AMD will die within five years

[Ice9]

I never said it was a good thing, but it would keep them alive, which is all i need

How selfish. I'm more concerned about the thousands of pinkslips that will go out when AMD goes belly-up.

So your saying PAM AM airlines was saved by the government because of this ^^^^, lol , and yes the gov. would help for the necessity of competition, look at what they did to Microsoft, come on dood, common sense!! another thing, since Marbury v. Madison, i find it hard to believe that any court wont give AMD equal treatment as the airlines for the fact that it is hard to go against precedences!

It won't happen.

OH, and just what did they do to Microsoft again? hah!

WoW, this one is good, with INTEL only $10 worth more in the stocks, i dont see shareholders sticking with them either, lol, @ $15.53
dood we are in a ressesion, everyone is doin bad!

Really? How many Intel shares are out there compared to AMD shares? The stock price tells one story. The amount of shares that are OUT there tells another. But gee, I've got no background in business, and I wouldn't know anything about that. Right?

If they recieve the aid from the gov. they wont need to liquidate!

The fact that you're even looking DOWN this road is laughable. The government isn't going to do this for AMD. They have no compelling reason to. And "competition" isn't enough of a reason.

The fact that you're hoping for a bailout says a lot though!

It seems as if you dont understand the sector of finance, Numbers from any company can be Manipulated any which way a company see fit to benifit them, If you do work for that company then u of all people should know this.

Ok, well, my background in finance is working for the largest financial services firm in the world. I am exposed to finance every working day of my life, and I've learned a lot in 10 years.

"Creative Accounting" may have flown in the Enron days, but times have changed drastically... Either way, why would AMD fudge their numbers to look BAD? If AMD is fudging their numbers, then common financial sense is that they're hiding even GREATER losses. That's what 10 years in the finance slammer has taught me.

I'm curious. What's your hands-on finance background?

Unless you work for AMD you cant say jack sh*t about how they are gonna do. Here are 3 examples of companies that manipulated there data, WORLD COM, GLOBAL CROSSING, AND THE BIG ONE, ENRON!!!! I asked my cousin, who is CPA certified!, if it "COULD" be in the best intrest of a company to report less to no profits, she said its possible, she mentioned stuff like tax deductions and stuff i didnt really understand, since im IT and not finance!

So this is your new AMD defense? They're posting huge losses for tax gains? Laughable at best.

In another post you mentioned about the cost of R&D, how do you know exactly how much it cost?

AMD makes those figures public. You apparently refuse to read them.

AMD has been getting alot of help, which im sure is not costing them all that much. Motorola and IBM gave them a lot of tech!!!! which is less spent on R&D. this is probably "ONE" reason they are able to sell athlons so cheap!

Common business sense: If you help out a company, you expect something in return. No one is going to "help" a competitor because they "feel like being a nice guy".

DOOD!!! your fooken IT and have no business background, man you really cant say sh*t!! How can you comment on the business side of this and say you know all! So yes i can question your credibility! and your resume is not all that, i got half of that already and only been in IT for 5 years lol. I guess the younger generation does learn faster LOL!

I never said I know all. I just said I have a lot of experience in this because I've watched this sort of thing happen regularly for the past 10 years. I work with some of the brightest minds in finance, and they're all a shout away, or at most a phone call. I don't rely on my "CPA Cousin" for financial advice.

If you want to discount my 10 years of working at citi, so be it. That's your call. I'd still like to hear your credentials and see what makes you this huge expert, particularly when you seem CONVINCED that AMD is going to see a government bailout and return as this mega powerhouse of a processor company that's going to have technology on the average person's desktop.

I think you're just being silly, because once again, you've completely ignored the facts and have plainly shown that you don't understand how business works. I've been in this business for years. You haven't. Just how many bailouts from the government do you see? Almost none, unless they're critical to the economy. AMD isn't critical to the economy. Case closed.

Your total intel fanboy, all you talk about is how great Intel's finances are and how big they are and how crappy AMD's are and how small they are.

You're clearly just reading the parts you want to read to support your case.

Are you in love with INTEL's money????

No, I'm not an intel investor. I just understand how both companies work (or don't work).

Its funnie how all these Joe shmoes in here have AMD, lol, im guessing that all these people are not worth concidering right???

When it comes to AMD surviving? No. It doesn't matter. They bought their CPU's at a loss to the company. That's bad for any business.

they dont have to have a better product to be good, just equal, which they are!!

Again, I'm not discussing the MERITS of each technology. Simply the manner in which they do business and what the ultimate result is.

DIDn't AMD and INTEL work together?, didnt intel steal the MMX tech from AMD and pattened it w/o AMD's knowledge b4 AMD could???

Where did that come from? Was it settled in court?

Well i prefer AMD over intel for your same reason, seeing as how they are equal!

Again, i'm not discussing the merits of the technology. Being as good or even better at technology won't keep them in business.

facts?? that can be manipulated?? come on now Fanboy!!

