SI
SI
discoversearch

 Technology Stocks | Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: fastpathguru who wrote (269614)4/18/2012 6:29:54 PM
From: Elmer Phud
of 273486
 
I pegged it as a "bunch of crap" the moment Elmer started using it.

Of course you deny it but every post of yours has been based on that theme.

Why doesn't Dell simply buy from the cheapest supplier? You've been asked that many times but you never answer.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Elmer Phud who wrote (269610)4/18/2012 8:11:57 PM
From: fastpathguru
of 273486
 
As you provided no link, I can only assume you are up to your old tricks and presenting allegations as if they were fact. In your mind yes, in the real world no.

sec.gov

I'm confident other explanations are more accurate.

More accurate with regard to what? History?

Pop Quiz: Which of these are mere allegations, and which OTOH are factual/verifiable?

* 61. Dell updated its guidance for QIFY07 after the market closed on May 8,2006.
* From May 8, 2006 to May 12,2006, Dell's stock price fell by over 9%, from $26.43 to $24.02.
* On May 12,2006; Schneider wrote to Michael Dell, Rollins, and the SVP that Dell was "getting slammed with missing our numbers and not announcing anything with AMD ... and our current plan of record for Q2 is to beg [Intel] for more money to make our targets."
* On May18, 2006, Dell announced that it would add AMD to its product lines by the end of the year.
* In response, Intel cut its MCP payments to Dell by over a quarter of a billion dollars.
* This dramatic cut in the MCP payments did not reflect any contemporaneous meaningful purchase of AMD processors or substitution of AMD processors for those of Intel.
* Rather, Intel's reduction in MCP payments reflected Intel's response to Dell's announcement of an intention to use AMD products in the future.

* 62. From QIFY07 to Q2FY07, Intel's MCP payments fell by $263 million.
* Prior to this point, there had been only one quarter in the history of the MCP program during which the rebates had not increased -- the quarter after AMD filed its private antitrust lawsuit.
* In QIFY07, Dell's reported operating income was $949 million.
* In Q2FY07, Dell's operating income was $605 million.
* In dollar terms, the reduction in Intel exclusivity payments was equivalent to 75% of the decline in Dell's operating income.

* 63. Dell failed to disclose the impact of the decline in MCP on Dell's operating income.
* Instead, during the Q2FY07 earnings call about its operating results, Schneider told analysts and investors that the decline in operating income that quarter was attributable to Dell pricing too aggressively in the face of slowing demand and to component costs declining "less than we anticipated."
* These statements were contained in a script that was circulated in advance ofthe earnings call to Michael Dell, Rollins, and other Dell personnel.

* 64. The second question asked on the Q2FY07 earnings call was whether "a precipitous or sharp decrease in Intel co-marketing dollars" impacted Dell's gross margin that quarter.
* Rollins replied, "[w]e would probably not communicate anything on that. It is proprietary. We do believe that component prices did not come down as we had anticipated, but we wouldn't comment on any of our agreements with suppliers."


I can see exactly one allegation among this set of sentences. The others are descriptions of non-subjective historical events.

Tell me, why shouldn't Dell simply go with the cheapest supplier, regardless of product reliability, regardless of customer support, regardless of production capacity, and certainly most of all, regardless of track record?

Why should I? It's a strawman argument that has no bearing on reality.

Parts is Parts as you always infer, so why pay a higher price if you don't have to?

A) I don't "always infer" that "Parts is Parts" (again, that's your fantasy), and B) I don't pay a higher price if I don't have to. (Perhaps I could be swayed by billion dollar bribes though...)

fpg

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Elmer Phud who wrote (269616)4/18/2012 8:31:43 PM
From: fastpathguru
of 273486
 

Why doesn't Dell simply buy from the cheapest supplier? You've been asked that many times but you never answer.

Supply constraints
Customer demand
Huge bribes
Customer perception
Performance differences

I've NEVER said there weren't differences between suppliers and their products/services.

The entire Discount Attribution argument that the EC nailed Intel to the wall with in fact depends on a large, committed base of consumer demand for the dominant supplier's products.

I really don't think you've thought your arguments through in any cohesive manner.

Just like your whole "Rogue Salesman" speculation burns the "Lying Sack Of S**t AMD", the "Global Conspiracy of Regulators Extracting Cash From The Bank Of Intel", and "Unwritten Uber-Rule Requiring Competitive Competitors", theories to the ground because if true, so was the harm to AMD (whether sanctioned by Intel or not.)

fpg

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: fastpathguru who wrote (269617)4/18/2012 8:54:36 PM
From: Elmer Phud
of 273486
 
Which of these are mere allegations, and which OTOH are factual/verifiable?

