It seems to me that AMD has a few problems:
1) A confusing lineup. We have APUs, Athelons, Phenoms, and FX chips just on the consumer side of the market alone. Each product line has it's own name scheme, and there are huge overlaps in pricing and performance. I know this is not the end of the world, and it is not indecipherable if you do a little bit of research, but compare it to Intel; Intel has a bunch of different product lines, most of which share a single unified naming scheme, so even without the 'i3' or 'i7' name on front you can see something like the 2100 and the 3770K and know that the 2100 is a 2nd Gen Core processor (2), in the 1st tier of performance (1), as the lowest clock speed of that tier (0), and has basic graphics for it's level (0), while the 3770K is a 3rd gen (3), on the 7th tier (7), with a high clock speed (7), and basic graphics for it's level (0), and the K denotes that it is OCable. A CPU like the 2125 is going to be similar to the 2100 (because the 2 and 1 are the same) except that it has a higher clock speed (2) and has the premium graphics load-out (5). It is a simple system that makes for easy comparisons between processors, which is something that the average consumer relies upon to make decisions. Having a naming convention that is arbitrary, or merely sequential in the date of release, does not help anyone, and scares off customers
2) The APU branding is confusing. While most of us know that there is no real difference between an APU and a CPU, Joe consumer is very confused on the subject, or uneducated to the point of not even considering an APU. I mean, why bother calling it something else when it is just a CPU with premium graphics? The function it serves is the same, so don't make something more complicated than it has to be. There is a huge market of people who would be well served with an APU, but because there is no general understanding about what it is, people purchase what they feel they can understand (whether they understand it or not).
3) I can say with some certainty what the general lineup will be for Intel for the next 4 years (Haswell, Broadwell, Skylake, and Skymont, each released roughly 12-15 months apart). Every 2 years they come out with a new generation of CPU which will have an anticipated 20% performance increase per Watt, and in the off years we will get a tech increase (smaller die size) which will have a more modest 5-10% performance increase. This allows professionals to plan ahead with their budgets and time in order to request the funding they need for their systems well in advance of a product release. With AMD we do not get that. Regardless of how Good or Bad a product might be, a person cannot wait almost a year after an anticipated release date to upgrade their systems. When a product is being released we need more than a 1 month window of notice between the announcement and the product launch. It is OK to make a product announcement a year out, and then be off by a month or two, we just need to know a general time frame so that we can plan our lives. Release Trinity, and then have a predictable release schedule that you can meet
4) Again with public confusion. the FX 8 core processor does not have 8 cores. I realize that it is not HT technology as software does not need to be written specifically in order to use the off 'cores', but it is still much more similar to a HT core than an actual processor core. They would have been better served calling it a quad core with something attached to it, than to have all the debate and confusion around the product, because it drives people away. Any time you advertise a product, and even your fan base has to say 'but it isn't really...' is a lost sale.
5) Performance per Watt (!/W) is not nearly as important as our pop culture makes it out to be, but it is in the pop culture, so there needs to be more effort towards that end. Most of us don't care if our CPU takes a 77W load, or a 120W load, just so long as it pushes out performance, and the !/W stays below a level where cooling becomes an issue (like those poor Pentium 4s that ran so hot back in the day). However, in the mobile market it really is an issue, and they really need to work on that
6) And this is most important !/$. In this AMD has ALWAYS been the king of the hill until this last year. Yes, and argument can be made that the APUs have a better !/$ after the graphics are considered, but honestly APUs have overkill graphics for office and home use, and severely underpowered graphics for games. Even an HTPC with blueray content can run just fine with Intel HD graphics, so really what is the point? I am not saying that there is absolutely no market for it, but that they would be better served as a company either cutting back the IGP to make the chips cheaper and more competitive, or else going nuts with the IGP and make a dedicated GPU unnecessary while making it cheaper than an intel chip paired with a GPU.
On the other half of the spectrum you have the FX series which performs worse, while being more expensive than their old Phenom II line on many metrics. The new chips are complicated to make, and have a high failure rate which makes the chips expensive to produce. We now have perhaps the first time ever that Intel CPUs are cheaper than AMD CPUs, while offering devastatingly better performance in most use cases. With the exception of a few high-end nitch applications (3D work, and video editing on duel CPU rigs) Intel beats AMD on price and performance, and it is a wonder that anyone purchases their products at all (unless upgrading an old AM3 rig that they already own).
I like AMD as a company, they have great customer service, they are loyal to their employees, they pushed the envelope of technology and innovation for several years, and they have always been the ones to bring a cheaper workhorse CPU to the market where even if they did not have the speed crown, they were always the cheaper alternative. But now they are failing; specifically in marketing their products and giving clear choices, but also in providing products that meet the needs of the user at a lower budget than their juggernaut competition. They have damaged their trust in being able to put out compelling products on a time frame, and the trust that their new products will be better than the old ones. They are not so far gone that they cannot recover, but they need that fighting pioneering spirit that the company seems to have lost in order to make a comeback.