I have not manipulated ANY facts. If you disagree with them, show proof or shut up.

So far, you haven't. Nor do I expect you to. You can't dispute facts. Just mock the person who presents them and do a lot of finger pointing.

Understand that all your insults towards me and all your wild speculations about a government bailout won't change anything. Unless something drastically changes, AMD is finished as a company. And I personally don't think that "Hammer" is going to be that drastic change. I'm not alone in that thought, and the people who typically agree with me are those who base their opinions on fact.

and for your info, Opteron is in direct competition with the Itaniums, just for the fact that if AMD's Opteron does take off, Intel has made a backup plan of Yamhill !! !! And if i can remember correctly from a past article, i believe that Yamhill is the lisenced architecture of AMD's 64bit hammer! (might be wrong here, but hell, i have forgotten more crap then you'll ever know)

Ok, so you expect Intel to target the Itanium 2 at the random gamer's desktop? I've made this point before, but you ignored it. If the Opteron competes with the Itanium, they will not make enough volume to stay in business. They won't be selling tens of millions of Itaniums to the masses, since that's not where it's targeted. AMD is going in the wrong direction here if they're targeting the Itanium.

Opteron and Itanium are both for server and workstation markets, but like i said, the destop version of opteron will be out in september!! since both procs are the same, i can safely make my statements!

Server: Intel owns this sector. They aren't giving it up.
Workstation: Small market. Your desktop at home is NOT a workstation.
Desktop: Intel owns this sector. They aren't giving it up. AMD isn't able to compete with Intel on the desktop.

I'm guessing that you made that same statement when Athlon came out in '99, look at it now

Yep. That 18% market share cost them 1.3 billion in profits.

Schlep = Windows XP 64 for the masses!!!

And a faster demise for AMD.

My final point is that no one can honestly say if amd will servive or not! all im saying is that i have a feeling that they aren't going anywhere, any time soon!!

And I think they'll be gone in 5 years because they'll never pull a profit.

 

[MadRat]

Sheesh, do we really need line by line rebuttals? Just pick a few points out, dude. Its impolite to cross-reference every word with smartalik replies.

 

[Varsh]

Originally posted by: Ice9

Its funnie how all these Joe shmoes in here have AMD, lol, im guessing that all these people are not worth concidering right???

When it comes to AMD surviving? No. It doesn't matter. They bought their CPU's at a loss to the company. That's bad for any business.

Actually Ice9, could you actually stop saying that, if we bought their processors and made them have a loss, then if we didn't buy them they'd have not a single penny, it's because they're so cheap that they're making a loss, it's nothing to do with us sonsumers but the marketing side at AMD that's putting them so cheap that AMD are making losses in each processor. Do NOT blame this on the public at large, especially if they don't even know this. We buy them because it's what appeals to us consumers, we don't buy/not buy them because of some financial situation in which we have nothing to do with. We buy, they make a loss, or maybe a profit, we don't buy they go bankrupt in a day! Just don't blame this on the public like you're doing alright?

 

[Ice9]

Actually Ice9, could you actually stop saying that, if we bought their processors and made them have a loss, then if we didn't buy them they'd have not a single penny, it's because they're so cheap that they're making a loss, it's nothing to do with us sonsumers but the marketing side at AMD that's putting them so cheap that AMD are making losses in each processor. Do NOT blame this on the public at large, especially if they don't even know this. We buy them because it's what appeals to us consumers, we don't buy/not buy them because of some financial situation in which we have nothing to do with. We buy, they make a loss, or maybe a profit, we don't buy they go bankrupt in a day! Just don't blame this on the public like you're doing alright?

The public is partly to blame because they won't buy AMD cpu's unless they're priced significantly lower than Intel at a similar level.

It's a simple deal. Intel makes a profit on their processors, as they price them at a level where they feel consumers will buy them. They rake in hundreds of millions per quarter.

AMD on the other hand has to price their processors BELOW that, because they need to move what they manufacture (just lke you said). Unfortunately, in order for people to buy them at all, they have to price them at a loss to themselves. This is *FACT* as shown by their huge losses in the industry. They aren't bleeding money for any other reason. People seem to mention that their SRAM business is profitable, but it certainly isn't helping them in the least if they've wiped out all their profits in a year.

AMD is the one that's under pricing pressure from Intel. Despite the fact that Intel has lowered their prices significantly, they are still able to make a healthy profit.

What this says to me is that Intel will win any "price war", because they still have room to lower their prices. AMD does not have this room anymore. Like I said, something drastic has to happen, or AMD is going to lose the farm. Intel has the power to drive them out. I don't think that it's necessarily RIGHT or even remotely DESIRABLE, but Intel *HAS* that power.

The FTC would be powerless to stop it as well because so many companies RELY on intel (Dell, HP/Compaq, numerous others). There isn't a single company out there that depends on AMD to survive. Some may carry their products, but they'd do just fine without them.

