On Sep 21, 3:19=A0pm, Robert Redelmeier <red...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert Myers <rbmyers...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in part:
>
> > On Sep 4, 1:08=A0pm, "Dale E. Pontius" <suit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wr=
ote:
> >> I'll confess to being pro-AMD, but I will deny being an
> >> AMDroid. My position is simple: The marketplace is healthier
> >> with competition. =A0Intel is in no danger whatsoever of going
> >> away. AMD is. In as much as AMD has had quite a good streak
> >> with the execution, on K7 and K8, I put my $$ where my mouth
> >> is. Any processor decision where the technical merits are a
> >> tie or near tie, I'll vote with my $$ to keep competition alive.
> > "Competition," where "competition" is defined as the survival of
> > one particular player, is about as free market as a Soviet-style
> > planned economy.
>
> More name-calling?
WTF?
> Inaccurate, as usual.
Do you have a hot key for claims like that? I don't even know what
you're claim is, other than that you have neurons in your brain wired
to the phrase, "You're wrong" when I post. That means I've gotten
under your skin. Well done to me, I say.
> Purchasing decisions
> should involve far more than current cost-benefit. =A0Not everything
> is a fungible commodity as used in elementary economics texts.
> Or are you myopic? =A0In your own coin: =A0are you a Bush sup****ter?
>
You seem to be having an argument with yourself. Watching someone get
wound up over an imaginary opponent of their own creation is just so
entertaining.
> > The "competition" by AMD has served to freeze in a particular
> > architecture. =A0Maybe good or maybe bad, but which isn't obvious
>
> Perhaps not, but standardization is a predictable inevitability.
> The power of the installed base. =A0In a sense, the =A0Metcalfe effect.
>
You're just too easy a target. A "predicatable inevitability"? As
opposed to something that is inevitable but unpredictable? Are things
to be regarded as inevitable in retrospect? Everything is inevitable
in retrospect, unless you know a way to violate causality. You should
spend less time looking for little mistakes in my posts and try to put
some distance between yourself and your own deathless prose.
I'm really not into this kind of stuff, but when someone starts
talking like a pain in the ass from the University of Chicago, it sets
me off.
> > on the face of it. =A0AMD steered (manipulated) the market
> > to its benefit just as Intel does.
>
> Certainly. =A0Why would anyone expect otherwise? =A0Within limits,
> management are required to by law and custom. =A0The amazing thing
> is AMD've done quite well, nipping at Intel's heels for 15 years,
> since the 486DX4. =A0Without them, I have no doubt Intel would
> have been much fatter, slower and expensive than currently.
>
> > This computer has an AMD processor. =A0I don't think of it as
> > putting my money where my mouth is. =A0I think of it as taking
> > advantage of the naivete of investors in AMD, which has to sell
> > its processors at a much lower margin than Intel.
>
> ASP may be higher, but I doubt the net average margin is much
> lower after Intel pays for its sweetheart deals with Dell, etc.
> Furthermore, I'm sure the current investors are happy you bought
> AMD. =A0Sup****ted their demand curves so ASPs could be pushed upwards.
> I believe AMD has very elastic demand curves which makes their
> pricing optimum very sensitive.
>
Your demonstrated "knowledge" of the physics of lift very nicely
showed you for what you are: a blowhard. You're doing it again.
Gross margin numbers for Intel and AMD are easily obtained on the
net. I've done it before and posted the numbers here, and I'm not
going to do it again. Your "guess" is just wrong. On the face of it,
it shows that you don't even bother reading the financial press about
the two companies. Why should I be listening to you lecture me about
anything that has to do with markets?
> > That so much of this commentary about "competition" would be
> > coming from IBM or ex-IBM sources is just simply priceless.
>
> Yes, it is. =A0Priceless information from people who have had
> extensive experience inside a similar organization. =A0I can
> think of no-one better qualified to comment.
>
This is the man who wants to educate me about logic and persuasive
argumentation? When it served IBM's interests, IBM and its employees
were the most aggressive monopolists on the planet. When IBM's hands
were tied and it watched Wintel eat its lunch, it started whining
about competition. The IBM employees, some of whom I regard as
friends, got their pink slips, anyway. If you want disinterested
commentary, you don't seek it from those who have been so directly
affected.
> > What would the history of the industry have been without IBM's
> > aggressive tactics?
>
> I'm not sure it would be much different. =A0Spectacular events are
> easily overrated. =A0I know for a fact that my corp bought a few
> UNIVACs and at least one Borroughs specifically to avoid IBM-lock in.
>
I'm sure that avoiding IBM lock-in was one of the few ways you could
buy something other than IBM and not put your career in jeopardy. O=F9
sont les neiges d'an=B7tan? Intel and IBM, too, will one day go the way
of Continental Can, and the palaver here won't have made a scrap of
difference.
Robert.
|