Good Lord FPG, you know better than this. How stupid do you think people here are? It's a complaint. They are allegations based on the SEC's investigation. They are not facts. Some probably are but some are unwarranted conclusions, not based on established fact.

What the documents is saying is, in the absence of any evidence yet to be presented by the parties involved, it looks like bla bla bla. That doesn't establish fact and you know better.

Tell me, why shouldn't Dell simply go with the cheapest supplier, regardless of product reliability, regardless of customer support, regardless of production capacity, and certainly most of all, regardless of track record?

Why should I? It's a strawman argument that has no bearing on reality.


You have to avoid this discussion because it tarnishes your entire case.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: fastpathguru who wrote (269618)4/18/2012 9:02:49 PM
From: Elmer Phud
of 273486
 
When AMD offered to give HPQ a million processors free of charge, why wasn't that a bribe?

I've NEVER said there weren't differences between suppliers and their products/services.

You left it out of every single discussion. You never acknowledged it as a reason for an OEM to choose one supplier over another despite a lower price from the loser.

The entire Discount Attribution argument that the EC nailed Intel to the wall with in fact depends on a large, committed base of consumer demand for the dominant supplier's products.

Huh? The EUC case depends on people wanting Intel processors? We can't allow that can we!

Just like your whole "Rogue Salesman" speculation burns the "Lying Sack Of S**t AMD", the "Global Conspiracy of Regulators Extracting Cash From The Bank Of Intel", and "Unwritten Uber-Rule Requiring Competitive Competitors", theories to the ground because if true, so was the harm to AMD (whether sanctioned by Intel or not.)

So AMD is responsible for any harm done to Intel by the recent IP theft by a paid AMD employee(whether sanctioned by AMD or not.)

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: rzborusa who wrote (269613)4/18/2012 10:03:31 PM
From: Mahmoud Mohammed
of 273486
 
Mr Borusa,

Re: "... Ya getting any vibes from Otis, feel anything coming on?"

Ya ... I feel more INTC server CPUs being sold to SeaMicro coming on. I wonder if SeaMicro woulld take "free CPU's" from AMD ??!! ROTFLMAO.

Mahmoud

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Mahmoud Mohammed who wrote (269621)4/19/2012 3:24:57 AM
From: rzborusa
of 273486
 
I don't think they would take free parts from AMD that would be disloyal and you know Otis demands loyalty, not the normal two way street kind, but the BF$CB type, more reliable and disposable. Read the sueing papers if you dare.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


From: Elmer Phud4/19/2012 11:16:41 AM
of 273486
 
Qualcomm, the largest supplier of application processors and system-on-chip devices for smartphones, on Wednesday said that demand for its latest Snapdragon S4 application processors and made using 28nm technology exceeds TSMC's ability to manufacture the chips using the latest process tech. As a result, Qualcomm will outsource production of 28nm devices to other foundries.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/20120418202224_Qualcomm_Criticizes_TSMC_for_Inability_to_Make_Enough_28nm_Chips.html


What difference does it make where they're made. Parts is Parts...





Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Elmer Phud who wrote (269619)4/19/2012 11:58:49 AM
From: fastpathguru
of 273486
 
>Which of these are mere allegations, and which OTOH are factual/verifiable?

Good Lord FPG, you know better than this. How stupid do you think people here are? It's a complaint. They are allegations based on the SEC's investigation. They are not facts. Some probably are but some are unwarranted conclusions, not based on established fact.

What the documents is saying is, in the absence of any evidence yet to be presented by the parties involved, it looks like bla bla bla. That doesn't establish fact and you know better.

LOL, You wouldn't know what "evidence" looked like if it bit you on the leg! The "complaint" lays out the prosecution's case, presenting the accusations and summarizing the evidence the accusations are based on.

Poor M. Dell, faced with this complaint, he decided to just fork over the millions rather than try to refute the evidence and its interpretation...

Of course, you declined to take my quiz, as I knew you would. I'll do it for you:

* 61. Dell updated its guidance for QIFY07 after the market closed on May 8,2006.

Fact. chron.com

* From May 8, 2006 to May 12,2006, Dell's stock price fell by over 9%, from $26.43 to $24.02.

Fact. finance.yahoo.com;

* On May 12,2006; Schneider wrote to Michael Dell, Rollins, and the SVP that Dell was "getting slammed with missing our numbers and not announcing anything with AMD ... and our current plan of record for Q2 is to beg [Intel] for more money to make our targets."

Non-public, factual/verifiable in nature.

* On May 18, 2006, Dell announced that it would add AMD to its product lines by the end of the year.

Fact: news.cnet.com

* In response, Intel cut its MCP payments to Dell by over a quarter of a billion dollars.

Non-public, factual/verifiable in nature.

* This dramatic cut in the MCP payments did not reflect any contemporaneous meaningful purchase of AMD processors or substitution of AMD processors for those of Intel.