Before you write me off as a Fanboy yet again, keep in mind that I *DON'T* want AMD to go under. I've already said that. I just think they're being VERY foolish in the way they conduct business, and I ultimately agree with the sentiment that if SOMETHING DOESN'T CHANGE, they will be gone in 5 years. And I don't think Hammer will be that change. I think AMD has GROSSLY underestimated what they can do in that market, and that will ultimately lead to their downfall.

First they went head to head with Intel on the desktop and lost their shirt. Now they want to target a market where Intel is even MORE profitable and has an even LARGER market presence? It'll be the same story all over again. AMD needs to rethink their business model.

 

[Novgrod]

Ice9,

I don't know the companies that'll buy the Opteron. I do know that the Opteron is aimed at companies, and not at individuals.

I do know that a great great number of companies are lined up behind the Opteron with products for it. It follows that these companies wouldn't spend money on a product that everybody knew was going to flop.

Here's the difference, though: you say that you don't know of any companies that are going to buy the Opteron, therefore it will flop.

I say that I don't know of many companies that are going to buy the Opteron, but that doesn't mean it will flop.
I'm curious as to just what kind of market you percieve it to be

It doesn't matter that I don't plan to buy an Opteron, and that I know next to nothing about the Opteron's market, but it strikes me as highly unlikely that so many companies would throw away money on a product that someone with no specific knowledge about the Opteron's future success (you) could 'know' that it'll fail.

So here are the alternatives: not only is AMD going to wither and die, all the companies supporting the Opteron will lose significant money, and they can see this in advance and they're all going to spend their money on it because they're just that dumb.

OR: AMD and its 'partners' in 64 bit computing and creating the Opteron know something that you might not, such as its potential markets and possibilities.

Which strikes you as more likely?

 

[Ice9]

The recession doesn't favour the big guy. If Intel has to contract their business to match a shrinkage in the market then that can be a huge financial liability dropped on their lap. Its market contractions that have caused alot of big businesses to falter in the past! Smaller companies are more akin to weather out market slowdowns because most of them work off smaller margins and are always operating in a famine-survival mode. Whether AMD and Intel survive the market downturn is their own ability to weather the downturn.

Ok, face it. The market has sucked for a while now. Intel is profitable quarter after quarter. AMD has not. Who's weathering the downturn better again?

The sad thing about this whole market is that if Intel gets destabilized they'll dump their merchandise on the market for next to nothing and bring down the whole industry!

There's absolutely no indication of that happening. Despite Intel's share price taking a hit, their profitability has been consistent. Apples to apples, Intel has nothing to worry about.

Personal computing will live on long after Intel or AMD. Why? Because you don't need their x86 processors to do personal computing! Believe it or not but these smaller ARM processors probably have a more robust future in the personal computing industry. They are simple, cheap, and easy to produce. Not only that but their Power:Weight ratio is jumping by leaps and bounds. As soon as they make it practical to carry PDAs around and give them similar tools that we use in today's PCs, there really is little to no need for full-size desktops or laptops!

The desktop computing market is in no danger whatsoever. Intel, Dell, HP, Toshiba and all the big corps that make up the computing market are all profitable.

As for the handheld market, ARM is out, xscale is in. All new products in the PocketPC market are moved off ARM. And gee... who's behind the xscale? Don't even waste your time bringing up Palm. They're in the crapper financially as well.

PDAs are probably the future in the PC business because it gives the industry a chance to settle down without a huge financial liability being extended in the designs.

Maybe so, but I doubt it. Cramming all that technology in a 4x6" device (or however big they are) can't be cheap... But you never know, you could be right... that market keeps growing and growing every day.

If planes and hotels had strategically mounted LCDs for travellers to expand their PDA video, then a laptop really would be dead. Maybe even portable LCD monitors where one just packs it into their travelling case separate from the PDA, but easy enough to get to when one reaches the hotel, will be something one sees here soon. We already have portable keyboards, mice, etc...

I'd be sold on that technology for sure

Sooner or later the market will materialize for a new geewhiz product and some new monopoly market player will emerge! Be it Intel or AMD, it really doesn't matter. Somebody will do it!

But categorically, it's been Intel that leads the pack... It's a tough market to enter for a small fry. But sure, anything is possible

 

[Ice9]

I don't know the companies that'll buy the Opteron. I do know that the Opteron is aimed at companies, and not at individuals.

Varsh disagrees with you whole-heartedly Maybe he'll listen to you!

I do know that a great great number of companies are lined up behind the Opteron with products for it. It follows that these companies wouldn't spend money on a product that everybody knew was going to flop.

What companies are behind it? Who has committed to it? What's their market share?

I say that I don't know of many companies that are going to buy the Opteron, but that doesn't mean it will flop.
I'm curious as to just what kind of market you percieve it to be

Well whaddaya know! A fair question!

First off... Just where is the Itanium now? Why didn't it penetrate the market? Some people will say "because it didn't run 32 bit apps the way it was supposed to".... but that's hardly the merit of a 64 bit processor. The merits to a 64 bit processor lie mostly in memory addressing. There are VERY few applications that I know of that want to address more than 4GB of physical memory, so I'm a little stumped as to why 64 bit is so important to the average desktop. The only time you are going to see a benefit from 64 bit computing is if your APPLICATION has OUTGROWN a 32 bit environment.

