Originally Posted by guyladouche
I understand what you're trying to say, this situation is a bit different. It's kinda like Coke telling McD's that if they try to go with a competitor's drink, then Coke will go out of it's way to make sure no one goes to McD's.
I can understand that... but by Dell's own admission, this wasn't the case.
Are you insinuating that computer distributors like Dell was lying back then? This is what needs to be proven. If the distributors voluntarily agreed to not sell AMDs, then Intel shouldn't be solely faulted for that.
Back in the day, Burger King did in fact sell Pepsi... but when Pepsi started buying up KFC, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell directly competing in the food industry, BK decided... "Oh no... well we'll sell Coke then if you want to do that". They made a concious decision to sell one over the other. I'm sure by law most restaurants could sell both products (just like you can buy both products at various convenience stores) however this might not be the most profitable strategy in doing so plus it would require extra inventory and distribution lines to keep both products in stock at all times.
Sometimes companies just go with the "simple" solution that covers their profit goals... and that being the case, they make a decision based on what they think they can sell at the greatest profit reward point. If alot of customers had complained back then that they wanted more AMD units, I'm sure that Dell and other companies would have been more than happy to stock more of those units, but as such... they didn't. (not saying that there wasn't ANY demand... just that the demand probably wasn't great enough to convince them to open up another supply line for AMD processors)
Originally Posted by Urufu_Shinjiro
I see what you're saying but this is a little different. It's one thing for a company to sign an exclusive contract with coke or pepsi, it's another thing when there is no contract and pepsi pays the other guy bribe money not to sell coke. That is illigal, AMD would not still have a lawsuit in the court if what they were accusing intel of was not illigal. And the thunderbird era is not when this sort of thing became a problem, it was when the athlon64's were outperforming the P4's, and intel had the problems (remember prescHOT?). Trust me, if intel is proved to have done what AMD says they did they will be in some very serious legal trouble.
Edit: Looks like GuylaDouche beat me to the post while I was typing, but you see what we mean.
EDIT: Yes, Prescotts ran hot, but they still were compatible chipsets with most mainstream apps out there. A mainstream user wasn't overclocking them... and the heat was not so much as to make them shut down and stop working. It was us "overclockers" who were adversely affected by the heat... but we are not the "mainstream" that buys Dell's... therefore its a moot point.
AMD back then was still an "enthusiast" chip... if you had the skills to buy the specialty components to make them work great... then you did that, but for most mainstream folks... they just kept it simple and went with the "Intel safe bet".
Originally Posted by dralb
As others have already stated, it isn't the fact that McD's sells one product over the other, it is how they go about choosing that product. Also, I highly doubt most people eat McD's due to the taste. It is usually due to the fact that they are on every corner and people are bombarded with advertising, so it is usually the first thing that comes to mind. The same can be true for OEM's and Intel. Dell can state that Intel is what their customers prefer, but that may only be due to the fact that thats what Dell was pushing to its customers.
People are very suseptable to marketing and very rarely purchase a product on that products merits. Look at Tylenol. Why do people want to buy it? Well, it is the brand Docotrs choose most. Do they ever say that that is due to them selling it to hospitals the cheapest? No, it is assumed that it is a superior product. The industry creates the better product.
I am trying to say, is that the implications of one company choosing to support one brand over another can have huge implications to the success of that product. It really doesn't matter what is better, it is what is more popular.
Now, if Dell etc. had a legit contract with Intel, so be it. If Intel was conspiring illegally with them, well, I think it is important to see the overall effect this could have had on AMD. AMD could very well still be in the position it is in whether this happened or not, but it was a key moment in time for this rivalry. If the OEM's had pushed AMD more then, I would think the name would be better known now and that would effect sales from the home PC owner.
EDIT: Well of course... advertising does matter. That's part of the business strategy of selling your product.. This is no different in any other industry per your post.
BTW... on a side note, I in fact LIKE the taste of the Big Mac and the regular hamburger and double cheeseburger at McDonald's as well as their french fries. They don't have to advertise those items to me as I like them anyway. So "advertising" only goes so far when it comes to buyer preferences. (it's called "Brand Loyalty"... and alot of mainstream consumers have that.)