Paul,
You bring up something I have considered, which is whether or not there is a conspicuous consumption aspect to having an Intel vs. another microprocesser inside your computer. I don't think computers have risen to that level of conspicuousness (is that a word?) yet, and at the lower levels of income, having a computer, any brand computer is better than having none at all. But certainly, if AMD can avoid being label as a cheap Intel knockoff, they can avoid any of the negative connotations that would bring. They need to add value to the AMD name among consumers through marketing and product positioning. This is marketing 101 folks, why in the hell aren't they doing it? AMD is just giving the whole *&%'ing market to Intel!
If AMD markets their products right, and packages them in a PC with other desirable attributes, something very "with it" such as top of the line video and sound, DVD, etc.., then the processor inside becomes a non-issue, assuming the "AMD inside" can run the show. Since the video and audio cards have their own processors, the AMD/Intel is not required to do as much anyway with the multimedia streams.
At some point, really, isn't enough enough? I mean I'm a degreed EE with a masters, and I have a 486-33 at home and it suits me and my kids just fine. Why in the hell would I want to shell out more money for the latest and greatest Intel machine, when what I have is adequate (for home use.) Now at some point, if I can get a high speed internet connection and cheap DVD, I'm probably going to want something faster. Pentium Pro? Not cost justified for me. Gimme value. Gimme AMD! |