Sorry, but Word, Quicken and IE haven't done so Nor have any of today's games for that matter. So for the home computing market, a 64 bit processor is essentially USELESS. And JUST because a specific 64 bit processor will run a 32 bit app with gusto doesn't mean you'll sell that point to the average Housefrau.

Now, the finance market. This is what makes the world go round in every country. This is clearly dominated by Intel-based IA32 technology. Be it a single CPU file/print server to an 8-way 4GB-o-ram SQL server based on the Xeon. 64 bit hasn't penetrated at ALL here. This is where the BIG money is though, and with huge market data systems and enormous SQL databases, we STILL haven't outgrown 32 bit computing. That's not to say that we WON'T, but we haven't done it yet.

Government: The average government office has no need for 64 bit. The defense department? Sure, maybe they'll buy an X1 cray or two. But that's hardly enough of a market to keep AMD, Intel, or any other company afloat. Here is where they might have some appreciable market share, but is that a real reason to be an AMD cheerleader?

Research: Ahh yes, you definitely see some Cray's here. This is mostly tied in with Government or high-end educational houses. But how many of these "supercomputers" can any one company sell? Are they even loaded with IA64's or even looking forward to the Itanium 2? I think not. Again, I dont' think enough Opteron-based Crays will be sold to keep AMD's profits in the plus column.

It doesn't matter that I don't plan to buy an Opteron, and that I know next to nothing about the Opteron's market, but it strikes me as highly unlikely that so many companies would throw away money on a product that someone with no specific knowledge about the Opteron's future success (you) could 'know' that it'll fail.

I'm still puzzled at which companies you think are sinking tons of money into the Opteron.

So here are the alternatives: not only is AMD going to wither and die, all the companies supporting the Opteron will lose significant money, and they can see this in advance and they're all going to spend their money on it because they're just that dumb.

OR: AMD and its 'partners' in 64 bit computing and creating the Opteron know something that you might not, such as its potential markets and possibilities.

Whether or not AMD withers and dies depends on the market. I don't know of any company that's sunk significant money into the opteron, but any company that HAS obviously knows what kind of state AMD is in. If a company sinks a ton of money into a product by a failing company, where does the fault lie if that company goes belly-up? Your first scenario seems much more likely, because I don't feel the 64 bit computing market is large enough to support the opteron as an "everyday" product.

AMD has 1.5 *billion* dollars in profits to make back, and it's going to be extremely hard for them to do so when they're losing more than half a billion a quarter as it stands right now. Before they can even claim a victory with the opteron, they have to make back their R&D costs. That's a MAJOR uphill battle for them even if there were NO competition to worry about.

 

[Novgrod]

The following comes from Anandtech

This onslaught of Hammer chipsets leaves us with a few important points:

- Pretty much every single chipset manufacturer is throwing their weight behind Hammer. The only one that's not is Intel and that's for obvious reasons. Compare this to the launch of the Athlon processor and you'll see that the AMD of today is much more confidence inspiring than the AMD of 1999.

And Ice9, nobody is going to tell you that you can't have and share your beliefs, but you'll get a warmer response if you present them as beliefs instead of facts.

 

[Ice9]

Pretty much every single chipset manufacturer is throwing their weight behind Hammer. The only one that's not is Intel and that's for obvious reasons. Compare this to the launch of the Athlon processor and you'll see that the AMD of today is much more confidence inspiring than the AMD of 1999.

Stupid statement to say anywhere. Let's look at the major chipset manufacturers:

Intel: Biggest chipset manufacturer in the world.
Serverworks: The biggest server chipset in the world. No opteron here.
SIS: Throwing their weight behind P4 chipsets with quad channel RDRAM support as well. Nothing like playing both sides of the fence
VIA: No one trusts them anymore. Not even most AMD supporters. No one will shed a tear if they suddenly went away one day. Their support is meaningless to me
NVIDIA: Here's a wildcard. But no support pledged towards opteron.

Those are the chipset manufacturers that are remotely relevant. Anyone else is unproven in the market as a mass producer of system chipsets. Anand can make any statement he wants. But to back it up with fact is another job entirely.

http://www.prdomain.com/companies/a/amd/news_releases/200205may/pr_amd_nr_20020522.htm

There haven't been any announcements towards opteron support since this PR that I have found. Please feel free to post any more findings, but I seriously don't think it changes anything.

The last thing I care about is a warm response. I'm not here to make buddies. I'm here to debate.

 

[Novgrod]

Ice9, I give up.

Anand knows more about this than do you. I don't think anybody would doubt this. Would you have taken the five seconds to read the article, you would have stumbled across "NVIDIA is showing their support with a very early showing of their CK8 chipset which will be a NV17 based nForce solution for the Hammer," and just after it "We got a chance to take a look at the SiS 755 both during AMD's press conference and on the show floor."

