favor of AMD can actually harm the consumer. Your response to me in no way addresses that. Your main point is that the AMD is being harmed. Granted; that is the essence of competition and doing business. The fact that Intel is much larger does not preclude the smaller competitor from being harmed when competing. Now, it is my guess that you want to stress the terms “exclusion” and equate that to “unfair”. In light of the private deals in the world, between DELL-INTEL, SUN-AMD, DreamWorks-AMD, etc. it is not clear how they all differ. The fact that Intel accepted the JFTC terms has more to do with not wanting to ruffle the feathers of the Japanese and their business culture than the admission that Intel was guilty. I can argue that, had Intel continued its case in Japan, the outcome would have been very much like here in the US and the FTC.
IMHO
uh...maybe you should go back before AMD was a competitor and check out Intel prices for processors...weren't these in the hundreds if not thousands of dollars
uh...I recall the very first computers cost over a million so you might be on to something...NOT!
most likely the home PC market might not have really taken off if Intel was charging $1,000 for the average
Intel would not have to. It could create a better mouse trap, more cheaply. It is called technology.
IMHO
Are you joking?
Were there no AMD, why would Intel ever give anyone a discount?
Joking? Not at all. Intel would give everyone a discount because, if you had noticed, technology and smaller geometries, allow for them to cut prices while still making a nice profit. The way all business' should be.
I have no illusions that AMD execs are any more moral than Intel execs. Were the tables turned I am sure we would be hearing about AMD doing the same sort of things.
Agree. Tell it to the choir.
Beamer is correct. It is fruitless to discuss this.
IMHO
Intel got caught red-handed and their only defence is that it didn't harm their customers which is a pathetic defence.
If anyone has harmed customers, it is AMD. Given that Intel no longer can pass discounts to key Japanese OEM's, any Japanese end user wishing to purchase an Intel based system will now have to pay a higher price. Japanese Intel buyer gets screwed. But wait, the end user can go buy a Dell, which can pass along the discount that Intel happily gives. So now the Japanese OEM customers lose business to Dell and now they are getting screwed. But wait, the Japanese end users who wish to buy AMD systems now will pay a little more since AMD competes with a more expensive Intel product and can keep ASP's a little higher. So the Japanese AMD buyer gets screwed. Yep, AMD is good for the Japanese consumer, NOT! Japanese OEM's must privately love AMD, NOT!
IMHO
TSMC: Move to 65nm More Challenging Than to 90nm
For similar reasoning, Intel's move to 65nm is less challenging.
Compared to previous transitions, the move to 65 nm is less complex, at least as far as the introduction of new features is concerned. While the integration of copper in 130 nm chips and strained silicon in 90 nm products were considered to be disruptive compared to previous product generations, the new lineup includes just a second generation of strained silicon, according to Bohr.
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050427_021539.html
IMHO
That's amazing for a seasonally down quarter. Income at $2.2B, almost twice what AMD makes in revenue.
What is even more amazing is that Intel achieved all this, in spite of the negative preaching of "chipdesigner", "DRBES" and the "niceguy's" of the world :))
They seem to know everything, yet they can not explain why Intel continues to make tons of money in the face of AMD's best offerings. Hmmm?
IMHO
notice the misses by IBM and Sun
You are so observant and so smart. I must ask you a question. Which of the two sells more AMD based systems? Do you think there is a "link" between selling quality AMD systems and not making money? Sun in particular must be completely incompetent. AMD is donating them a good chunk of CPU's and Sun still can't make any money. AMD should dump them in a “flash”, <ggggggg> [cause I know you like to <gggggg>rin ]
IMHO
That's it folks. After flash AMD has nothing left to sell
but its own existence.
I agree this puts them closer to non-existence. But I think what might happen is that they will survive long enough to convince another legion of loser investors who will gladly give them their money for AMD to get back into the game when the flash business cycle is on an upturn. Case in point, their embedded processor venture. This has been AMD's modus operendi for some time.
IMHO
Why have Itanium earnings not overcome Intel flash losses?
That's what I thought. You have no answer to my question. Lose the argument, change the subject. Stay with what you do best, cheer for AMD.
