Chuck, re: AMD's risky strategy,
AMD always had a risky strategy. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that challenging Intel is going to be tough.
Specifically, though, I think AMD is stretching themselves a little too thin by trying to cover all market segments with Athlon. I really can't see how Spitfire is going to be successful with Via entering the low-end and Intel introducing Timna. Meanwhile, their strategy with servers is very foggy. Intel has already shown that it takes a lot of hand-holding to establish a platform out there, from Xeon to Itanium. It's hard for me to see how AMD's "Build it and they will come" strategy will work in the enterprise server arena. The slips in SMP chipsets is evidence. The decline of Alpha in the marketplace is another. AMD's strategy for the enterprise is dependent on shaky alliances.
Finally, their future in desktops, perhaps their most fortified stronghold, is in jeopardy thanks to Willamette. At least here, AMD may be able to press some advantages of their own even after Willamette's release, such as ... well, we'll just have to wait and see.
It's funny how people said that Intel shouldn't have based their strategy on AMD's failure to execute. It seems that now, AMD's success depends on Intel's failure to execute. Granted, Intel did widen AMD's window of opportunity a little with the Q4 slip-ups. But with Intel's aggressive plans for the near and far future, AMD's only hope now is for another Camino-sized fiasco, either with Itanium or with Willamette.
Tenchusatsu |
