Henri Richard explains why AMD failed to gain more marketshare

[fazers_on_stun]

Monkeys are cool.

Now I wonder what would happen if Apple hired a monkey?

They did:

[flash=425,344]http://www.youtube.com/v/8avOiTUcD4Y[/flash]

 

[amdfangirl]

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

 

[Guest]

I could just keep on posting images but I'll let you read the article instead :-

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

Now, middle of 2004. What was this joker saying - a person looking at the situation “with an objective set of eyes” would never buy AMD chips. ? Oh yeah? Could have fooled me - that looks a lot like intel being beaten soundly by a bunch of AMD cpu's.


If intel think they have any hope of this being used as 'evidence' they are once again, sorely mistaken. Fact is, in 2004 AMD had intel beaten in every department.

 

[amdfangirl]

True that.

I think they meant business PCs tho.

 

[Guest]

He added that AMD is saddled with a reputation that “we’re cheap, less reliable, lower quality consumer type product.”

Nah they don't know what they mean tbh.

What makes me wonder is, intel already know this stuff. Imo they are just playing their fanboys as fools by releasing this amazing info. The FTC aren't gonna buy it, who would? Anybody who knows anything about cpu's knows that AMD had intel over a barrel in '04, the only people who don't are desperate intel fanboys.

 

[amdfangirl]

Cheap, defiantly, less reliable certainly not! lower quality? have you ever seen what budget Intel matx mobos are like lol?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Best explanation Ive heard, since none of these sites can now get Henri to reply, is that at the time, he was disgruntled, and the way theyre advertising their product, even he wouldnt buy one.
Now, this makes more sense to what history shows us as a reality of context, where we actually have to go and place context to random comments.
Same thing applies to PO's comments on Michael Dell, and we all know what Intels activities were at the time with Dell, the billions et al.
Now, which makes sense to you? You can be a rabid fan of either scenario/company, but to average Joe, guess what hed be thinking?
So, hiow much harder for it would it be for Intel to convince a judge of this as proofs of AMDs inferiority, when jennyh shows us benches which need to comply in order to take this into Intels context, vs AMDs position and the FTCS allegations, along with NYs, that the billions shuffled to Dell and POs comments about best friend money can buy?
Thats why my first comment was CMOOONN MAAAANNN, is this the best Intels lawyers could do?
Oh yea, besides the fact, they did agree to 4 billion in settlement

 

[amdfangirl]

Just give AMD and myself some money.

FInd some lame excuse to sue Intel.

AMD could really use money to stay competitive.

 

[someguy7]

He added that AMD is saddled with a reputation that “”

Nah they don't know what they mean tbh.

What makes me wonder is, intel already know this stuff. Imo they are just playing their fanboys as fools by releasing this amazing info. The FTC aren't gonna buy it, who would? Anybody who knows anything about cpu's knows that AMD had intel over a barrel in '04, the only people who don't are desperate intel fanboys.

Intel is playing their fanboys nothing. Intel is just trying whatever BS it can to get out of this with as little damage as possible. Intel could fricking care less about its stupid fanboys.

Yes anybody that knew anything about cpus new the AMDs where better. The problem is that the vasy majority of people do not know anything about computers. The did not and still do not even know what AMD is. Most people dont even know what a CPU is period.

And sadly since AMD did not advertise at all back then even if people did know the AMD name and not much else. Most of those people knew them as a company that "we’re cheap, less reliable, lower quality consumer type product." Even to this day I would say that comment still holds up true reguarding the general public. People just have no clue what AMD is. All they know is Intel because of adds and all the OEMs like sony,hp,dell,apple and so on.

This crap that Intel released is just that crap. And your crazy spin on it is crap as well.

 

[Guest]

The benches are the proof. There are plenty more 2004 articles all around the web that prove AMD wasn't only holding their own, they were actually miles ahead in every department.

You're a judge, what you gonna believe? Intel's 'proof' or the benchmarks from the period?

Intel *must* know this. Therefore this article, everything around is must be designed purely to keep the fanboys happy. Gotta give the fanboys a reason right? I mean if we're honest, it's been a one way street of terrible news for intel all year (apart from great financial results).

