Henri Richard explains why AMD failed to gain more marketshare

[jimmysmitty]

I think the whole thing vs MS alone was retarded. I mean the EU had them take IE out because it gave people no choice..... so they think consumers are dumb enough to not know about other browsers yet they didn't do a damn thing to Apple and Safari in OS X.

The US vs MS was just even worse. people just wanted to get in on a class action lawsuit and get money. They didn't even care or know what it was about except they might get a small share of money.

Intel has evidence to show that AMD did make bad choices. the problem is that it seems that some people don't want to aknowledge that and want to blame it wholy on Intel when there is plenty of evidence to show that AMD could have easily taken themselves down to this level without any hinderance from Intel.

As I have said before JDJ, if you cannot meet a demand they will look elsewhere and if you cannot provide a platform for the same price or cheaper than the competition your chances of getting those sales greatly diminishes.

 

[tuesday0180]

People who aren't into computers don't know what an AMD is, but they most likely know what Intel is. Just like Nvidia vs Ati. People who don't know too much about computers might think any computer that has a "Geforce" video card is good computer even though it might be an onboard video card. The same can't be said ATI cards.

It's marketing.

 

[Chad Boga]

People who aren't into computers don't know what an AMD is, but they most likely know what Intel is. Just like Nvidia vs Ati. People who don't know too much about computers might think any computer that has a "Geforce" video card is good computer even though it might be an onboard video card. The same can't be said ATI cards.

It's marketing.

Makes me wonder if ATI should drop the Radeon name and come up with something more catchy.

Radeon sounds like a brand of bubble bath product.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

And, as Ive said before, if you cant possibly sell to OEMs, your name and marketshare and sales and influence and growth and R&D and profits and new hires, and layoffs, and pricing in a free market etc etc etc.
These are the things the juges will see, could haves, the should haves, remove choice, and things change drastically, and thats what Intels done here, which is OK, while others say, the EU shouldnt be doing the very same thing?
The EUs attempts are to simply allow for those changes by others to take place, whereas Intel actions were propietary, and only allowed choice for Intel, and if people cant see this very basic difference... I dont know what to say

 

[pausert20]

I can't wait till September when this gets all rolling.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Well JDJ until you can explain the EUs decision vs MS and why they haven't gone after Apple for a even more closed and proprietary setup I can't take anything the EU does seriously. They could fine the oil companies that make money that I despise and I wouldn't care.

Thee EU is just a piss poor setup version of the USSR that in time will fail somewhere, fall apart and leave the smaller countries in a worse state than before the EU came to be.

 

[Reynod]

I thought Anandtech was an Intel shill, maybe only since 2006? 😀

Anand was bought and paid for a long time ago ... as was THG after TP left.

You only have to look at any of the Shmid and Roos stuff ... every article they ever produced on CPU's is Intal biased ... even the dual core challenge test of the X2 vs Pentium D ... where the Pentium mobo blew up ... among a few reboots and lockups.

Intel pressure the hardware sites by giving better ES silicon to those who produce positive articles, and product much earlier than the others.

Any sites who don't toe the line are ignored.

The compiler issue was know some time ago but the major sites were too scared to publish.

The OEM's should have been pushing out AMD based PC's by the millions during that time but were paid to do otherwise.

The level of illegal business practice was enormous ... and heavily damaged AMD's business.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Well JDJ until you can explain the EUs decision vs MS and why they haven't gone after Apple for a even more closed and proprietary setup I can't take anything the EU does seriously. They could fine the oil companies that make money that I despise and I wouldn't care.

Thee EU is just a piss poor setup version of the USSR that in time will fail somewhere, fall apart and leave the smaller countries in a worse state than before the EU came to be.

OK, first, look up the word monolpoly, since all this in basically what all this is about, and how you prevent companies from acting on them.
Now, for those that already know all this, just skip this post, for those that dont, cant, or cant discern the difference from proprietary, or being the low player within a monopoly etc, read on.
OK, working from the assumption of the greater good for maket, under a monopoly, an entity, whether its the EU or Korea or the US whatever, the law and laws there go after the greater player within a monopoly, not the other way around, and its not the workings of any part, OS etc being proprietary in and of itself, but how it reflects its use/demand or control over a market, regardless of it being proprietary or not. The concern is monopoly here, and THRU monopoly, then proprietary comes into play, so remember this, monopoly first, then proprietary, and of course, monopoly is where the law applies, and not thru proprietary uses of any part SW or OS.

OK, now, since Apple doesnt apply according the definition of a monopoly, then its proprietary SW, OS or HW and parts dont apply to the entities stated above , as well as others.
Since both M$ and Intel fall within the terms of a monopoly, then it behooves earler said entities EU et all etc to watch for any proprietary or monopolistic behaviors from M$ and Intel , and not AMD, Apple, Chrome etc.
So, this is the law, and at this point, I need not explain again further, cause if you dont get it by now, ignorance is not an excuse

 

[Guest]

But lets consider this: How did Intel cause prices to go up? You can get a quad core from AMD under $200 and Intel near $200. 1 year ago a dual core was still near $200 and 4 years ago dual core started near $300. If anything prices have gone down.