IMHO
Serious investors will notice that:
(1) Spansion is being spun off
(2) Intel continues to struggle
I said serious investors. If you still consider yourself one, then why have the Opteron sales not overcome the Spansion losses?
IMHO
Certainly, there had to be some point, were Operteron sales would have overcome Spansion losses.
That statement of yours says it all. Serious AMD investors had better ponder what you are saying. Remember, it has not happend yet and this while Intel was strugling.
IMHO
Looks like Intel dumped over half a billion in Micron's lap to ensure enthusiastic support for DDR2
You are mischaracterizing what the article seems to say. Intel received something for that $450 million it paid. Intel was given $450 million dollars worth of stock (33.9 M shares at 13.29). In exhchange Micron did Intel's bidding, Intel has the potential for investment gains in MU stock, and "had" the potential for a $150 million fee if MU did not do Intel's bidding. Sounds like a sound investment to me. See, Intel is not as dumb as you think.
IMHO
Mas,
None of us know the details, so we can only speculate. However, I can think of one scenario that probably occurs and also proves that the customers are the one who lose out. Here is my scenario.
Intel has agreements that pay for portions of an OEM’s advertising expense in which Intel products are sold. The OEM decides to include in the advertisement systems that include AMD products. Intel tells the OEM that it will not subsidize the advertisement as long as there are competitors products. AMD cries foul and gives this as a prime example of Intel “forcing” OEM’s not to sell AMD products. Personally, I think Intel is correct here, but that is my opinion. If the OEM wants to showcase AMD products they should do so separately and should not expect Intel to subsidize them. The OEM wants both and so Intel is forced not to give the OEM discounts. This is great for AMD since Intel’s products are now more expensive vis a vis AMD’s. But the end users, who buy from the OEM’s and who were given the Intel discount, will no longer be getting it. So under these circumstances the CUSTEMER is being screwed. Intel is right.
IMHO
Hitachi First To Develop Intel Itanium 2 Processor Chipsets Supporting FSB Speeds of 667MHZ And Hitachi's Virtualization Feature With Intel Virtualization Technology
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/050307/307/fdu2x.html
Intel Wins Dismissal of $500 Mln Suit by Canada's All Computers
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000082&sid=aO8H10EyCL00
It is not the way you portray it to be, it's possible Intel decided to use AMD's extensions because it was easier to - not because they were forced
Exactly. Another way of saying it is that AMD's extensions to the 32 bit instruction set were obvious to anyone who was in position to extend the instruction set. Intel was not first because of IPF and other strategies. It is hilarious how the AMD supporters get all giddy about being first to implement what was probably the same/similar solution Intel was planning on all along. It is only my guess of course, but you can bet if AMD iproperly implemented the extensions, MS would not have supported it and neither would Intel. Now if Intel had copied other features of the K8, beyond the instruction set, then they would have something to brag about. But it is really irrelevent. Good job AMD you were the first!
IMHO
CMOS virtually immortal, Intel claims
Nowhere in that article does Intel claim anything of the sort. The only place the word claim is even used in the article is, "CMOS will contine for between 15 to 20 years and he claimed that Moore's Law could be extended indefinitely via new architectures, heterogeneous integration, and three dimensions." In fact there are no direct quotes at all in the article. This is an example of how AMDdroids and AMDrags go about spoon feeding themselves with notions like, "Intel said Itanium was destined for the desktop" and therefore it is currently a flop.
IMHO
BTW, you think putting all your eggs in one basket is the correct strategy?
pfosse: Intel has and it has worked well for them.
Intel has? When Intel sells off their flash, we can revisit this.
Actually, I see your point. Intel is more diversified, but CPU's are still a huge percentage of their business. Still, all is not roses in a cyclical industry (see 2001), even for mighty Intel. Their financial strength and size is a positive. AMD, I would think, would be worse off.
IMHO
what is the long term future of Flash? To me it seems to be following the same trend as DRAM did back in the 80s, meaning competition and price pressure...
See my post to chipdesigner. Well, you may be right about the future of flash. However, one can argue that the CPU business maybe following that same trend you mention (competition and price pressure). Perhaps not to the degree of flash but similar. The impression I get is that AMD is admitting it can not compete under these conditions in the flash business. What makes you think that they can survive similar conditions in the CPU business? Sure does speak volumes for AMD, and the OEM’s and the competition is listening. BTW, you think putting all your eggs in one basket is the correct strategy?
