7 ms·

You've confused revenue with profit. They are not the same thing. AMD has been losing money for most of its existence and almost went bankrupt on a number of oc

by drite 10y ago

You've confused revenue with profit. They are not the same thing. AMD has been losing money for most of its existence and almost went bankrupt on a number of occasions. This renders your points completely invalid.

wfunction 10y ago
For those of us out of the loop, if AMD has been "losing money for most of its existence" and "almost went bankrupt on a number of occasions", then how is it still alive? Did it make a ridiculous amount of money at some points?
- nradov 10y ago
  You can see a table of AMD quarterly net income back to 2004 here. https://ycharts.com/companies/AMD/net_income_ttm https://ycharts.com/companies/AMD/net_income_ttm
- Lazare 10y ago
  AMD has had ups and downs, but over the past 15 years they've had a net loss of $7 billion. Yes, they've had some good years too. They made over a billion dollars in 2000 alone, and they've been knocking around since 1969. And they've been written off for dead many, many times. That being said, the current situation is bleak, and no, they never made a ridiculous amount of money. They've had to go to pretty extreme lengths not to go under already (eg, selling off their headquarters building, then leasing it back, just to scrape together some quick cash). They're very, very cash strapped. So much so that the news they signed a somewhat nebulous licensing deal with a Chinese company to help them make servers caused their share price to jump 52%, just because they'd be getting ~$300m in licensing fees.
  - wfunction 10y ago
    Thanks! But I still don't understand how they're still alive? How can you lose billions of dollars and still be in business? Are they borrowing the money from someone? Where is the money they don't have coming from?
    - bsder 10y ago
      Intel infused them with money the last time they were about to go under. AMD's existence prevents Intel from having to face prosecution for monopoly status.
      - wfunction 10y ago
        Thanks! But what does "infused them with money" money mean? They wrote them a check for a few billion dollars? Would you mind explaining like I'm completely clueless (which I kind of am)? I literally don't know (or if I did, remember) anything about this so the missing details are not helping. Thanks!
        ptaipale 10y ago
        Intel actually gave about 1.25B$ to AMD in 2009, in order to rid itself of an unfair competition and patent claim. This helped AMD to stay afloat. Without it, Intel would be in an effective monopoly position and that would bring in all sorts of restrictions (due to competition laws particularly in the US and EU) it doesn't want to have. http://www.tgdaily.com/business/44723-amd-to-use-intel-cash-to-pay-off-debt http://www.tgdaily.com/business/44723-amd-to-use-intel-cash-...
      - dman 10y ago
        Infused them with money? If you are talking about the legal settlement then this is a very charitable description on what happened from Intels side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v....
        trome 10y ago
        Your link is broken, below is the correct one. More importantly, Intel wants AMD to stay alive and keep vaguely competing with them since they avoid significantly worse anti-trust rulings in the future (here is a current one[1]) due to there being no active x86-64 competitors. Additionally, think about Google, Amazon, MS Azure and all the other big players who push large volume on Intel's higher end SKUs, what do you think they will do if Intel becomes their sole source vendor? I'd predict all 3 will take their current dabbling in ARM servers and amp it up, since being captured by a single vendor is a serious issue for all of them. Correct Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v.... 1 - http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/12/5803442/intel-nearly-1-and-a-half-billion-fine-upheld-anticompetitive-practices http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/12/5803442/intel-nearly-1-and...
lvs 10y ago
I have not. I used the term "gross profit," which is reported on their annual income statement exactly as I suggested. You can argue whether I should have talked about their net losses, but you can't claim I've confused anything. You don't need to operate at a net profit in order to be able to devote resources to a strategy that you value as a company, but you do need cash flow. http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-fundIncomeA http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-fundIncomeA

by drite 10y ago

wfunction 10y ago

For those of us out of the loop, if AMD has been "losing money for most of its existence" and "almost went bankrupt on a number of occasions", then how is it still alive? Did it make a ridiculous amount of money at some points?

nradov 10y ago
You can see a table of AMD quarterly net income back to 2004 here. https://ycharts.com/companies/AMD/net_income_ttm https://ycharts.com/companies/AMD/net_income_ttm
Lazare 10y ago
AMD has had ups and downs, but over the past 15 years they've had a net loss of $7 billion. Yes, they've had some good years too. They made over a billion dollars in 2000 alone, and they've been knocking around since 1969. And they've been written off for dead many, many times. That being said, the current situation is bleak, and no, they never made a ridiculous amount of money. They've had to go to pretty extreme lengths not to go under already (eg, selling off their headquarters building, then leasing it back, just to scrape together some quick cash). They're very, very cash strapped. So much so that the news they signed a somewhat nebulous licensing deal with a Chinese company to help them make servers caused their share price to jump 52%, just because they'd be getting ~$300m in licensing fees.
- wfunction 10y ago
  Thanks! But I still don't understand how they're still alive? How can you lose billions of dollars and still be in business? Are they borrowing the money from someone? Where is the money they don't have coming from?
  - bsder 10y ago
    Intel infused them with money the last time they were about to go under. AMD's existence prevents Intel from having to face prosecution for monopoly status.
    - wfunction 10y ago
      Thanks! But what does "infused them with money" money mean? They wrote them a check for a few billion dollars? Would you mind explaining like I'm completely clueless (which I kind of am)? I literally don't know (or if I did, remember) anything about this so the missing details are not helping. Thanks!
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        Intel actually gave about 1.25B$ to AMD in 2009, in order to rid itself of an unfair competition and patent claim. This helped AMD to stay afloat. Without it, Intel would be in an effective monopoly position and that would bring in all sorts of restrictions (due to competition laws particularly in the US and EU) it doesn't want to have. http://www.tgdaily.com/business/44723-amd-to-use-intel-cash-to-pay-off-debt http://www.tgdaily.com/business/44723-amd-to-use-intel-cash-...
    - dman 10y ago
      Infused them with money? If you are talking about the legal settlement then this is a very charitable description on what happened from Intels side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v....
      - trome 10y ago
        Your link is broken, below is the correct one. More importantly, Intel wants AMD to stay alive and keep vaguely competing with them since they avoid significantly worse anti-trust rulings in the future (here is a current one[1]) due to there being no active x86-64 competitors. Additionally, think about Google, Amazon, MS Azure and all the other big players who push large volume on Intel's higher end SKUs, what do you think they will do if Intel becomes their sole source vendor? I'd predict all 3 will take their current dabbling in ARM servers and amp it up, since being captured by a single vendor is a serious issue for all of them. Correct Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v.... 1 - http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/12/5803442/intel-nearly-1-and-a-half-billion-fine-upheld-anticompetitive-practices http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/12/5803442/intel-nearly-1-and...

lvs 10y ago

I have not. I used the term "gross profit," which is reported on their annual income statement exactly as I suggested. You can argue whether I should have talked about their net losses, but you can't claim I've confused anything. You don't need to operate at a net profit in order to be able to devote resources to a strategy that you value as a company, but you do need cash flow. http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-fundIncomeA http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-fundIncomeA