🚀 go-pugleaf

Intel is a company whose shares are owned by many, many people.  These
investors put their money down to own part of a company that is *hugely*
profitable.  If Intel decided to drop prices by 50% (and thus profits by an
even bigger percentage), many - if not most - of the investors would sell.

AMD and NSM/Cyrix investors have put their money down on a promise of
future gains.  For them, lower prices means bigger market share, which in
turn means bigger future profits.  Whether it actually works that way is
another question...

Just my opinion...

Regards,
	Dean.

David T. Wang <davewang@wam.umd.edu.delete.after.edu@Glue.umd.edu> wrote in
article <6pq58q$ol7$1@hecate.umd.edu>...
> biggfredd@NOSPAMcomputech-online.net wrote:
> 
> :  >  It's surprising how Intel and all of the dough that they have still
sell
> :  > their processors at outrageously high prices. They could probably
sell a
> :  > most of their chips for far less that AMD or Cyrix sells their and
still
> :  > make a profit. A PII 233 costs more than a K6-2 300 and with the new
> : 3DNow
> :  > instructions the K6-2 smokes a PII-233, and as an added bonus is
faster
> : in
> :  > most other stuff too. At the way Intel prices their processors, a
500
> : might
> :  > cost about $900 to $1100 if not more. An AMD K6-2 might cost about
$300
> : at
> :  > 350Mhz, $430 at 400, and $552 at 450Mhz, but as we all know AMD does
not
> :  > exponentially overprice their new processors as Intel does.
> 
> : Once the design costs are taken out, a CPU probably costs less than 50
cents
> : to make.  By asking the big bucks for the "latest greatest" chips,
Intel is
> : recovering the design costs from the people who insist on having the
current
> : top of the line.
> 
> I can assure you that a microprocessor costs quite a bit more than 50
cents
> to make. Some of them even cost a couple of hundred bucks to make.
> 
> : It's correct to say that Intel could still make a profit at lower
prices,
> : but the fact of the matter is that it's doubtful that they'd sell twice
as
> : many chips at half the price.  Since chips are almost 100% profit,
that's
> : what would have to happen to justify lowering the price.
> 
> : Intel probably has a pretty good grasp on the economics of the
situation. 
> : AMD, Cyrix (etc) also have their own "take" on the market, and the next
year
> : or two will show us who guessed right.
> 
> : One thing to remember is that history has shown us that companies who
> : compete on price generally go out of business fairly quickly.  The best
> : thing Joe Consumer can do is to financially support whoever he feels
will be
> : best for him in the long run.  The forces of the marketplace will take
it
> : from there.
>