Intel are feeding their fanboys with garbage, there is no way the FTC will buy this 'evidence'.

 

[randomizer]

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

 

[Guest]

And sadly since AMD did not advertise at all back then even if people did know the AMD name and not much else. Most of those people knew them as a company that "we’re cheap, less reliable, lower quality consumer type product." Even to this day I would say that comment still holds up true reguarding the general public. People just have no clue what AMD is. All they know is Intel because of adds and all the OEMs like sony,hp,dell,apple and so on.

This crap that Intel released is just that crap. And your crazy spin on it is crap as well.

AMD did advertise back then, but a lot of it was banned or refused. Remember the railtrack one?

I'm not even American yet I've seen that one. How many other ads did AMD get banned around that time?

 

[amdfangirl]

All the cool ones, Jenny.

AMD makes cool ads.

Like the Monkey one.

Hooray for AMD!

 

[Guest]

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

In 2004 AMD were so far ahead even THG were showing it in most benches.

 

[amdfangirl]

Why don't people respond to me.

I must live in another universe.

Oh well.

Headache now.

Lost my muffins.

 

[MU_Engineer]

+1 on that...

I got so many AMD computers I won't go around listing them all but my point is the cpu is anything but unreliable or crap quality.

And how is that different from a lot of cheap OEM Intel-powered boxes? I've run across tons of Intel-powered machines with crappy PSUs and crappy motherboards too. Yes, a lot of AMD-powered machines in the early 2000s had crappy VIA chipsets that gave them a lot of trouble. But so did a lot of Intel chips. Intel went whole-hog into RDRAM-land and minor chipset vendors like VIA and SIS had to pick up the slack and provide chipsets that used more sane kinds of RAM. And let's not forget how crappy the i845/PC133 chipset was, either. Or for that fact, just about any Intel IGP chipset except for a few of the top-of-the-range unified-shader models like the G965, G35, and G45.

 

[pausert20]

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.

 

[Chad Boga]

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

Every site became an Intel shill when Conroe was released. :lol:

 

[notty22]

Monkeys are cool.

Now I wonder what would happen if Apple hired a monkey?

I don't know, but lol are you referring to this,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DPQW0e9ufM&feature=player_embedded

This is to funny
AMD R+D

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Cutting prices t o your sellers/OEMs including rebates, which locked in Intels marketshare.
Nothing hard here to understand. Did the Huffington Post go into where the lowering made the OEMs prohibit AMD sales?
Now, you may ask, whats wrong here, obviously the prices were lowered?
Well, if theres a certain profit margin locked in, and a certain marketshare locked in, AMD wasnt truly allowed to compete with major OEM pricing, which was lower than Intels, but wasnt allowed, and the bids were used against AMD at times, allowing Intel to see them, so they could appear above board and undercut those bids illegally. Again, gauranteeing tho sometimes smaller profit, and true competition, still limiting AMDs marketshare, which eventually effects bidding strength, growth etc

 

[someguy7]

AMD did advertise back then, but a lot of it was banned or refused. Remember the railtrack one?

I'm not even American yet I've seen that one. How many other ads did AMD get banned around that time?

I have never seen a AMD ad on tv. Never. Maybe every ad AMD ever made got banned then because I never seen one back then or now on tv.

You're delusion to think that Intel would release this junk to keep its fanboys happy. They are FANBOYS. Your point defeats the logic for the purpose of the term fanboy itself.

 

[jimmysmitty]

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/athlon 64 3800_05310410515/2354.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/athlon 64 3800_05310410515/2353.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/athlon 64 3800_05310410515/2365.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/athlon 64 3800_05310410515/2363.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/athlon 64 3800_05310410515/2364.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/athlon 64 3800_05310410515/2369.png

I could just keep on posting images but I'll let you read the article instead :-

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

Now, middle of 2004. What was this joker saying - a person looking at the situation “with an objective set of eyes” would never buy AMD chips. ? Oh yeah? Could have fooled me - that looks a lot like intel being beaten soundly by a bunch of AMD cpu's.


If intel think they have any hope of this being used as 'evidence' they are once again, sorely mistaken. Fact is, in 2004 AMD had intel beaten in every department.

