You are making progress grasshopper. This is the first time you have acknowledged that additional factors, invisible to you, play a major role in determining which vendor wins a design. Keep in mind, Dell operates under Dell's business model, not the model followed by other companies. As such, just because another vendor used AMD doesn't mean it fit Dell's business model.
Do YOU have any visibility into the role these factors played at DELL?
Didn't think so. You're just making the assumption that they played THE key role in the decision(s), without any evidence.
I HAVE multiple, corroborating streams of evidence that Intel payed DELL to stay Intel-exclusive. You simply dismiss them in preference to your imaginary excuses.
Was DELL's business model to NOT serve their customers? DELL's customers were demanding AMD, and voting with their feet for DELL's competitors who WERE offering AMD. The only thing keeping DELL afloat was Intel's massive payoffs. It was YOUR position that AMD was profiting during a period of relative product superiority.
Yet despite the pressure on DELL to offer AMD systems, and despite AMD's superior, successful products (which YOU conceded, as a rebuttal to the exact same Intel bribe argument, no less!), the fact that DELL maintained 100% Intel-loyalty (when they could have easily produced an AMD line as were the competitors who were taking their customers) had nuuuuuhh-thing to do with the BILLIONS of dollars Intel was stringing DELL along with, that were BTW completely misleading DELL investors of DELL's market situation/predicament in the process.
Your argument is laughable. A Joke.
fpg |
