AMD appoints new CEO as losses continue

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/...ontinue_1.html

AMD has replaced Hector Ruiz with Dirk Meyer as its CEO, as the
company reported its seventh consecutive quarterly net loss on
Thursday.

AMD's board has elected Meyer to the CEO spot effective immediately,
AMD said. He was previously president and COO and has been with AMD 12
years. Ruiz will become executive chairman and chair of AMD's board of
directors.

The chipmaker also announced that it has decided to divest its
handheld and digital TV businesses. The company had merged the
businesses into its consumer electronics group after the 2006
acquisition of ATI. Last week, AMD announced it would take a charge of
$880 million related to impaired assets of those businesses.

AMD's revenue from continuing operations for the second quarter rose 3
percent from a year earlier, to $1.35 billion. But the company still
posted a net loss of $1.19 billion, or $1.96 per share.

Second-quarter revenue fell 7 percent compared with the previous
quarter. Unit shipments declined a little and average selling prices
fell more, the company said.

"We have a company rich with great people, great products, great
spirit and a lot of great potential," Meyer said on a conference call
following the financial announcement. "Looking at the recent past, we
have not been living up to that potential. Looking forward, we will."

Ruiz, who remains chairman, will continue to oversee the "asset smart"
strategy initiated under his watch to make AMD less capital-intensive.
The company would not provide more details on what sort of deals the
company will make to carry that out.

Meyer, who is also taking on the title of president, said he plans to
focus AMD more narrowly on large-volume "sweet spots," namely PCs and
volume servers, and increase its focus on execution, including
dependable delivery of products and efficiency.

AMD has suffered from product delays as it struggles against a much
bigger competitor in Intel.

The company expects to achieve sustained profitability beginning in
the second half of this calendar year on the strength of new products
and lower costs, executives said.

[...]

sillyputty wrote:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/...ontinue_1.html

The company expects to achieve sustained profitability beginning in
the second half of this calendar year on the strength of new products
and lower costs, executives said.

[...]

I have been faithful to AMD for years. Nothing against Intel personally,
but I shudder to think what would happen in the marketplace if Intel had
no competition.

In article , ToolPackinMama wrote:
sillyputty wrote:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/...s_losses_conti
nue_1.html

The company expects to achieve sustained profitability beginning in
the second half of this calendar year on the strength of new products
and lower costs, executives said.

[...]

I have been faithful to AMD for years. Nothing against Intel personally,
but I shudder to think what would happen in the marketplace if Intel had
no competition.
Or if Nvidia had no competition.

ToolPackinMama wrote:

sillyputty wrote:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/...ontinue_1.html



The company expects to achieve sustained profitability beginning in
the second half of this calendar year on the strength of new products
and lower costs, executives said.

[...]


I have been faithful to AMD for years. Nothing against Intel personally,
but I shudder to think what would happen in the marketplace if Intel had
no competition.

AMD once had a clear-cut opportunity to distance itself from Intel
but it failed in this mission. To be a competitor, one has to be
competitive. AMD failed to stake its reputation on its own research
and developments, which at that time had surpassed Intel. Sadly, AMD
elected to stay within the same arena as Intel and hedged its bets
by taking on the corporate marketplace instead of running amok in
the field of gaming enthusiasts, wasting resources and worsening its
debt.

Didn't realize how bad AMD/ATI was doing. AMD stock is 1/10th of what
it was 2 years ago ($4 now vs $40 then). They lost almost $4 billion
this past year. Intel market capitalization is over 60 times AMD.
Intel made a net profit of over $7 billion in the same period. Intel
is rolling out dual and quad core 45nm and AMD still hasn't been able
to come out with 45nm at all. Intel is working on 32nm with over 16
cores for next year.

We could see AMD/ATI fail next year.

That would be a shame, I think that the current ATi stuff is really good,
and deserves to pull the figures up for AMD a bit?

AMD once had a clear-cut opportunity to distance itself from Intel
but it failed in this mission.

.. . . but that assumes a static situation. If AMD took the lead and/or had
new technology, Intel would offer those guys, the techs, big bucks to work
for Intel. That game goes back and forth.

It seems AMD needs new technology to shoot ahead of Intel.

--g

didn't amd get ahead of intel by putting memory controllers on their chips
and having a bigger onboard cache? then intel did the same thing and hosed
them.
ATI has been loosing money every quarter since AMD bought them. Hopefully
amd has another rabbit in their hat, but it's unlikely. looks like
curtains.


