I'm not sure if you are trying to be deceptive, meladramatic, or simply are naive... At any rate, perhaps you ought to read the article that you quoted from. AMD has NOT been "losing market share".
- Apr 19, 2005
- 7,461
- 500
- 126
At one time AMD had a 21% market share but have falling down to 16%, the main problem is big OEM's getting squeezed and not using AMD cpu's anymore.
One OEM used to build 10 percent of the computers with AMD cpu's then it went down to 5 percent and then 2 percent and eventually in 2006 they will produce no AMD machines because they have a special deal with Intel.
Your contention is that AMD has lost market share even though the K8 is an excellent performer. But the truth is that AMD has actually gained market share in the K8 era.
When did AMD have a 21% share? (And you need to define which "market" you are referring to... All products, all cpu's, desktop space, workstation, server, mobile, etc.)
Links? Evidence?
AMD has never had 21% market share. I've studied the numbers from the past 3 fiscal years and 17% is the highest figure I've seen quoted -- and I believe that is being extremely generous.
Near as I can tell, this is just another troll-bait thread. Look at the title.
http://www.overclockers.com/tips00794/
NOt quite 21% but it says 20+% in 2001 and now 16.9%...So wings can stop lieing or spining the data like his company as well... All those years of great chips and since 2001 we are 3+% lower....Oh yeah marketshare is increasng the last few quartrs but that sems to happen a lot if you look at the numbers. It is not long enough to say anything for sure....
NOt quite 21% but it says 20+% in 2001 and now 16.9%...So wings can stop lieing or spining the data like his company as well... All those years of great chips and since 2001 we are 3+% lower....Oh yeah marketshare is increasng the last few quartrs but that sems to happen a lot if you look at the numbers. It is not long enough to say anything for sure....
- Apr 19, 2005
- 7,461
- 500
- 126
Yep it was when the Athlon first appeared and hit 1 Ghz first and caught Intel by surprise. The K8 is good, very good, AMD should have a 25% market share at least but with Intel doing business like the mafia it's hard to get onto the shelf.
i find this funny because someone filed a lawsuit you completely believe everything that is said. My opinion is that if they offered rebates to buy their product, that is a nifty thing called a free market. If dodge offered me half off to buy a dodge and not a GM, I would be driving one home right now.
Simply put, if you cannot compete in the market, dont play!
Simply put, if you cannot compete in the market, dont play!
Exept these rebates have nothing to do with the end user....I dont get the rebate...Companies do, and how much they get if they get it at all or how long it takes to get it is directly related to if they sell AMDs and how many of them....That is the point in question.
Intel could just tell all OEMs we will sell the chips 10 dollars lower then any similar performing AMD chip....That would be fine. However they do it in a more insidious way where companies are not treated equally (Dell versus others) and this money is held conditionally not only upon selling AMD chips at that moment but in the future as well.
Note I believe ACER and HP had future product withheld as well as rebate checks delayed because they either announced new AMD products or that they were launch partners....This is called exclusionary practice and is considered monopolistic and at 80+% of the market I dont think anyway can make a claim that intel is not a monopoly. They could theoretically handle the entire world's PC market single handedly. Offer your porduct cheaper is one thing, but only offer it cheaper if the those companies promise not to sell the other is not something a "monopoly" can get away it...sorry it is the law...
I relize that, but if they aer offering discounts to the reatailer, it is in the best interest of the retailer to take them. Why doesnt AMD offer rebates to people who buy their chips?
I think my link proves otherwise...AMD has lost 3% since 2001....Yeah it may have gained .3% in 1 quarter but overall during the period this claim spells out, AMD has lost marketshare....
Looking at 1 or 2 short quarters is nothing more than spinning information. Slight fluctuations in each companies marketshare could occur by who is releasing new product or delaying it....It is not a very good barometer to do it in such a short term...
<First, AMD has gained marketshare. That's even pointed out in the article the OP linked.>
spinning information as I have shown....
<Second, it takes more than "1-2 years" of success to change the business climate. These OEM's have been very successful in what they have been doing. Think of it from Dell's point of view... What's in it for them? Aside from any monopolistic allegations, are they going to make any more money by changing what has worked so well for them? >
It is not only about Dell. It is about Intel tieing up all the other OEMs with exclusionary practices. The other companies do not have much choice as you want to think. To keep up with Dell and its likely huge rebates companies are forced to go to INtel only mode to keep their cost as close to Dell as possible or face no ability to compete.
<Third, there is so much more to the business than just the performance of the processor. I'm not going to list them all, but some of the other things the OEM's need to take into consideration are: Ability to get enough supply consistantly, more components (i.e. motherboards) to contend with, software/driver variations, consumer demand, etc... >
This is just more spinning of the truth and excuses they say to justify this practice. If it was so easy then Intel can get rid of the rebates and not lose one ounce of marketshare...You want to bet on this one Wingz??? If Intel isn't afraid to compete since they know AMD cannot supply these companies then they wouldn't have to ask companies not to sell AMD product. The companies would just do it on their own, but still have the ability to offer them if a client specifically ask for them. You know Technical ppl who know opterons and A64's are currently the superior product..
