Game Over Amd Evil Empire Wins Rebels Lose
While I am neither an AMD fan nor Intel fan, I've traditionally opted for the best price/performance value processor. I currently have 7 desktops, 6 are Intel and 1 AMD. In the following sequence of quotes, I've taken them mostly from the NY vs. Intel anti-trust suit. You can see where Intel want's AMD to go and where they currently are now.
Obviously, Intel used underhanded tactics to get there, the fact of the matter is that we are there now and AMD is not in a good position.
(Page 12)
This pretty much explains how OEM feels about Intel. You go with them or risk loosing money.
(Page 17)
Intel DOES NOT want to eliminate AMD, but instead keep them as a second tier brand. This is of course so they can maintain a near monopoly. If AMD does not exist, you can bet Intel will be broken up or their x86 license open up to other manufacturers.
(Page 20)
People much smarter than myself, KNOWS that with competition, comes better products and better pricing. Yet everyday, I hear Intel fanboys screaming for AMD to "throw in the towel". When I read these type of comments my eyes are rolling. People really do not know how bad things can get if AMD does not exist.
In early December, several sources sites AMD changing their tune with a new CEO and restructuring from November.
GG AMD. While it seems AMD played right into Intel's hand, given the current AMD desktop/server products, this approach is the ONLY logical path for AMD.
Obviously, Intel used underhanded tactics to get there, the fact of the matter is that we are there now and AMD is not in a good position.
(Page 12)
Quote:
sourceFrom an internal HP email: “In this market, Intel dictates the rules of the game
…”
…”
This pretty much explains how OEM feels about Intel. You go with them or risk loosing money.
(Page 17)
Quote:
Intel therefore argued to OEMs that Intel would “continue to pigeon hole AMD to the bottom 10% of segment.…” Intel’s Paul Ottellini believed that AMD units which were sold on “the backstreets of beijing [sic] are wonderful.… [T]here is really no question that in the long run, I would like to see amd [sic] output spread round the world as a low cost/low value, unbranded brand…” Accordingly, in the following years, Intel focused on barring AMD’s access to this vital high ground – the corporate market and its gatekeepers, the major OEMs.
Intel DOES NOT want to eliminate AMD, but instead keep them as a second tier brand. This is of course so they can maintain a near monopoly. If AMD does not exist, you can bet Intel will be broken up or their x86 license open up to other manufacturers.
(Page 20)
Quote:
During the relevant period, OEMs understood that they would benefit from increased competition in the microprocessor market. If a competitor such as AMD could establish itself as a genuine alternative to Intel, they (and consumers) would enjoy more choices, lower prices, and better products. Nevertheless, they frequently decided, when faced with the array of incentives and threats which Intel brought to bear, to collaborate with Intel in restricting their purchases from AMD.
People much smarter than myself, KNOWS that with competition, comes better products and better pricing. Yet everyday, I hear Intel fanboys screaming for AMD to "throw in the towel". When I read these type of comments my eyes are rolling. People really do not know how bad things can get if AMD does not exist.
In early December, several sources sites AMD changing their tune with a new CEO and restructuring from November.
Quote:
source from PC WorldIn an e-mail to Computerworld, Silverman wrote that the company is rethinking its course.
"Any time a company is more focused on its competitor than what the market wants and needs, it is probably not in a good place for long-term growth" wrote Silverman. "Our CEO Rory Read is driving a shift internally to think beyond the typical and outdated AMD/Intel mindset.
"At the end of the day, we aren't focused on keeping pace with Intel, we are focused on keeping pace with consumers and the market," he said. "That is how we are going to win."
"Any time a company is more focused on its competitor than what the market wants and needs, it is probably not in a good place for long-term growth" wrote Silverman. "Our CEO Rory Read is driving a shift internally to think beyond the typical and outdated AMD/Intel mindset.
"At the end of the day, we aren't focused on keeping pace with Intel, we are focused on keeping pace with consumers and the market," he said. "That is how we are going to win."
GG AMD. While it seems AMD played right into Intel's hand, given the current AMD desktop/server products, this approach is the ONLY logical path for AMD.
Imagine the market. Intel would have a monopoly, the courts would force Intel to liberalize x86, AMD could pick it again and modify it at will... And break havoc amongst the foes XD
Nice write up though.
Intel would probably be forced to liberalize the X86 standard (which IMO should've been forced to do so AGES ago, after all it's a standard), and it would probably become the best era X86 has EVER seen.
That said, i personally believe AMD should just die shrink Phenom II and release it for the mainstream market. Leave the new stuff for the enthusiast market.
Now, yes, Intel did provide incentives to help sell their chips. Intel just had so much money, they knew in a starvation contest, AMD would cripple and die first. But, they don't want to kill AMD. They just want to make it so AMD can't make some huge push and overtake Intel. AMD might not have been in such a tough spot if they wouldn't have screwed up Phenom, Phenom 2, and Bulldozer.