Constantine, Re: "Intel's action of entering the value market, validated it. If Intel marketed the over $1000 PC as the only good choice they would have been better off. The growth of the sub $1000 pc was not inevitable like you guys see it."
The problem is that you are not willing to give any credit to Intel marketing research. You assume that Intel entered the sub-$1000 market to destroy their competitor, who was enjoying the benefits of this market. As a result, you think that this move created more demand for sub-$1000 machines, which eventually lead to the creation of a "value" market.
This of course contradicts the AMDroid notion that the goodness of AMD lead to the lower prices that consumers enjoy today, but I'll leave that to another discussion.
Instead of your interpretation, you might want to consider that Intel has market research teams that study trends in the market place, including how to reach larger customer demand through exploring new market segments. It is quite probable that Intel's market research teams could have opened up the sub-$1000 market with or without AMD being there.
But arguing this situation would be just as pointless as arguing about whether Intel intentionally tried to "destroy" AMD by pursuing sub-$1000 PCs. Since the argument is one of intentions, you'll simply play into the Jerry Sanders story that Intel is out to eliminate the little competitors that are trying to make the market a better place for everybody - and then you'll demand that I prove you wrong. Since "proof" lies in discovering the intentions of individuals that aren't even known to us, there is obviously no logical way to attempt to argue further. Therefore, you are correct that we are getting redundant, and it is unlikely that I or anyone else will convince you to think otherwise.
wbmw |
