<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Good Stuff (Including Josh Wright) on Intel in Today&#8217;s WSJ</title>
	<atom:link href="http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/05/14/good-stuff-including-josh-wright-on-intel-in-todays-wsj/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/05/14/good-stuff-including-josh-wright-on-intel-in-todays-wsj/</link>
	<description>Academic commentary on law, business, economics and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 08:05:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thom Lambert</title>
		<link>http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/05/14/good-stuff-including-josh-wright-on-intel-in-todays-wsj/#comment-7743</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Thom Lambert]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 16:40:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.truthonthemarket.com/?p=2245#comment-7743</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Geoff--Sorry about the oversight!  NYT and WSJ in the same 2-day period -- a good day for TOTM.

MH--If AMD&#039;s chips are really so much better than Intel&#039;s and, as you suggest, everyone knows that, then AMD could compete against Intel&#039;s loyalty rebates even without completely matching the discount in dollar amount.  Relative quality, like relative price, reflects relative efficiency.  Buyers are looking for the best price/quality combination.  If AMD could offer that, then they should have no problem competing with Intel&#039;s discounts.  Now, they may argue that the discounts forced them below minimum efficient scale, but as I understand things, part of their problem was that they couldn&#039;t meet demand even when operating at full capacity.  That suggests that any failure to meet MES was not b/c of Intel&#039;s discounts.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Geoff&#8211;Sorry about the oversight!  NYT and WSJ in the same 2-day period &#8212; a good day for TOTM.</p>
<p>MH&#8211;If AMD&#8217;s chips are really so much better than Intel&#8217;s and, as you suggest, everyone knows that, then AMD could compete against Intel&#8217;s loyalty rebates even without completely matching the discount in dollar amount.  Relative quality, like relative price, reflects relative efficiency.  Buyers are looking for the best price/quality combination.  If AMD could offer that, then they should have no problem competing with Intel&#8217;s discounts.  Now, they may argue that the discounts forced them below minimum efficient scale, but as I understand things, part of their problem was that they couldn&#8217;t meet demand even when operating at full capacity.  That suggests that any failure to meet MES was not b/c of Intel&#8217;s discounts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoffrey Manne</title>
		<link>http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/05/14/good-stuff-including-josh-wright-on-intel-in-todays-wsj/#comment-7742</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Geoffrey Manne]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 21:37:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.truthonthemarket.com/?p=2245#comment-7742</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[MH:  In terms of performance, there is no viable argument that says Intel hasn&#039;t been feverishly innovating (and spending billions to do it) while impoving performance and other chip characteristics at an incredible pace.

Thom:  You may also like my quote from yesterday&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/technology/business-computing/14chip.html?ref=technology&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New York Times&lt;/a&gt;: &quot;Europe’s case is really predicated on the idea that there will be future harm to A.M.D.  It is really hard to find evidence of that now.”]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MH:  In terms of performance, there is no viable argument that says Intel hasn&#8217;t been feverishly innovating (and spending billions to do it) while impoving performance and other chip characteristics at an incredible pace.</p>
<p>Thom:  You may also like my quote from yesterday&#8217;s <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/technology/business-computing/14chip.html?ref=technology" rel="nofollow">New York Times</a>: &#8220;Europe’s case is really predicated on the idea that there will be future harm to A.M.D.  It is really hard to find evidence of that now.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MH</title>
		<link>http://truthonthemarket.com/2009/05/14/good-stuff-including-josh-wright-on-intel-in-todays-wsj/#comment-7741</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[MH]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 17:00:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.truthonthemarket.com/?p=2245#comment-7741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Price might be the only relevant issue if microchips were like aluminum or some other commodity, but anyone who was building their own boxes in 2001 knows that Athlons were far superior  to Pentiums in terms of performance (as well as being only slightly cheaper). It is more about choice than price.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Price might be the only relevant issue if microchips were like aluminum or some other commodity, but anyone who was building their own boxes in 2001 knows that Athlons were far superior  to Pentiums in terms of performance (as well as being only slightly cheaper). It is more about choice than price.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

