Replies to post #136875 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[fastpathguru]

Twist all you want, but the fact remains that Intel is paying OEMs what it takes to make Intel a viable choice

WTF? Since when was Intel required to charge break-even prices for their products?

That's like telling Tesla they have to pay consumers to make their Model S a "viable choice."

Or Chevy that they have to pay customers to make their hybrid-electric Volt a "viable choice."

Or even Apple that they have to pay customers to make Mac Pro a "viable choice."

Not every product has to be profitable on paper. Sure, it eventually needs to make a profit (or provide positive ROI in other ways), but to dismiss Intel's revenue share as "paying OEMs" is silly.

??? This is a new twist...

Nobody is forcing Intel to subsidize their mobile chips. Oops, I mean the BOM deficiencies inherent in their mobile chips.

They "have to" do it because apparently, they couldn't sell the chips without doing so. Otherwise, why would they dole out the contra-rev in the first place?

Kind of like how government subsidies on electric vehicles make them a viable choice for more consumers.

Do you honestly believe Intel's revenue share would be exactly the same if they hadn't been subsidizing OEMs? And who cares what Intel's revenue share is, when that revenue is handed right back to the OEM?

Be happy Intel got chips out there, and their foot in the OEM's doors... But don't cheer about pretend revenue... It's like bragging about winning a marathon, when everyone knows you rode in a car.

fpg