tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
| reply to BillTager
Re: Anyone surprised?
said by BillTager  :Sprint had plenty of its own ailments long before Nextel came along. Yep.. it was it's WIRELESS division. The LTD and WIRELINE side was doing great before Wireline/Wireless became one. Then, the WHOLE company looked like crap and still does.  |
|
old_dawg
"I Know Noting..."
join:2001-09-22
Westminster, MD
| said by tc1uscg :said by BillTager :Sprint had plenty of its own ailments long before Nextel came along. Yep.. it was it's WIRELESS division. The LTD and WIRELINE side was doing great before Wireline/Wireless became one. Then, the WHOLE company looked like crap and still does. A big thanks of recognition from legacy Wireline!.
Company has been ruined by management that chases the next bright, shiny object without staying on track. It's called bleeding edge for a reason...as in capital, stock price, and personnel. 
--
"Our network engineers are aware of the problem..." |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
|  reply to JakCrow
said by JakCrow : The last thing we need as customers is for Intel to be the only performance CPU maker. Double Agreed on that! |
|
Surfinusa
Premium
join:2001-02-08
| reply to en102
I think its time sprint either spin off Nextel and sell it off or sell of sprint to raise some cash and stick to one product or even intergrate the whole thing taking the best features and selling one company or the others name and products to stay afloat.
I don't think Alltel having gone private wants to do any deals other than if they did decide to grow, make an offer to sprint instead of sprint offering to buy Alltel.
Sprint is in no position unless they sell off one of there products.
ATT & Verizon are the walmarts of BELLS (seek and devour) Sprint is looking more and more like the underdog. Remeber Woolworths?
Mergers are the only thing that is going to keep these guys afloat. Need more money and bigger foot print and customers and you have to have the investors behind you with the Cash. |
|
dogma
Premium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
| reply to LaZ3R
Seems everyone is missing the big picture. Yahoo!, Ford motor, & Citigroup are also mentioned in the article.
The common thread is all of these American companies can only be bought by foreign companies. Last year, foreign investors poured a record $414 billion into securing stakes in American companies, factories and other properties through private deals. Including major positions & future options in every major Wall street investment firm, U.S. Banks, and other Fortune 1000 companies.
Chinese, Koren, and Indian investors are buying our empty foreclosures in blocks of 500 for future rentals.
We offshored most manufacturing/production over the past 25 years.
We imported cheap service labor/poverty over the past 20 years.
Now we are being forced to sell off many of our remaining U.S. business assets.
We are currently the largest debtor nation the world has ever seen.
We as Americans will see the day soon, very soon, where don't own or produce jack shit. We will just be little TeeeVeee watching consumer-bots cashing our service job checks down at the corner Bank of Saudi...wondering WTF happened.
We are getting exactly what we deserve. |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Kearnstd
You called it.
ATI is an anchor around AMD's neck. What could have possibly been their plans?
Nobody wants CPU/GPU combo chips unless they're $2 ea due to their awful performance history. Have they even designed a controller to go with it or are they leaving that to someone else, like NVidia?
Another issue, NVidia used to be friendly to AMD. There always seemed to by some sort of symbiosis, in that so many custom gaming systems were AMD/NVidia setups.
It's like their goal is to eliminate any competition with Intel.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. |
|
Quattrohead
join:2005-02-09 | reply to dogma
Re: Anyone surprised?
dogma hits the nail on the head, America is robbing from tomorrow to pay for today, problem is the vault is now empty and everyone who stole from tomorrow is looking around and saying "oh $hit, now what do I feed my crack (spending) habit with" |
|
Ian Christie
@tnt21.com
| reply to Dogfather
Yes Dell does sell AMD but the majority of their "performance" systems and the sleek XPS systems are Intel and they mainly push Intel. I don't think I've seen a single Dell TV ad without the Intel inside logo. That said I'm on a Dell Inspiron 1501 which is powered by AMD.
On Dell's site, when you narrow down the laptops by processor 5 are Intel, 3 are AMD.