Fact: Dell didn't start selling AMD-based products until more than a whole quarter had passed, September/October 2006: hothardware.com

* Rather, Intel's reduction in MCP payments reflected Intel's response to Dell's announcement of an intention to use AMD products in the future.

There's your "allegation."

Please, feel free to fantasize about all the other reasons why Intel's payments to DELL might have fallen off a cliff... And don't forget to ignore all the "cherry picked" internal discussions that support the SEC's allegation.

* 62. From QIFY07 to Q2FY07, Intel's MCP payments fell by $263 million.

Non-public, factual/verifiable in nature.

* Prior to this point, there had been only one quarter in the history of the MCP program during which the rebates had not increased -- the quarter after AMD filed its private antitrust lawsuit.

* In QIFY07, Dell's reported operating income was $949 million.

Fact: google.brand.edgar-online.com

* In Q2FY07, Dell's operating income was $605 million.

Fact: dell.com

* In dollar terms, the reduction in Intel exclusivity payments was equivalent to 75% of the decline in Dell's operating income.

Non-public, factual/verifiable in nature.

* 63. Dell failed to disclose the impact of the decline in MCP on Dell's operating income.

Fact: There is no mention of Intel's "rebate" programs in DELL's earnings statements, presentations, or conference calls, which include a specific denial [see #64] that Intel's rebate programs had any significant impact.

* Instead, during the Q2FY07 earnings call about its operating results, Schneider told analysts and investors that the decline in operating income that quarter was attributable to Dell pricing too aggressively in the face of slowing demand and to component costs declining "less than we anticipated."

Fact: seekingalpha.com

* These statements were contained in a script that was circulated in advance of the earnings call to Michael Dell, Rollins, and other Dell personnel.

Non-public, factual/verifiable in nature.

* 64. The second question asked on the Q2FY07 earnings call was whether "a precipitous or sharp decrease in Intel co-marketing dollars" impacted Dell's gross margin that quarter.

Fact: seekingalpha.com

* Rollins replied, "[w]e would probably not communicate anything on that. It is proprietary. We do believe that component prices did not come down as we had anticipated, but we wouldn't comment on any of our agreements with suppliers."

Fact: seekingalpha.com

Go ahead and spout "Parts is Parts" all you want... It's all you've got.

fpg

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: Elmer Phud who wrote (269620)4/19/2012 11:59:41 AM
From: fastpathguru
of 273486
 
When AMD offered to give HPQ a million processors free of charge, why wasn't that a bribe?

Completely aside from the separate antitrust issue of whether AMD could "abuse it's dominant market position" by throwing free processors around... to qualify as a "bribe" it would probably have to be "under the table", hidden, improperly accounted for. LOL.

>I've NEVER said there weren't differences between suppliers and their products/services.

You left it out of every single discussion. You never acknowledged it as a reason for an OEM to choose one supplier over another despite a lower price from the loser.

Wrong, I've always acknowleged that there are differences between suppliers and their products. (BTW, you stating "Parts is Parts" repeatedly is not a "discussion".) The problem here is that you fail to acknowledge the possibility that the huge sums of cash that exchanged from Intel's hands to DELL's, for no accountable reason could have been for the purpose of persuading DELL to purchase CPUs exclusively from Intel.

>The entire Discount Attribution argument that the EC nailed Intel to the wall with in fact depends on a large, committed base of consumer demand for the dominant supplier's products.

Huh? The EUC case depends on people wanting Intel processors? We can't allow that can we!

Is it possible that after all this time you still have no understanding of antitrust/anti-monopoly/anti-competition law?

Ignorant comments like this last one of yours indicates that this is indeed the case.

>Just like your whole "Rogue Salesman" speculation burns the "Lying Sack Of S**t AMD", the "Global Conspiracy of Regulators Extracting Cash From The Bank Of Intel", and "Unwritten Uber-Rule Requiring Competitive Competitors", theories to the ground because if true, so was the harm to AMD (whether sanctioned by Intel or not.)

So AMD is responsible for any harm done to Intel by the recent IP theft by a paid AMD employee(whether sanctioned by AMD or not.)

Did I say that Intel is responsible for the harm caused to AMD by a rogue Intel salesman? (Since you can't answer even simple questions, let me do it for you: Answer=No.)

All I said was that if your speculative Rogue Salesman existed, then AMD would have been harmed and a response to that harm would be justified. In your scenario, where harm to AMD came from within Intel, it would behoove Intel to cooperate and identify the Rogue Salesman, which should be rather easy given the sweeping executive and financial power necessary to carry out the various activities which harmed AMD.

LOL, even within the confines of your own speculative scenario, Intel fails to act appropriately...

fpg

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.