Re: Their parts aren't in lower demand
Demand is a function of price. AMD has put almost their entire 65nm product line in sub-$100 price points, just to reach that 23% market share. In Spring 2006, they had about this much market share, with all their dual core parts >$300! And the price of this margin collapse is $300-600M in losses.
Re: The only bone-headed idiot is Otellini who dreamt up these ridiculous multi-core prices and the $25 share price that resulted despite over a year of Core 2 Duos and Quads.
"Bone-headed" Otellini is laughing all the way to the bank, mas. Intel broke $10B in Q3 based on Otellini's leadership, up 15% YoY. And Net Income was up 43% YoY. Calling Otellini a bone-head in spite of these numbers is laughable. It's like every time I call Hector an idiot, it spurs this knee-jerk reaction in you to call Otellini an idiot, despite all the data to the contrary. It's almost a comical reaction....
Re: I talk strong because I have strong factual arguments whereas you just make wrong stuff up.
I give you credit for the facts, mas, but they are far and few between. Most of your arguments are strawmen and non-sequitors, and it's hard to keep up, because you make so many of them. Let's just stick to one thing at a time. Give me one single fact, and I will support it or refute it. Or, alternatively, I will start picking one fact out of your posts and discuss it, because all this back and forth on multiple falsehoods and incomparable statements is too cumbersome....
Re: AMD was most profitable in Q4 2005 with 25% marketshare so you are wrong again
Actually, mas, when you have strong products, and you are charging good prices with high margin (like AMD had in Q4 2005), then market share gains and profitability come all on their own. This is in fact exactly what I am talking about. AMD's current situation has uncompetitive parts at money losing prices, which is a bad thing. That's the difference, and why I think going for market share at this point will continue to be a losing proposition for them.