But it still comes down to how much the OEM pushes either processor and right now AMD plays second fiddle in the majority of Dell's lineup. |
|
PGHammer
join:2003-06-09
Accokeek, MD
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to JakCrow
However, Core has been a blockbuster for Intel. In fact, the Core microarchitecture is popping up in places you wouldn't have expected to find Intel *anything* even two years ago. I'm not just talking desktops, but HPC workstations and servers (lest anyone forget, every XEON is Core-based), laptops, notebooks, UMPCs, even Macs (from super-lightweight to ultra-heavyweight). Core hasn't just clobbered AMD; Core is also directly responsible for chasing National Semiconductor out of the general-purpose CPU business entirely. Core 2 has simply extended Intel's lead to the supremely silly; Intel is now basically competing with *itself*. Intel is at the point where they are getting ready to EOL a processor that is too powerful for general-purpose use that is priced for for such use (I'm referring to the Q6600, formerly known as Kentsfield; a server processor in desktop clothing at desktop-processor prices.)
Yes; AMD is in serious trouble, but it can't blame all its woes on the acquisition of ATI Technologies; besides, ATI had their own issues (competing with nVidia) that simply could not be wished away. nVidia hasn't exactly had a walk in the park; the short supply of 8800GT GPUs (and the issues with their own 6-series chipsets) didn't help their positioning as an Intel-chipset alternative.
Motorola? The one area where Motorola *may* be in trouble is their cell handset business (thanks to the encroachment of LG and Samsung at the low end, and Apple's iPhone at the high end); however, Motorola still occupies the solid midrange with the RAZR and RAZR2 lines and their derivatives. Moto may actually be the most likely of the four companies to survive either mostly or completely unchanged (also Moto still has the cash cow of their broadband business, especially cable modems and STBs, not to mention their mobile communications business, none of which will be going away anytime soon). Moto's ace-in-the-hole (as far as their cell-handset business)? Believe it or not, it's the CDMA handset business (specifically with VZW), where the RAZR and variants show no signs of slowing up.
Sprint is under fire (but not due to Motorola), primarily due to encroachment from VZW and (somewhat) AT&T Mobility. Sprint has to find a way to re-differentiate itself as a carrier (in a positive way); unless it does, it's screwed. |
|
tc1uscg
join:2005-03-09
Saint Clair Shores, MI
| reply to old_dawg
said by old_dawg :said by tc1uscg :said by BillTager :Sprint had plenty of its own ailments long before Nextel came along. Yep.. it was it's WIRELESS division. The LTD and WIRELINE side was doing great before Wireline/Wireless became one. Then, the WHOLE company looked like crap and still does. A big thanks of recognition from legacy Wireline!. Company has been ruined by management that chases the next bright, shiny object without staying on track. It's called bleeding edge for a reason...as in capital, stock price, and personnel. Yes.. I think monthly drug tests should be imposed. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | reply to Dogfather
And H&P/Compaq |
|
JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to PGHammer
said by PGHammer :However, Core has been a blockbuster for Intel. In fact, the Core microarchitecture is popping up in places you wouldn't have expected to find Intel *anything* even two years ago. I'm not just talking desktops, but HPC workstations and servers (lest anyone forget, every XEON is Core-based), laptops, notebooks, UMPCs, even Macs (from super-lightweight to ultra-heavyweight). Core hasn't just clobbered AMD; Core is also directly responsible for chasing National Semiconductor out of the general-purpose CPU business entirely. Core 2 has simply extended Intel's lead to the supremely silly; Intel is now basically competing with *itself*. Intel is at the point where they are getting ready to EOL a processor that is too powerful for general-purpose use that is priced for for such use (I'm referring to the Q6600, formerly known as Kentsfield; a server processor in desktop clothing at desktop-processor prices.) I don't understand this. Why wouldn't Intel have used their current CPU tech in these devices? Both Intel and AMD have always done this, so it's a non-issue. And the first run of Core wasn't that great and didn't do dual core and couldn't even do decent dual CPU. Like I said, their roles are currently reversed. I think AMD will eventually come out with something that will leapfrog Intel. It's not like there isn't a history of this happening. |
|