Not very impressive. I mean by current logic Intel was right behind AMD back then using those benchmarks. So if the P4 3.4 was cheaper than the high end FX chip, wouldn't you go for the Intel option? Or do we consider power, ICP and such for back then unlike now where its only price range?

Because I will tell you this: during that time AMDs CPUs were the more expensive ones.

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.

LMFAO........

So the FTC claims Intel raised prices and reduced consumer choice yet currently there are like 6 steps from AMD and Intel to choose from by cutting prices? How is that possible?

Makes me think that the FTC is in it for themselves and not the consumer. Maybe they were bored?

Cutting prices t o your sellers/OEMs including rebates, which locked in Intels marketshare.
Nothing hard here to understand. Did the Huffington Post go into where the lowering made the OEMs prohibit AMD sales?
Now, you may ask, whats wrong here, obviously the prices were lowered?
Well, if theres a certain profit margin locked in, and a certain marketshare locked in, AMD wasnt truly allowed to compete with major OEM pricing, which was lower than Intels, but wasnt allowed, and the bids were used against AMD at times, allowing Intel to see them, so they could appear above board and undercut those bids illegally. Again, gauranteeing tho sometimes smaller profit, and true competition, still limiting AMDs marketshare, which eventually effects bidding strength, growth etc

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.

I have never seen a AMD ad on tv. Never. Maybe every ad AMD ever made got banned then because I never seen one back then or now on tv.

You're delusion to think that Intel would release this junk to keep its fanboys happy. They are FANBOYS. Your point defeats the logic for the purpose of the term fanboy itself.

NO!!!!!!!!!!

I would agree though.

They are trying to prove a point. My guess would be that even the "at the time" current employees had issues with AMD. That and AMD was capacity strained. But that will never count. Because hey, if you can't meet demand then your market share should keep going up exponentially.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Do I have to repeat it all again jimmy? If AMD was only allowed bids to show Intel wasnt "cheating" where they alreay had AMDs bids ahead of time, all the others were prohibited.
What does all the others being progibited mean for pricing your asking? Well, imagine AMD offers 38 per chip, while Intel offers 40 after rebate, then those prices were never reduced, they were 40 instead pf 37 or less if Intel wanted to be truly competitive.\So, unless the EU, the FTC, the state of NY, Japan and Korea are all wrong here, 40 is not less than 37

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Now, since AMD was hurt so badly by this, and prevented from growth and marketshare and mindshare etc, they didnt have the means to be truly competitive at some point, and since Intel had released C2D where they actually retook the lead in perf, and also yet to release a discrete, because I know what comes nxt, AMD did this, AMD did that, spent too much for this, couldnt supply that, but instead Intel cant do discrete, and until their IGP moves into die, and is capable of what were seeing with BD, the stories not over on any of this, and thus those comments dont mean a thing until its all said and done.
If you invest in 1 direction, and it causes you to hurt for a time until those investments come to fruition, sure, you can point to whats going on now, but after the impact of those investments are seen is when to tell the story, and as a famous ex football coach says.... not so fast my friend.
This also applies to LRB as well, when its ready, it will hopefully do for Intel what fusion will for AMD.
They too spent billions etc, raised hopes then dropped them as well. If its not out by the time fusion is, will we then say Intel is a failure? And its all their fault, sitting on all those billions?
Or, should we then at that time point towards LRB coming, and haswell?
Theres always 2 sides to a street

 

[notty22]

.\So, unless the EU, the FTC, the state of NY, Japan and Korea are all wrong here, 40 is not less than 37

Yes they really could be wrong. Or only partly warranted to announce this public case. Its been said that Intel could have avoided this by agreeing to certain future conditions. They chose not to. So now we are going to see/hear evidence over the course of years trying to prove to a judge, whether Intel needs to be taken down a notch.
This is the governments job. The same thing has been done to Microsoft all over the world and individually by many more states than "NY" , 18 states!
United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
Are they so competitive at business/sales tactics that it hinders competition ?
Well Intel does not think so. They are going to prove , that AMD was merely incompetent , that they have lost market share due to inferior products, and they will use things like that statement and testimony about the products over the past decade. AMD's decision to buy ATI....