Nvidia and SiS are both investing significant money into the creation, production, and marketing of Opteron chipsets. If you want to come here and say Anand is spouting off stupid things, you need to be more careful or you will end all possibility of "debate" and get into name-calling.

Conversational Terrorism

Read this and come back when you want to debate in a more sensible manner.

 

[Varsh]

Originally posted by: Ice9

I don't know the companies that'll buy the Opteron. I do know that the Opteron is aimed at companies, and not at individuals.

Varsh disagrees with you whole-heartedly Maybe he'll listen to you!

Actually I neither agreed or disagreed, I don't know anything in this area so I'm keeping out of it.

 

[Ice9]

Anand knows more about this than do you. I don't think anybody would doubt this. Would you have taken the five seconds to read the article, you would have stumbled across "NVIDIA is showing their support with a very early showing of their CK8 chipset which will be a NV17 based nForce solution for the Hammer," and just after it "We got a chance to take a look at the SiS 755 both during AMD's press conference and on the show floor."

Whether or not Anand knows more about this than I do makes no difference to AMD's situation! In case you've forgotten that's what this thread is all about - stop trying to subvert it into something else!

And THAT'S FINE! That DOESN'T MEAN they're going to SELL THE FARM if AMD goes under. You are making it sound as if these chipset companies are going to lose their businesses if AMD fails, and i'm telling you that's NOT the case!

Nvidia and SiS are both investing significant money into the creation, production, and marketing of Opteron chipsets. If you want to come here and say Anand is spouting off stupid things, you need to be more careful or you will end all possibility of "debate" and get into name-calling.

Again, you're perverting my statements into something they are not. I'm simply saying that ALL THE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN COVERED BY ANAND! I'm not namecalling, i'm not telling anyone that they're any less of a person because of the articles they write I just think key facts are being left out all over the place, and when people are CONFRONTED with these facts they immediately go on the defensive.

There's nothing terroristic about this debate or how i'm debating. I think there's a lot of good info in this thread, and I think everyone has a duty to investigate the FACTS before coming to a conclusion. It seems there's a lot of people in here that are reluctant to do that

 

[Novgrod]

This thread began as a discussion of the financial future of AMD. This naturally turned into a discussion of the future of the Opteron, since the two are interrelated.

My point, from the beginning, was that it is unlikely that major companies would invest any money in a product that is really likely to fail. These companies won't go under if the Opteron fails, but if it's so friggin obvious--to you--that there is zero market, why would they make a product to cater to that entirely absent market?

 

[Ice9]

My point, from the beginning, was that it is unlikely that major companies would invest any money in a product that is really likely to fail.

Well, my point is that "major" companies haven't committed to the opteron. Chipset manufacturers can gain by selling chipsets to motherboard companies... but it's the motherboard companies that have to commit. And they aren't going to commit until they can get enough OEM sales.

These companies won't go under if the Opteron fails, but if it's so friggin obvious--to you--that there is zero market, why would they make a product to cater to that entirely absent market?

Please stop twisting my words and adding undue emotion. My words were basically that "The 64 bit market is UNCLEAR at best", and that I feel they've misjudged what the market WILL be.

Why does CRAY make supercomputers? They only sell a handful of them a year... they cater to a specific (and small) market... but they're profitable doing so. AMD is targeting the MASSES with this product, and I don't think it's going to do well because the market isn't demanding it.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Why does CRAY make supercomputers? They only sell a handful of them a year... they cater to a specific (and small) market... but they're profitable doing so. AMD is targeting the MASSES with this product, and I don't think it's going to do well because the market isn't demanding it.

A great product can and often will create a market demand for itself, a reactionary philosophy to market dynamics by a technology based company is suicidal IMO.

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
--Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
--Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
-- Bill Gates, 1981

Perhaps I wouldn't have a PC to type this on if the market demand, the lack of future site many so called experts/analyst demonstrate, and market dynamics dictated technology, the personal computer created a market for itself where none existed. AMD may be screwin' the pooch yes, but then again, they may be the visionaries with the future site many others lack. BTW, I read a few articles that point out that similar criticism accompanied the introduction of 32bit computing as well, I found this article insightful and share it's views

 

[Goose77]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does CRAY make supercomputers? They only sell a handful of them a year... they cater to a specific (and small) market... but they're profitable doing so. AMD is targeting the MASSES with this product, and I don't think it's going to do well because the market isn't demanding it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A great product can and often will create a market demand for itself, a reactionary philosophy to market dynamics by a technology based company is suicidal IMO.

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
--Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
--Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
-- Bill Gates, 1981

Perhaps I wouldn't have a PC to type this on if the market demand, the lack of future site many so called experts/analyst demonstrate, and market dynamics dictated technology, the personal computer created a market for itself where none existed. AMD may be screwin' the pooch yes, but then again, they may be the visionaries with the future site many others lack. BTW, I read a few articles that point out that similar criticism accompanied the introduction of 32bit computing as well, I found this article insightful and share it's views .

love this point. good job on the research, i was just to damn lazy, and have only time enoght to respond. Maybe this week end i could back up what i say with facts!

