No. There are far easier ways to get a GPU technology than 5.5B$ down the drain.
AMD would be dead and buried.
Again, Debt didn't increase this quarter. Revenue came in at its projected levels.
(...)
A lot of people have a short memory -- like ignoring 2007, When AMD was losing around $500 million every quarter. 2014 pales by comparison. "This is the Voice of Doom speaking! Special Bulletin! Flash! The Sky is Falling."
AMD would be dead and buried.
I dont know about negotiating for a better settlement, but paying 5 billion in cash for a company, and turning it into a combined company with a market cap of 2 billion would seem to qualify as a pretty serious disaster to me. Reverse midas touch.
No. There are far easier ways to get a GPU technology than 5.5B$ down the drain.
I cant see Samsung or anyone else have any interest in AMD in its current state. Nobody wants to do another ATI. Specially not with 9600 employees you dont have much use for. And the IP will be cheap enough down the road. Imagination Technologies is my best guess for the IP.
Blackberry is a completely different case. Samsung is essentially buying users.
That's why everyone does it. Oh wait, only ATI/AMD and Nvidia have anything in graphics worth talking about. And look, the two companies are the ones that were there when the graphics industry was just taking off. See a pattern?No. There are far easier ways to get a GPU technology than 5.5B$ down the drain.
Could have. Didn't happen, doesn't matter either way the purchase is not the reason AMD is near closing their doors no matter how many ways you try and claim it is.AMD could have MERGED with ATI, without cashing out its shareholders. That would give AMD access to ATI IP but wouldn't wrecked its balance sheet.
Just because the sales levels were in line with the quarterly forecast doesn't mean the sales levels are sustainable, and they aren't. And you are comparing that in 2007 AMD had to write down ATI value, e.g., the losses came straight from the disastrous AMD acquisition, with debt they amassed in their golden years. Today they don't really have much choice in terms of debt, and they don't have many assets to sell, just IP.
The bottom line is I really don't care what you say. An ego-maniac that ridicules people by distorting quotes of other members of this forum with their signature can pretty much rot in hell along with the fantasy of AMD's demise.
The bottom line is I really don't care what you say. An ego-maniac that ridicules people by distorting quotes of other members of this forum with their signature can pretty much rot in hell along with the fantasy of AMD's demise. Quotes taken out of context don't impress me.
Different case? Samsung is looking to buy BlackBerry for $7.5 billion, that is one poor "per user" price in fact it's laughable. Buying a user base is literally the LAST reason Samsung is looking to do this.Blackberry is a completely different case. Samsung is essentially buying users.
What users? Blackberry now has a fraction above 0% marketshare. Samsung is buying them for the technology -- the users have already abandoned Blackberry.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...market-share-shrinks-to-less-than-one-percent
AMD has 100% marketshare in home game console GPU's. That could be very attractive to the people that make them. Nintendo and Microsoft definitely have the money (considering how cheaply AMD probably could be acquired at this point) -- they could spinoff the pieces they don't want, too or do a structured bankruptcy like Chrysler did before Fiat acquired them.
He quoted you accurately and in context.
No he didn't. It was taken from a larger paragraph where I looked at the pros and cons of their current state. I think I remember what I said because I said it. But thanks for being another ego-maniac explaining to me how I think.
Samsung isnt buying them at all:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/samsung-isnt-planning-blackberry-acquisition-co-ceo-says-1421665607
Partnership to gain users.
I read the thread, you are correct. Ask the mods to remove the quote from his sig, I was asked to remove one from mine because a certain user complained about it so I see no reason you won't get the same courtesy.No he didn't.
Let's have a look on that post again after the Q&A transcript.
That links says next to nothing useful and doesn't back up what you're saying in any way.Samsung isnt buying them at all:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/samsung-isnt-planning-blackberry-acquisition-co-ceo-says-1421665607
Partnership to gain users.
What a great day for usual trolls/bashers/fanboys: AMD clearly on red in Q4!
The buyback of long term debt, at a time when AMD is bleeding cash (anyway you look at it, current assets minus current liabilities dropped some $175MM in a single quarter, $375MM without the "generosity" of Global Foundries), is perplexing to say the least.
Without Intel's license, AMD is done.
Qualcomm (my guess) will buy them, IMO. The question is for how much, and before, during, or after bankruptcy. You don't come across a good CPU design team (by SOC vendor standards), a good GPU design team, loads of patents, and an x86 license that often.
And don't even start with the x86 license is not transferable nonsense. If Intel tries enforcing that, they'll end up with billions in anti-trust fines, and still be forced to license it, possibly to everyone and on FRAND terms. They won't touch that hornet's nest with a ten foot pole.