IMHO
AMD (non-flash) stock no longer has the flash-risk penalty
How quickly you forget. From AMD’s 2003 annual report "Our joint venture with Fujitsu to create FASL LLC, and the resulting launch of the Spansion™ brand of memory products in July, vaulted Spansion Flash memory products into a leadership position in the lucrative NOR Flash memory market virtually overnight. Not only have we made impressive gains in the overall NOR Flash market, but the Spansion brand has overtaken all others in the key cellular segment. Robust growth in that segment, combined with its insatiable appetite for memory-hungry features and applications, bode well for our prospects as an industry leader in NOR Flash memory for many years to come."
You telling me that 18 months ago AMD made a mistake? They did not know the flash business was cyclical? What would have happened if flash was not around at that critical time when AMD was starting to launch its 64 bit cpu’s? You believe that putting all your semiconductor eggs in one basket is the right strategy?
Perhaps you are telling me that one losing business under one roof is a lot better than two losing businesses under one roof. Ok, I see your point.
IMHO
Yawn. Two month old news recycled.
What a surprise? Now that the Dell rumor blew up in their face, the biggest items are, as you noted, "recycled" rumors. Besides the one you are referring to, yesterday's "recycled" story was about dumping flash (and this is supposed to be a positive?). You think the AMD advocacy machine is running out of new rumors?
IMHO
BTW, I think that a spin-off would be short term gain for long term pain.
chipdesigner: Precisely backwards.
Yeah, how so?
'Advanced Micro shares up on flash spin-off talk'
Well, now that the Dell rumors have been squashed, something else must be rehashed to keep the interest in the stock.
BTW, I think that a spin-off would be short term gain for long term pain.
IMHO
Duke,
Is there some current news about Intel?
The only thing I can think of is that Intel at around 24 is in the midst of breaking its 50 and 200 day moving averages to the plus side. I am not a technician or anything, but just noticing this chart:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=INTC&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l&p=m50,m200&a=&c=
This in combination with what I believe to be the resumption of the earnings and revenue growth that stalled after 2000, is very bullish in my opinion. I mean, 2004 was a record year in revs and earnings, if you disparage the 3.5+ billion in earnings in 2000 due to investment in the stock market. It has taken 3+ years of solid improvements from 2001 to get to this point and barring any industry slowdown the likes we only saw in 2001, this may be a good time to buy.
IMHO
Tenchu,
I'm really afraid that the whole push to dual-core will fall flat on its face
You maybe right based on a technical point of view. However, Intel is no longer run by a technical guy, are they? I believe that Intel's reaction is as much a response to AMD as it is to addressing technical shortcomings of new processors.
I believe the technical argument you are making was also made about the issue of 64 bits on the desktop. AMD championed the idea, while Intel, perhaps correctly on technical grounds, ignored it. The result, IMO, is that AMD positioned itself as the innovator and leader in a new technology everyone expected Intel to be in. With dual-cores, the same thing was going to happen. AMD comes out championing the idea and boldly predicts it will be first on the market. The old Intel, argues on technical merits and watches as the groundswell of talking heads take AMD's position. Intel suffers from an image point of view, which is significant in the eyes of the market. This time, however, Intel is responding differently.
I believe Intel learned something from this. When it comes to advocacy, the size does not matter and the smaller you are the louder you get. Why argue on the basis of technical issues when your number one competitor will be making the same mousetrap that you (Intel) can easily make yourself? Intel now realizes that it has challenges on two fronts. Technical issues facing products it wants to champion, and products to counter what its competitor wants to champion. Intel, IMO, is simply taking on both challenges, head on, instead of getting into a public spat over technical issues.
IMHO
re: AMD'a earnings release
Wow, I have not seen so many ill-fated attempts to cover up such a poor performance in a quarterly report. Start with the opening paragraph where they try to sneak in "operating" profit before they mention the 8 cent (after charges) loss. Nevermind that "Fourth quarter operating income of $20 million declined from $46 million in the fourth quarter of 2003 and from $68 million in the third quarter of 2004."
And I did not know AMD was selling "momentum", "AMD expects its processor momentum to increase". Wont bother commenting on their outlook. Yikes.
