The problem with sticking with a company or brand out of loyalty, be it in CPUs, peanut butter, cars, toasters...if a company keeps making money selling it's crappy products, why would it care or need to improve?
I would be surprised if the government would let them go under.
I'd be suprised if they gave a flip. AMD failure wouldn't cripple the economy and it wouldn't affect day to day gonvernment business or any government's political power structure. If it ever got to that point, seriously, don't hold your breath waiting for govt. intervention.
Besides Bankruptcy doesn't mean the would go out of business, it just means they would flush their debt and reorganize the stuff they can't flush. So in short after their stock goes through the hit of filing BK, they should be in good shape because they will have much less debt. If they make it through the announcement then they would likely recover rather quickly.
Reorganization isn't a given - reorg plans have to be approved by a judge.
There are types of debt that can't be easily 'flushed' or set aside. I'm a little foggy here, but I seem to remember 2012 as a year of reconing for some senior notes.
You are correct, the stock would tank.
BK destroys a company's credit rating. This makes it difficult to obtain financing on favorable terms, if at all. If the company went Chapter 11 and weren't operating in the black shortly after reorganizing, this would be a huge concern.
You're correct in that Chapter 11 isn't the end of the world - companies can and do make it through. But I'd expect jobs to be lost and possibly R&D taking a hit. My point is that while it is survivable, it wouldn't be pretty, and recovery wouldn't be certain. But hey, as doomy and gloomy as that sounds, I honestly don't see this as an immediate concern.
---------------
Give a man a fish, and you'll have fed him for a day. Give a fish a man, and he'll eat for weeks.
Bankrupt sometimes is a good thing for large corporations.
Donald Trump one of the most successful business men in the world has done it Multiple times. I don't see AMD going under anyhow. AMD and Intel both make money off Each other.
and it would be Horrible for consumers.
Competition drives new technology and lower prices. having just intel would allow them to slack off alot. that being said..
No they would not be considered a monopoly. they would have to Buyout AMD and be subject to "trying to control the market" win CPU's
if anything someone else might say buy half of AMD stock and become a joint partner with them.
you never know who might join up with who
Then again if that happened then Intel got complete control... It would slack off, then realize it sales are extremely low...
Then they'll make a new arch, price the best for $10000 and make most of us use $250 Celerons that are faster than the previous generation, but only a little bit. Then the age of pin-hack will come around again... Then Intel will simply create a modified die...
Consumer loses... VIA becomes popular... but doesn't match up to Intel... most low-performance chips will come from VIA and since most users these days can't really max out their computers anyway, VIA will become the new AMD...
I have serious doubts about AMD ceasing to exist. That just wouldnt happen overnight.
If it did i guess the IT world would terribly slow their pace.
As for me, in the last few years i always have AMD machines. At the price point, whenever i buy, well, they got the "candy".
I dont like to dish 350+ for a CPU. For a GPU already did it, and ill do it again !!!!
I guess ill keep buying amd. Im mounting a Crossfire rig, so if the CPU is intel or not, ill buy AMD anyway !!!
The problem with sticking with a company or brand out of loyalty, be it in CPUs, peanut butter, cars, toasters...if a company keeps making money selling it's crappy products, why would it care or need to improve?
That sounds more like evolution than the economy.
The truth is there are a lot of crap products out there that people buy, but then there are other products that are not so bad but are cheaper. There is a huge spectrum of products that fill certain niches in the market.
So if everyone just bought the best of the best of what a company made then you would only have a few really good products but then why would they care or need to improve them. So it can work both ways.
I have serious doubts about AMD ceasing to exist. That just wouldnt happen overnight.
If it did i guess the IT world would terribly slow their pace.
As for me, in the last few years i always have AMD machines. At the price point, whenever i buy, well, they got the "candy".
I dont like to dish 350+ for a CPU. For a GPU already did it, and ill do it again !!!!
I guess ill keep buying amd. Im mounting a Crossfire rig, so if the CPU is intel or not, ill buy AMD anyway !!!
Look at what happened with Apple and its cult... Apple products have less than everyone else and look how well they sell! Not to mention the price...
I like supporting the little guy even if their products are a little worse. I feel good about myself because i know ive done my part to encourage fair market competition.
I think something akin to what Nvidia did with it's GPUs will happen (they'll use the same core for 1.5/2 times longer while just releasing products that are marginally better
Then with any luck history will repeat itself and AMD will be back at it in 2-3 generations (so the one that comes after deneb or it's die-shrink)
Message edited by jonyb222 on 07-15-2008 at 05:19:20 PM
---------------
It is a very newb question, which is why I ask it.
The problem with sticking with a company or brand out of loyalty, be it in CPUs, peanut butter, cars, toasters...if a company keeps making money selling it's crappy products, why would it care or need to improve?
I agree. But one thing is I try to buy only American company products since that benefits the economy more.
Plus I just like American stuff better. Cars, electronics and so on.
A note about IBM [Samsung.. whatever, insert your favorite white knight company here..] stepping in to compete with Intel by either saving AMD or starting to produce x86 chips. Besides the x86 licensing agreement expressly forbidding it without Intel's (the dominant, not in dire financial trouble party) consent, I have yet to see anyone make a substantially logical argument that would demonstrate why anyone would want to go toe to toe with Intel in the low profit commodity CPU market. The start up costs are too high, the ROI takes long enough that a while would seem to be a tick on the clock, you have to constantly advance the process technology and all this while keeping up with Big Blue on their home turf, if they even let you play in their sandbox. Tis madness, and no sane company would jump into that kind of clusterf*ck for the honor of taking on Intel.
---------------
If at first you don't succed, destroy all evidence that you ever tried.
Look at what happened with Apple and its cult... Apple products have less than everyone else and look how well they sell! Not to mention the price...
Well the main reason is that OSX IS much better(security/stability) wise that Vista. And OSX can also run many of the UNIX/LINUX applications. Also Iphone/Ipod/iTunes,etc are also adding big $$$ to the company.
I like supporting the little guy even if their products are a little worse. I feel good about myself because i know ive done my part to encourage fair market competition.
Is it a fair market if you have to buy underwhelming products from an underwhelming company to keep that company from being overwhelmed?
Even if AMD disappeared Intel would have to compete against whoever makes the chips in consoles (IBM makes the PS3 Cell processor doesn't it?) to get the business of the gamer enthusiast crowd.
---------------
How to future-proof your computer: Indefinitely postpone buying it.