Please stop twisting my words and adding undue emotion. My words were basically that "The 64 bit market is UNCLEAR at best", and that

I feel

they've misjudged what the market WILL be

now im not twisting any words, just highlighting what you said. AND THAT DONT SOUND FACTUAL TO ME!

and like i said earlier, you cant base your opion on the facts that you have stated, for the fact that you dont know what could happen! anythings possible, even you admit that in a lot of your posts! with that in mind, you cant sit there and tell ME that AMD will be gone in 5 year definitly!!

 

[Ice9]

and like i said earlier, you cant base your opion on the facts that you have stated, for the fact that you dont know what could happen! anythings possible, even you admit that in a lot of your posts! with that in mind, you cant sit there and tell ME that AMD will be gone in 5 year definitly!!

Of course I can base my opinion on the facts i've stated. It would be silly to base an opinion on anything BUT facts.

If the market doesn't change, and AMD continues to lose money hand over fist like they have been for the past few years, then AMD WILL DIE WITHIN FIVE YEARS.

A government bailout is NOT likely, all wishful thinking aside. AMD doesn't pull enough weight to make that fly.

A buyout from another company is POSSIBLE, but no one would want AMD's debt load. They'd likely just buy the Intellectual Property like NVIDIA did with TDFX, giving the top brass at AMD a nice golden parachute while completely screwing the worker bees. The fab plants would likely be systematically closed to reduce costs.

On the bright side, AMD isn't doing nearly as poorly as Micron I give them a year before they're out of business, unless they get rid of that stick in the mud CEO Appleton

 

[Ice9]

With regards to that article - I fully agree with it. There is NO argument from me. I will NOT dispute the merits of 64 bit computing. 32 bits was certainly a huge step from 16 bits. But the jump from 32 bits to 64 bits isn't as tangible (though it's 100% relevant) with today's software.

I think the world DOES need to eventually move to a 64 bit architecture. I just don't think it'll be AMD leading the way in the current state they're in. I think AMD should have concentrated on being competitive and profitable before they decided to try to lead the market to 64 bit computing.

 

[Goose77]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never said it was a good thing, but it would keep them alive, which is all i need
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How selfish. I'm more concerned about the thousands of pinkslips that will go out when AMD goes belly-up.

dood what? im saying that hey would still be alive! not handing pinkslips out! ???

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So your saying PAM AM airlines was saved by the government because of this ^^^^, lol , and yes the gov. would help for the necessity of competition, look at what they did to Microsoft, come on dood, common sense!! another thing, since Marbury v. Madison, i find it hard to believe that any court wont give AMD equal treatment as the airlines for the fact that it is hard to go against precedences!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It won't happen.

OH, and just what did they do to Microsoft again? hah!

wheres the fact here.. lol, i gave you factual examples and all you can say is "it won't happen" lol good one nice come back!!

Microsoft has more resources then INTEL does! and just because one company slides by doesnt mean they all will, YOU should go into FORTUNE TELLIN, you sure know exactly what's gonna happen in the future!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WoW, this one is good, with INTEL only $10 worth more in the stocks, i dont see shareholders sticking with them either, lol, @ $15.53
dood we are in a ressesion, everyone is doin bad!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Really? How many Intel shares are out there compared to AMD shares? The stock price tells one story. The amount of shares that are OUT there tells another. But gee, I've got no background in business, and I wouldn't know anything about that. Right?

ahaha, nice financing there bud, Would it really matter how much stock is out if the value goes to 0???? and my comment was that INVESTORS WERE BAILING ON INTEL AS WELL! which you have no comment for!

The fact that you're even looking DOWN this road is laughable. The government isn't going to do this for AMD. They have no compelling reason to. And "competition" isn't enough of a reason.

The fact that you're hoping for a bailout says a lot though!

once again, if AMD does go to court and seeks equal teatment( of the airlines), then yes it could happen, and this is for the fact that the courts base their rule on precedence!

Ok, well, my background in finance is working for the largest financial services firm in the world. I am exposed to finance every working day of my life, and I've learned a lot in 10 years.

and this gives you the ability to predict what will happen with AMD? If you really have this talent then you should be the richest person in the world, for the fact that you would be able to invest in any stocks and sell b4 the companys stock losses value.

(my point here is that you cant tell for sure what a company is capable of doing buy its finance, you can make a guess or assumption, but u cant guarantee 100% that a company will be sucessful or unsucessful!)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMD has been getting alot of help, which im sure is not costing them all that much. Motorola and IBM gave them a lot of tech!!!! which is less spent on R&D. this is probably "ONE" reason they are able to sell athlons so cheap!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Common business sense: If you help out a company, you expect something in return. No one is going to "help" a competitor because they "feel like being a nice guy".

my point here is that TECH recieved from other companies is cheaper then spending on R&D, which is why Athlons are cheaper!