You are not getting it...Offer rebates is fine...Offering them with conditions of exlusivity is not something a monopoly can currently do. Intel fits the definition of a monopoly. AMD could offer rebates just fine. Just think during 2001-2002 when the tbirds and the XPs were the better chip and cheaper to boot AMD lost 8% in marketshare. Their chips didn't need reabtes cause they were flat out cheaper at every performance range.
It doesn't matter how cheap AMD sold the chips or how big the rebates are the fact is that a large percentage of ppl do in fact perfer INtel chips. Ths for any company to compete in the PC market they need to seel a majortiy of INtel chips. If Intel then tells them they cant get the chips as cheap as Sony or Dell cause they still want to sell a quarter of their machines as AMD then they either have to buy much more expensive chips or stop selling AMD...It is a no brainer I wil grant you that in terms of the companies, but is unfair for AMD They are doing it on marketshare ability and thus falls under monopolistic...
You guys claim choice..where is the choice?? the companies have no choice...sell AMDs and pay more per cpu then Dell and thus likely not sell as many...get the big rebates and do not offer AMD cpus for your customers who may want them...instead users like me who want a good AMD system need to be DIYers...Oh yeah there are a few high end gamer systems but this is not realistic of the market either Intel or AMD really is gunning for...
- Apr 19, 2005
- 7,461
- 500
- 126
Freemarket is being offered a PC with both Intel and AMD inside and having the choice to decide which you want.
Monoply is bribing or threatening OEM's to not use AMD's product.
I removed most of your post for brevity, but I do agree on most points.
That said, using the fact that a large percentage of people (let us say Average Joe) prefer Intel (for whatever reasons), would AMD be able to do any better if Intel's rebate programs and the like were eliminated?
I guess what I'm asking is, all things being equal, if Joe were offered PC 1 and PC 2 at retail with the exact same components (sans the CPU) would Joe take the AMD-based one, or, would he still choose Intel because that's what he knows and trusts?
I believed so, Pabster....AMD was cheaper by a large amount from 2002-2004 and Joe Public may have bought an AMD system for the price. Each PC purchased with an AMD is potentially a future customer for life as well as a customer who tells a friend. I think Intel knows damn well it would effect things or they wouldn't have tried to push exclusivity actions. They wouldn't need to. AMD would not be a threat. They like AMD around but never want to see them grow.
I think the difference would not be huge but there should of been growth from 20.2% and could have easily been 25-30% now, with AMD's strings of success.I can tell you as dumb as the public is when it comes to PCs, they are not totally sheep and think it is Intel or nothing. I know ppl who are not even smart enough to know who INtel is, that they are the cpu and chipset maker, and/or what a cpu is. I think if AMD product would have been on the shelves from Dell, Sony, HP, Acer, Toshiba, etc they would have sold and ppl would start to get more familiar with them as a product line.
Like I stated in Bold...Intels actions prove that it would have helped AMD...Why would Intel give rebates to cut AMD out if they know ppl will just by their CPUs anyways....They wouldn;t...They wouldn't give away profit. AMD for the last 8 years has forced Intel into a price war and accelerated cpu race. The chips in 1995 were a heck of a lot more expensive (the bulk of the lines)....Fabs cost more, yet chips are sold for less...This has had to cut into Intel's profit margin and thus they are trying to make sure AMD has less pressure to affect their bottom line....AMD could dump their chips to 50% of what they are now and without OEM support would not really increase marketshare...DIYers and enthusiast could buy them all and it wouldn't do crap....INtel knows this and by controlling the OEMs they have basically enacted price control. MOst average ppl buy built systems...If no one sells AMD built systems...you see my point. Again AMD could offer 50% off to OEMs and they still wouldn't risk losing Intel chips, rebates, marketing funds, etc......
Look Duvie, the last thing I have in mind as fun is taking shots from you.
13Gigatons responded to a quote with a bunch of K8 stats and then went on to state how the K8 has been a success yet AMD has been losing market share.
Everything I've said has been relative to the K8 timeframe, just as the original post was. I've spun nothing, only kept (my part of) the conversation in the context of the original post. Others, including yourself, have gone on a tangent.
I give up. You win.
13Gigatons responded to a quote with a bunch of K8 stats and then went on to state how the K8 has been a success yet AMD has been losing market share.
Everything I've said has been relative to the K8 timeframe, just as the original post was. I've spun nothing, only kept (my part of) the conversation in the context of the original post. Others, including yourself, have gone on a tangent.
I give up. You win.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter