Ali; Each frog swims in a pond. Some ponds are larger than others.
AMD found itself swimming with cyrix and a humungous large aggressive frog. Cyrix got et by a passing bird of prey. AMD hit the weeds.
In effect all companies enter and compete in different arenas, and have varied success rates. Some grow with the market, keep the same share and get big that way. Some increase in share even as the market grows, and so become dominant. Intel made its market and dominated it from day 1, as it was a x86 market of their own making. The others stayed small by both artificial(patent/copyright), technical and management errors. Intel is not as dominant in other markets and has been beaten in some areas, and has exited, so it is not omniscient.
There are many ways that companies can fail to grow. For example, the north american market for coffins is just so big, unless we all die at once. Donations to research and cremation are the competitors for that market. Since the average rate of death is statistically fixed, not even a super dominant player can get more than 100% of that market unless he has a hit squad subsidiary. With an average span of 80, years and static population 1/80 dies each year plus/minus or about 3 million. Growth in profits comes by price increase, and switching cremators to buryers, but it is a mature saturated market.
Intel played to an explosively growing market. AMD stayed around $1 billion for years. Where it lost was share to Intel Cyrix.
Different companies will play in arenas somewhere between the static funerary market and the expansive Intel market, and so you cannot make that generalization of bad management. Each must be looked at in detail. Another company in a similar position to AMD is Apple. Now only 4% share, once the leader. 100% ruinously bad management.
Bill |