You're clearly just reading the parts you want to read to support your case.

i notice you doin the same!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its funnie how all these Joe shmoes in here have AMD, lol, im guessing that all these people are not worth concidering right???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When it comes to AMD surviving? No. It doesn't matter. They bought their CPU's at a loss to the company. That's bad for any business.

you know whats funnie about this, is that you cant tell me why a company would sell a CPU for a loss?? which is my question to you. IF its so dum then why do it?? i got a good answer for this one, do you??

have not manipulated ANY facts.

never said that you did, my point was that any company can manipulated there financal data, and i gave you 3 examples. so saying it cant or wont happen does do kaka for me. for true proof you would have to audit the company to see where it really stands!! othere than that you will have to turst them from what they put out. and right now i turst nothin until the gov puts forth some regulations for this!!

 

[Ice9]

wheres the fact here.. lol, i gave you factual examples and all you can say is "it won't happen" lol good one nice come back!!

After saying "AMD isn't critical to the US economy" several times, I didn't think it needed to be said again. I also explained why. You (very) quickly forgot.

Microsoft has more resources then INTEL does! and just because one company slides by doesnt mean they all will, YOU should go into FORTUNE TELLIN, you sure know exactly what's gonna happen in the future!

So now you think Microsoft is going to bail out AMD even though they sell more operating systems for IA32? And you think Microsoft is going to simply ignore Intel's 80% market share?

It's not called "fortune telling". It's called "Common sense".

ahaha, nice financing there bud, Would it really matter how much stock is out if the value goes to 0???? and my comment was that INVESTORS WERE BAILING ON INTEL AS WELL! which you have no comment for!

Fine, i'll comment now.
Why bail on a company like intel, that's making nearly $1B in profits quarterly?
A company that has $102 billion dollars in market capitalization?
A company that has 80% of the PC market?
Why would MSFT turn its back on 80% of the market? (Answer: They won't)

Here's some better questions:
Why put your money into a company like AMD that has under $2B in market cap, no prospects of profitability and could potentially go belly up in 5 years?

Again, common sense here. The SMART money goes with Intel.

once again, if AMD does go to court and seeks equal teatment( of the airlines), then yes it could happen, and this is for the fact that the courts base their rule on precedence!

Government bailouts aren't determined in the court system.

I still don't even know why you think this will happen. It isn't even on the TABLE for AMD.

and this gives you the ability to predict what will happen with AMD?

It gives me the ability to make a reasonable educated guess based on market conditions and their present state. What factors are YOU using?

If you really have this talent then you should be the richest person in the world, for the fact that you would be able to invest in any stocks and sell b4 the companys stock losses value.

That isn't the point to INVESTING. Investing is about believing in a company, buying shares, and if all goes right, MAKING A PROFIT, which is something you haven't been able to do with AMD in a LOOOOOONG time.

But yes, I am an investor. But not in AMD or Intel.

(my point here is that you cant tell for sure what a company is capable of doing buy its finance, you can make a guess or assumption, but u cant guarantee 100% that a company will be sucessful or unsucessful!)

All you are saying is that you feel your methods for determining AMD's long term state are better than mine, and that is laughable.

my point here is that TECH recieved from other companies is cheaper then spending on R&D, which is why Athlons are cheaper!

No.

Athons are cheaper because of pricing pressure from Intel. AMD states this in their own 10Q SEC filings. AMD also states that their profitability is being GREATLY affected by competition, which is causing them to in essence lose money on every sale.

Their profits reflect that. You are conveniently ignoring the facts again.

i notice you doin the same!!

I am basing my opinion on FACT. You are NOT.

you know whats funnie about this, is that you cant tell me why a company would sell a CPU for a loss??

I have already said why several times. The answer: Because if they didn't sell it at a loss, they wouldn't be selling AT ALL.

Take a P4 3.06. Price it at $100. Now try to sell the Barton 3000+ at the same price. People will flock to the P4. Intel has proven this TIME AND TIME AGAIN every time they have announced a price cut. These price cuts are deadly to AMD. It forces them to lose their margins.

which is my question to you. IF its so dum then why do it?? i got a good answer for this one, do you??

There is only one answer: They have no choice. If they had a choice, they wouldn't be doing it.

never said that you did, my point was that any company can manipulated there financal data, and i gave you 3 examples.

Those days are GONE. Fudge your numbers now, go to jail. No enron or worldcom style golden parachutes are available anymore.

so saying it cant or wont happen does do kaka for me. for true proof you would have to audit the company to see where it really stands!! othere than that you will have to turst them from what they put out. and right now i turst nothin until the gov puts forth some regulations for this!!

They already have and they've been in place for quite some time. Do a google search for "Elliot Spitzer". Start reading.

You're basically saying that "all financial data reported by all firms are likely fudged and not worthy of evaluation", and that's just silly silly silly.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I think the world DOES need to eventually move to a 64 bit architecture. I just don't think it'll be AMD leading the way in the current state they're in. I think AMD should have concentrated on being competitive and profitable before they decided to try to lead the market to 64 bit computing.