IMHO
Tecate,
Re: Fleck and Hick shorting Intel...
a broken clock is right 2x a day ;)
Apllies equally well to these two clowns. Only I would rephrase it as "even a broken brain is right 2x a decade ;)"
They use "intensive in-depth analysis" to uncover Intel's weakness, yet ignore AMD's "glaring" (all over the news) weak flash position vis-a-vis Intel (50% vs 7%) and come to the following conclusion:
"I believe that competition from Advanced Micro Devices (AMD, news, msgs) is going to be a real problem this year..."
Yep, good analysis ;^)
IMHO
Mike,
"but much smaller rival AMD (AMD.N: Quote, Profile, Research) missed Wall Street estimates by a wide margin."
I am not much of an AMD fan, but statements like this even make me fume. I have seen the same thing done to Intel. If they are too lazy to properly describe what happened then they should not say anything. Lousy reporting.
IMHO
Elmer, Re: Another thing looming for AMD is Debt payments which will start coming due before long. They're big and they go on for a number of years.
And all they have to do is put out another $200M or so in convertible bonds set for maturity in some far off date like 2020
Absolutely, why else would self-interested likes of Joe Osha and Merril Lynch sing the praises of this sick puppy.
"We continue to believe AMD is better positioned than its competitor in 2005," wrote Osha.
Osha, who doesn't own shares of AMD, reiterated his "buy" rating on the stock.
Merrill Lynch intends to seek an investment-banking relationship with the company.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050111/amd_stock_6.html
IMHO
Joey,
Have you checked out the open interest in Jan 06 PUT's. 116,000 contracts. I think that is a lot. So you may be on to something.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=WVVMA.X
IMHO
Am I the only one disapointed in Otellini's response to this question?
Q: Microsoft recently announced that a new version of its server software will not run on servers built on your Itanium chip and will instead use chips from AMD. What does this say about your relationship with Microsoft?
A: The relationship with Microsoft is better now than it's been in a long time because our business models are much more aligned now. Going after the high end is an ambition of theirs, but they're not there today in terms of the overall market they address. Turns out most clusters today are on Linux.
While I'm not terribly thrilled that they made this economic choice, I understand it. We'll continue to push Itanium on the high end on other operating systems. You can't make someone do what they don't want to do. It was an economic decision for them. They didn't drop Itanium support; they dropped it in clusters.
Is'nt it true that Microsoft did not favor AMD over Itanium but rather AMD and Intel's X64 solutions to Itanium? Why does the CEO of Intel NOT have the sense to correct this type of misconception? This would have been a great chance for him to point out that AMD's recent positive press coverage is more than a little distorted.
Very disapointed.
IMHO
chipguy,
a certain central European country...AMD has their primary fab in this country
Ahh, yes. Makers of the fine CPU, "Otto Von Opteron"
My new motto is "Buy American, Buy Intel"
IMHO
dougSF30,
You have convinced me about Intel. So are you short Intel? If not, why not?
BTW...AMD is a proud sponsor of this gem.
http://www.ghostriderrobot.com/
Can you honestly blame any Intelabee from calling the Opteron a Flopteron?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040313/483/cadd10303131910
A Dexterit, GhostRider Robot, the world first autonomous motorcycle, collapses on the start line just before its Berkley, Calif. team is able to demonstrate its computer assisted balance capability, Saturday, March 13, 2004, during the DARPA Grand Challenge, a race across the Mojave Desert, Calif. organized by the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency
Ouch!
IMHO
They call this journalism?"
Only on the AMD threads. I call it garbage.
IMHO
Doug,
Considering Intel failed on that count with 90nm (6+ months late, and AMD's 130nm parts outperform Intel's 90nm parts
If AMD's 130nm parts outperform Intel's 90nm, then why is AMD wasting money and effort moving to 90nm? According to you, Intel has been defeated already with AMD's older and better yielding process, not to mention, according to you, a better design and Intel having nothing new on the horizon. So why does'nt AMD just crank them out from its existing fab/process and save the billions? Seems to me AMD's rush to 90nm implies Intel is about to eat AMD's lunch and you are worried your AMD investment is going down the toilet.
IMHO