Sorry, Paul, I wasn't clear on my timeline for:
"Isn't it clear from what Gateway said today that they were contractually prohibited from buying processors from AMD? Thats what the word "exclusive" means, isn't it? And don't we know that Gateway had made a hard decision to use the Athlon prior to Christmas, but then suddenly changed their mind? (email evidence, website tech support info and MaximumPC Mag "news" article)"
Here's the sequence of events as I see it:
1. Gateway decides to drop AMD as a supplier for internal reasons (yes, a bad experience) and Intel commitment for 400-450 MHz Celeron supply.
2. Sometime after this (~Sept/Oct), the "Intel only supplier" arrangement is formalized. This gets Gateway the necessary current supply of BX chipsets (in short supply then) and future commitments for the i820.
3. The Coppermine launch occurs with no i820 chipset, few parts and, more importantly, Intel does not make enough midrange processors, espec. PIII-500's.
4. Gateway begins looking to see if AMD will sell them some 500 and 550 Athlons to make $1100 to $1300 systems. Email of a Nov 29 launch leaks out, and tech notes on installing Athlon CPU's appears on Gateway's web site. Gateway figures Intel will not enforce the Intel-only policy.
5. Intel comes back with a carrot and (most probably) a stick. The carrot is $20M if GTW drops the Athlon for the Christmas season. The stick is witholding supplies of even more CPU's if GTW doesn't cave in.
6. Suddenly, all Athlon references disappear from the website. Gateway tells analysts they think they have enough guaranteed supply to make their profit estimates, but not the revenue estimates (the $20M would help, and possibly lower prices on CPU's.
7. Intel is not able to supply the needed chips anyway, not even close, and Gateway realizes they're screwed.
If Intel threatened to withold chipsets or CPU's based on Gateways intended use of the Athlon, I believe that would constitute an illegal restraint of trade in most states. This is true whether the supply contract said anything about AMD or whether it didn't. Its just more difficult to prove if it wasn't written down.
I wonder if GTW has contacted the California state attorney general yet?
Petz |