To the contrary, AMD is already leading the way, and the exact point that I believe will prove relevant and lead to success is this quote from the brief article "What's most important to note, though, is that I would not have wanted a 32-bit laptop if it ran only software yet to be written. It ran my old software better. That was the immediate benefit. So will it be when the wizards at V Communications or VMware or Connectix get their hands on the x86-64.

[/b]I'm expecting the flexibility and power to run any of several 32-bit operating systems, giving me access to all their applications and in some cases making them more powerful as well.[/b]"

Obviously our prognostications can only be affirmed or refuted in the due course of time, However, I think all of us can agree that the best hope for the future of the technological sector Intel and AMD currently compete in is for AMD to remain a significant player in the game.

 

[Heirauqs]

As much as I would like AMD to stay in business, this is very unlikely.

It's one thing to lose money in a quarter to gain market share. Hell I'm sure even Sony lost money after 6 months of launching the PS2. It's normal to have to pay for R&D and production. Thing is, Sony has a deep wallet and its SCEA division is now more than profitable. AMD, after what, 3 years of Athlon's, is in troubles as it's never been.

It's another thing to lose money AND lose market share. In the previous years, we were used to a healthy 80/20 ratio, Intel being at 80%. This has changed in the last year. In october, AMD was as low as 11.6% total market share. They're now standing a 13.8%, still FAR from the 20% they were in earlier years, when they accepted themselves as 2nd. Intel? Currently standing at 84.6%

This info is from here http://news.com.com/2117-1001-983542.html?tag=nisi and http://news.com.com/2100-1001-963806.html

It's only natual to want AMD to stay alive. Everyone does. Hell even Intel wants AMD to live (as a distant 2nd).

There's a big difference between WANTING a company to survive, and BELIEVING that a company will survive, though.

AMD should produce processors to take over the Celeron's. Current celerons suck. AMD would definitly have market there (Cheap processors, cheap price) and would be able to sell them at a profit. That worked for them in the past.

 

[Heirauqs]

Oh, and for those who say that AMD sells its processors for nothing because they saved on R&D:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-273975.html?legacy=cnet

"Unlike other tech companies that have issued profit warnings, AMD didn't blame the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks or a weak economy. Instead, it blamed Intel. "Intel resorted to aggressive pricing and large, cash-backed marketing programs, which had the effect of driving down ASPs (average selling prices) on PC processors," said CEO W.J. Sanders. "

 

[Ice9]

Oh, and for those who say that AMD sells its processors for nothing because they saved on R&D:

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-273975.html?legacy=cnet

"Unlike other tech companies that have issued profit warnings, AMD didn't blame the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks or a weak economy. Instead, it blamed Intel. "Intel resorted to aggressive pricing and large, cash-backed marketing programs, which had the effect of driving down ASPs (average selling prices) on PC processors," said CEO W.J. Sanders. "

THOSE BASTARDS! How DARE they lower prices and advertise!

I wonder how long it will be until Burger King starts blaming THEIR losses on Aggressive Pricing on Big Mac's and expensive advertising campaigns involving red-headed clowns with big floppy shoes.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Heirauqs
As much as I would like AMD to stay in business, this is very unlikely.

It's one thing to lose money in a quarter to gain market share. Hell I'm sure even Sony lost money after 6 months of launching the PS2. It's normal to have to pay for R&D and production. Thing is, Sony has a deep wallet and its SCEA division is now more than profitable. AMD, after what, 3 years of Athlon's, is in troubles as it's never been.

It's another thing to lose money AND lose market share. In the previous years, we were used to a healthy 80/20 ratio, Intel being at 80%. This has changed in the last year. In october, AMD was as low as 11.6% total market share. They're now standing a 13.8%, still FAR from the 20% they were in earlier years, when they accepted themselves as 2nd. Intel? Currently standing at 84.6%

This info is from here http://news.com.com/2117-1001-983542.html?tag=nisi and http://news.com.com/2100-1001-963806.html

It's only natual to want AMD to stay alive. Everyone does. Hell even Intel wants AMD to live (as a distant 2nd).

There's a big difference between WANTING a company to survive, and BELIEVING that a company will survive, though.

AMD should produce processors to take over the Celeron's. Current celerons suck. AMD would definitly have market there (Cheap processors, cheap price) and would be able to sell them at a profit. That worked for them in the past.

You are neglecting the fact that AMD's total operational costs are far lower as well, and they are currently restructuring to help reduce those costs even further. I agree they cannot continue to sustain losses on the scale they have been but they are burgeoning in other areas and even if the desktop/workstation division drys up they will continue on in other forms. Here's an area that could prove extremely lucrative in the future and as the article states is a high growth market segment Linkage

Take a look at this company's History they aren't going to be going belly up anytime soon judging by their ability to adapt and form partnerships with other companies.