Yes, because AMD have been bringing prices down. I noticed you didn't mention the $99 Quad.

 

[Chad Boga]

Yes, because AMD have been bringing prices down. I noticed you didn't mention the $99 Quad.

So you want a situation where CPU prices increase?

AMD supporters are looking to make CPU's more expensive for consumers.

 

[Guest]

Yeah it's only taken 4 years for AMD to be competitive because of intel's anti-competitive behaviour. And to do that they need to release quads at $99 while intel make billions selling garbage duo's for more, not to mention costlier mobo's too.

+1 for idiots everywhere.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

As AMDs chips get better, they will command a higher price. This is normal, it shouldnt effect Intels pricing at all, should it?

 

[Chad Boga]

Yeah it's only taken 4 years for AMD to be competitive because of intel's anti-competitive behaviour. And to do that they need to release quads at $99 while intel make billions selling garbage duo's for more, not to mention costlier mobo's too.

+1 for idiots everywhere.

As an ordinary consumer you would have no concern, as a one eyed fanboy, you would rather have higher prices for everyone, so that your beloved is better off.

+1 for idiot fanboys everywhere.

 

[Guest]

As an ordinary consumer you would have no concern, as a one eyed fanboy, you would rather have higher prices for everyone, so that your beloved is better off.

+1 for idiot fanboys everywhere.

No I'd rather idiot fanboys woke up and stopped supporting laughably overpriced cpu's like the new i3 and i5's. That way, maybe *everyone* would have cheaper cpu's and intel shareholders would have less cars/holidays.

 

[Reynod]

touche ...

 

[Chad Boga]

No I'd rather idiot fanboys woke up and stopped supporting laughably overpriced cpu's like the new i3 and i5's. That way, maybe *everyone* would have cheaper cpu's and intel shareholders would have less cars/holidays.

How do you know that people in great numbers are supporting those CPU's ?

On the thread on this forum, just about everyone shook their head and said they were overpriced.

So just what is it that you are crying over again?

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Just curious, how do you embed Youtube vids into THG?

First you have to swim to France, where BOM is located, and remember to bring a big tube of glue

Actually it's quite easy - right-click on the Youtube video (on Youtube's site obiviously), & select "embed". Then come here & click on the View More button & select embed video, then paste the code into the popup box...

Hopefully Upendra will not see this post and thus we will be spared lots of embedded videos 😗

 

[fazers_on_stun]

I found this article to be on the more Intel side of the fence and is asking the question: What was FTC thinking?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lars-h-liebeler/true-equality-in-the-chip_b_420924.html

A single excerpt from the article linked above:
The complaint alleges that Intel has harmed consumers by raising prices and reducing consumer choice. In support of this charge, the FTC offers Exhibit A: direct evidence that Intel acted aggressively to maintain its market share by the most nefarious of means -- cutting prices. Setting aside the immediate contradiction between the supposed result (higher prices) and the means used (lower prices), this practice has caused computer companies (Original Equipment Manufacturers or OEMs) to prefer Intel chips in their computers. Intel's competitors are relegated to the "unequal" position of having less market share.

IMO, once all the facts are known, it'll be a case of yes Intel did engage in some pretty anticompetitive behaviour, but AMD was so inept in their business planning & execution that they are as equally to blame for not increasing their marketshare. Doesn't anyone here remember all the flak AMD got over screwing their longtime OEMs after landing the Dell deal??? Late delivery, etc. A lot of those OEMs decided to reduce their dependency on AMD after that.

And given the amount of trouble AMD had with 65nm, at least initially, their large number of crippled tri-cores they (GF) offer now, as well as the above - I think the conclusion is pretty obvious that AMD had trouble fabbing sufficient quantities of CPUs to increase their marketshare back then. Probably a much larger percentage of defective chips to be thrown away. As further evidence, look at the GF spinoff - the official reason is that AMD could not compete with Intel on the fab upgrading cycle. However I have always suspected that the main reason AMD did so, was that their process (and now GF's process) never was as good as Intel's so AMD unloaded that part of their operation on the unsuspecting UAE.

That also explains why AMD decided to buy out ATI instead of throwing good money after bad in building/upgrading their fabs - might as well diversify into something other than the CPU business just in case Intel ate their lunch, which Intel did with Conroe.

Of course the AMD fanbois here will continue to flog the "evil Intel" excuse for the next 20 years as well as the previous 40, to excuse AMD's lackluster performance .

 

[wh3resmycar]

amd do advertise:
_________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

im betting 20-30% of the price premium of an amd chip goes to ferrari 😉....

 

[archibael]

OK, first, look up the word monolpoly, since all this in basically what all this is about, and how you prevent companies from acting on them.
Now, for those that already know all this, just skip this post, for those that dont, cant, or cant discern the difference from proprietary, or being the low player within a monopoly etc, read on.
OK, working from the assumption of the greater good for maket, under a monopoly, an entity, whether its the EU or Korea or the US whatever, the law and laws there go after the greater player within a monopoly, not the other way around, and its not the workings of any part, OS etc being proprietary in and of itself, but how it reflects its use/demand or control over a market, regardless of it being proprietary or not. The concern is monopoly here, and THRU monopoly, then proprietary comes into play, so remember this, monopoly first, then proprietary, and of course, monopoly is where the law applies, and not thru proprietary uses of any part SW or OS.

This is certainly reflected in US antitrust case law, where the player considered dominant in a market is forbidden from engaging in behavior which is allowed in the "junior" player.

OK, now, since Apple doesnt apply according the definition of a monopoly, then its proprietary SW, OS or HW and parts dont apply to the entities stated above , as well as others.
Since both M$ and Intel fall within the terms of a monopoly, then it behooves earler said entities EU et all etc to watch for any proprietary or monopolistic behaviors from M$ and Intel , and not AMD, Apple, Chrome etc.
So, this is the law, and at this point, I need not explain again further, cause if you dont get it by now, ignorance is not an excuse

Actually, much of this stuff (I refer to the Microsoft case, of course, since I can't comment on any regarding Intel ) is coming from philosophical differences between the focus of antitrust legislation in various nations: the United States has historically focused the core of its legal basis for antitrust on the impact to consumers, and the EU (among others) has concentrated on the impact to competitive firms. The two are intertwined, of course; nobody denies that when all competitors are eliminated the consumer can be impacted. But where do you draw the line?

That is the heart of several recent disputes, IMO, and I think much recent FTC behavior is evidence that there are many within the United States who want to move US antitrust basis more in line with the EU and other players: focused on protecting competition rather than the consumer. Regardless of which side of the issue you fall on, it will be interesting to see how this falls out for that reason alone.

 

[someguy7]

Yes, because AMD have been bringing prices down. I noticed you didn't mention the $99 Quad.

The reason why AMD brings the prices down is because Intel forces them to do so. Since the launch of core2 AMD had to slash is prices so it can have a good price/performance offering.

The i3 and dual core i5s are priced way to high. But the orginal i5 caused the priced drop of the high end PII.

There was a even notorious AMD troll on these forums that used to say Intel was selling its core based cpus to cheap. They are forcing good ol AMD cut the prices by some of its cpus by about 50 percent.

 

[someguy7]

Yeah it's only taken 4 years for AMD to be competitive because of intel's anti-competitive behaviour. And to do that they need to release quads at $99 while intel make billions selling garbage duo's for more, not to mention costlier mobo's too.

+1 for idiots everywhere.

Intel did cause AMD harm with its BS. No doubt about. It is not all big bad Intels fault as you AMD fans make it out to be. AMD's k8 chips came out in 2003. The k10 came out 07 and 10.5 in 09.

The price 99 dollar quad is priced that way because AMD's is under 200 bucks.

Typical AMD troll logic at work. Blame everything on Intel.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

If a person is attacked by another person and gets his arm broken by the actions of the first, it doesnt matter if the afflicted goes swimming with aligators na d gets his rear chewed off, the attacker stil broke the law, and the anount of damages would only apply, not the attacking charges with subsequent damages.

What I find interesting is, Dems in this country claim they arent for big bidness, but yet their actions as it pertains to the FTC etc supports big bidness, and does lil for the lil guy, where its the opposite in the eyes of the Reps, where, theyre more concerned about the consumer.
I attribute this as to the often seen good cop bad cop we see in politics, where its easy to deal with, since both sides are covered, and as is often seen, the "strongest" is said position, as, its seen the Reps as being strong concerning bidness, gets the favorable position, or that of protecting the lil guy. Happens all the time.
Much like talking to horrible leaders, where the Reps bring bombs, or unfavorable at home, not good away for the perps, and the Dens bring words, favorable at home, and good away from home, regarding the perps. Just a lil edmacation for some folks

 

[Guest]

amd do advertise:
_________________________________________________________

http://img.hexus.net/v2/features/ferrari/DSC_0903.JPG

_________________________________________________________

im betting 20-30% of the price premium of an amd chip goes to ferrari 😉....

When your cpu gets into a lovely red notebook with the Ferrari badge on it, you make a lot of sales.

Don't underestimate the following that Ferrari has in Europe, especially in Italy and Germany. It's HUGE.

 

[randomizer]

You only have to look at any of the Shmid and Roos stuff ... every article they ever produced on CPU's is Intal biased

I personally don't think much of any articles written by the other countries' reviewers, and by those two in particular. They are all sub-standard. Unfortunately, the US staff have zero control over that.

Intel pressure the hardware sites by giving better ES silicon to those who produce positive articles, and product much earlier than the others.

And you have some evidence to back that up I assume?

The compiler issue was know some time ago but the major sites were too scared to publish.

You mean the news about it? I know for a fact that THG (US/UK) are not afraid to publish news/semi-editorial articles that don't put Intel in a nice light.

The OEM's should have been pushing out AMD based PC's by the millions during that time but were paid to do otherwise.

Well that's not exactly related to paid reviewers.