Aura89:

The point is you can't determine how "well" a company is doing if their supply is so low that it makes it look like they are "selling everything they produce", as that's an anomaly. If their supply was at normal level, then they wouldn't be selling all they could, and they'd be selling less then they had before, given the fact you can in fact find these processors for sale in retail currently.

You seem to be deliberately ignoring the sheer scale that Intel produces. Supposing they're producing less than they did before their supply issue (I don't have any exact numbers on this), they're still producing and selling exponentially more product than AMD. So yes, Intel is doing just fine, and their shareholders seem to agree.

This means that they aren't doing as well as they could be doing and to imply that because their supply is low and they are "selling everything they produce" is somehow a good thing is simply wrong.

Of course they're not doing as well as they could be, but they're still doing more than good enough. In fact, I'd argue they're doing better than they should be. The fact their competitor has a greater supply issue suggests Intel is still in an advantage, since Intel can meet demand quicker than AMD. It's crucial to analyze the entire picture.

Otherwise any time a company has bad years, or bad products, all they'd have to do is limit supply, "sell everything they produce", and that would mean the company doesn't have an issue at hand, even though their sales are lower. That's not how it works.

No shit... but that's completely besides the point. Selling out for the sake of selling out isn't a good thing. Selling out when you're heavily outnumbering your main rival who is also selling out is a good thing, because it means you're still going to be making the business that they otherwise would have. Look at it in this way: In a parallel universe where Intel's production rate was exactly the same but they weren't limited on stock, that means people are so dissatisfied with their products that they'd rather wait for AMD's supply to keep up or pay extra. That would be terrible news for Intel.

And just so we're clear, i'm not comparing them to AMD here, i'm not saying AMDs lack of availability in products isn't an issue either. I am simply stating that if any company can't produce enough that they are "selling everything they make", that's not inherently a positive, especially when said company used to be making far more, and was still selling far more.

If you're not comparing them to AMD then the point is entirely moot. AMD's success and supply directly determines the severity of Intel's situation. Since Intel is still out-pacing AMD, their situation isn't anywhere near as dire as people make it out to be. EDIT TL;DR: As much as you don't want to be out of stock since (because that implies sales you're missing out on), you don't want excess stock either when your opponent is running dry, because that means you're making products nobody wants.

schmidtbag:

EDIT TL;DR: As much as you don't want to be out of stock since (because that implies sales you're missing out on), you don't want excess stock either when your opponent is running dry, because that means you're making products nobody wants.

Ofcourse there is balance, but this is not where Intel appears to be given their own statements they have given out to their customers. But my only point was that the idea of being able to sell everything you produce makes you appear "successful" is simply not that simple. If in 2017 you were able to produce 1000 of an item and sell 900 in that same year, but in 2018 you were only able to produce 100 of that same item and sold all 100, that doesn't somehow make you appear "successful", and it's 1/9th that you had sold the previous year. So given the fact that Intel is "selling everything they can make" combined with their own statements of not being able to meet demand due to shortages: No, they are not "well off" in that specific situation. Doesn't mean the company as a whole isn't, they have a lot of markets and products. But the statement of "Funnily enough Intel is still selling everything they can produce. So, while things might look dim for the blue team in reviews, Intel is, at the end of the day, a financial corporation, not a technology corporation, so they don't care as long as they keep making money, which they indeed do, boundlessly." Implies positivity where there isn't any, given their own statements. It is not a positive for my company to sell all 100 items of what i made in a year if the previous year i was able to produce 10 times that and sell 9 times that. There is no positive statement there, even if i'm still financially capable. It's that simple. Again, not comparing to AMD, i'm not saying Intel is in trouble financially, i'm simply, and plainly, stating what i stated above. If someone, you, anyone wants to try to say i'm saying anything different, that's your own deal. My one and true and only statement is: If you have less production of an item then you did previously and therefore are selling everything you have of that product, that's not NECESSARILY a positive, and usually isn't, unless somehow you got exactly the production to demand ratio 100% right (not very likely). I don't know how many times i have to repeat that in different ways to make that clear.

Aura89:

So to be successful you're saying that one must limit their production to below demand and say "Woohoo! We're selling everything we make!"? Yes, logical statement right there. I guess i'll go build something that i'll sell for $100, and only produce 1 a year, and call myself successful.

^That's my original statement. It doesn't talk about Intel, it doesn't talk about AMD, it doesn't talk about either of their financial capabilities. It only talks about how a limited supply meaning you sell everything you make doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how well a company is doing for themselves or that product-line.

Aura89:

But my only point was that the idea of being able to sell everything you produce makes you appear "successful" is simply not that simple. If in 2017 you were able to produce 1000 of an item and sell 900 in that same year, but in 2018 you were only able to produce 100 of that same item and sold all 100, that doesn't somehow make you appear "successful", and it's 1/9th that you had sold the previous year.

I agree. I'm not arguing against that. But as is most things in life, not everything is so black and white. If you ignore AMD entirely then you'd be technically correct, but the thing is, AMD does exist and affects the interpretation of S&D as a result.

So given the fact that Intel is "selling everything they can make" combined with their own statements of not being able to meet demand due to shortages: No, they are not "well off" in that specific situation. Doesn't mean the company as a whole isn't, they have a lot of markets and products. But the statement of "Funnily enough Intel is still selling everything they can produce. So, while things might look dim for the blue team in reviews, Intel is, at the end of the day, a financial corporation, not a technology corporation, so they don't care as long as they keep making money, which they indeed do, boundlessly." Implies positivity where there isn't any, given their own statements.

They are well off, they're just not doing anywhere near as well as they potentially could be. Compare their financial situation to AMD's and they're doing just fine.

It is not a positive for my company to sell all 100 items of what i made in a year if the previous year i was able to produce 10 times that and sell 9 times that. There is no positive statement there, even if i'm still financially capable. It's that simple.

As far as I'm concerned, Intel's production rate didn't drop to 10%. It went down, but there's no way it went that far down. So, that's not really an accurate comparison.

If you have less production of an item then you did previously and therefore are selling everything you have of that product, that's not NECESSARILY a positive, and usually isn't, unless somehow you got exactly the production to demand ratio 100% right (not very likely).

I agree, but again, Intel's production didn't plummet that much and you have to analyze the whole picture. Looking at just Intel's situation doesn't determine whether or not this situation they're in is bad.

I don't know how many times i have to repeat that in different ways to make that clear.

Likewise.

^That's my original statement. It doesn't talk about Intel, it doesn't talk about AMD, it doesn't talk about either of their financial capabilities. It only talks about how a limited supply meaning you sell everything you make doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how well a company is doing for themselves or that product-line.

Yes, in some cases that's true. It's not unanimously true. What you're claiming would be true in 2015, and it would also be true if AMD just didn't exist. But that's not today's reality.