I should add that I also agree that the novel attempt by Intel to brand a component also had an impact on prolonging the retail domination by Intel of the US market. Had Intel not done brand name advertising earlier microprocessors such as the 6x86, the K5, the Winchip, and the early K6's would have no doubt been more successful. My main point is that when a product provides no real benefit to the consumer over a competing product, attempts at branding will normally break down in the long run. Thus since the PII and PIII provide no real benefit to consumers over the K6-3, consumers (and store clerks) have figured out that an AMD processor is perfectly acceptable, and price is gradually becoming a more important selling point than CPU name.
Note that I am not currently invested in either INTC or AMD, so I don't have a bone to pick. I am just calling it like I see it.
As for AXC, there is no way they have the resources to establish a dominant brand name. In fact the major risk in holding AXC is that competitors such as BCST and CMGI have many more resources than AXC, as well as a much better known brand name in the Internet world, and thus could establish dominant brand names before AXC ever gets off the ground. This is a great concern to me, and it worries me a great deal when a publication such as the WSJ does a feature on video on the web and completely overlooks AXC and their associates.
As far as differentiating with quality, I can't see how AXC can produce a noticeable difference in quality without a new player, and I don't see a new player in the cards. The only other difference that they could make is by having faster serving of movies with less interruptions for buffering and thus better video on demand service. Even here, the player with the most money probably has the edge, but at least here AXC has a chance of making a difference.
Carl
|