"geoff" wrote in message
...
AMD once had a clear-cut opportunity to distance itself from Intel
but it failed in this mission.

. . . but that assumes a static situation. If AMD took the lead and/or
had new technology, Intel would offer those guys, the techs, big bucks to
work for Intel. That game goes back and forth.

It seems AMD needs new technology to shoot ahead of Intel.

--g

It looks like buying ATI was like taking a poison pill. Yeah, the
current set of ATI graphics cards are doing alright but they also
don't seem to be priced to make any huge profits. Plus, once Nvidia
gets 45nm versions of the GX260 and GX280 on the market towards the
end of the year at just about the same price point, they are going to
clobber the ATI cards since the GX260 (lower end) is about even with
the HD4870 (high end) in performance right now.

The AMD/ATI financials are here. AMD stock value is 1/4 of what it was
last year at the same time. There are a lot of big negatives on their
balance sheet:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=amd

And this page has even more details. Wow, all of AMD is now worth less
than half of what they paid for ATI in 2006! Looks like that was a
really bad move.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...a g3q98IKgmnQ

"This quarter's results bring AMD's total losses to $5.5 billion in
less than two years."

"AMD's total market value is now about half of the $5.4 billion it
paid for graphics-chip maker ATI in 2006."

"In December, AMD delayed the widespread release of a new chip called
Barcelona because the product was running too slowly and causing
errors with some software."

"Blig Merk" wrote in message
...
It looks like buying ATI was like taking a poison pill. Yeah, the
current set of ATI graphics cards are doing alright but they also
don't seem to be priced to make any huge profits. Plus, once Nvidia
gets 45nm versions of the GX260 and GX280 on the market towards the
end of the year at just about the same price point, they are going to
clobber the ATI cards since the GX260 (lower end) is about even with
the HD4870 (high end) in performance right now.

The AMD/ATI financials are here. AMD stock value is 1/4 of what it was
last year at the same time. There are a lot of big negatives on their
balance sheet:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=amd

And this page has even more details. Wow, all of AMD is now worth less
than half of what they paid for ATI in 2006! Looks like that was a
really bad move.

I'm not so certain. In the short term, the numbers seem to suggest that AMD
buying ATI was a bad move. And the future might indeed show that it was a
bad move.

HOWEVER, in the context of how hardware components are going to evolve over
the next (roughly) ten years, AMD is still in a better position (after
purchasing ATI) to compete with Intel / nvidia in the LONG run. That is, if
their current financial problems don't totally doom the company to
non-existence.

You need to keep in mind that the CPU, as we know it today, will soon be
replaced by the GPU. In other words, AMD would have to start producing
higher-end "graphics cards" (graphics chips really) or go out of business.
This applies to Intel as well, but Intel has been kinda sorta dabbling in
graphics chips for a long time. So Intel wouldn't necessarily need to buy
an ATI or an nvidia to prepare to retool for the new platforms on the near
horizon, where the GPU takes over the CPU functions.

I know it might be hard for some people to imagine, but the CPU as we know
it today is quickly becoming obsolete. Graphics chips have advanced so far
and become so powerful that soon it will be unnecessary to even install a
CPU in a computer. The graphics processor will soon be so powerful, that
asking the GPU to also perform the CPU functions will be like tossing a bag
of concrete in the back of your pickup. Will the "engine" notice the extra
load or slow down at all? Nope. Likewise, the CPU functions, if handled by
the GPU, will not noticeably slow down the GPU at all.

That is the future of the PC platform...no video card, just a video chip
(GPU) on the mainboard, where the CPU used to be.

So it was the RIGHT thing for AMD to buy ATI. It was their only route that
might possibly lead to the long-term survival of the AMD corporation. Was
it a mistake? I think in the long run one of two things will happen:
1) AMD/ATI will overcome current financial problems and survive long enough
to produce the new GPUs (which function as CPUs also) that bring the
combined corporation back to profitability.
2) AMD, as a corporation, might go bankrupt or be sold to Intel or nvidia
or someone else. But IF this happens, it will not be as a result (direct or
indirect) of the purchase of ATI. Without ATI, option 2 would have
happened, eventually. The purchase of ATI was the only thing that MIGHT
prevent it.

I'm hoping 1 will happen. -Dave