In the future you should quote the entire statement rather than deleting the part that puts it in perspective. Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU. Bookmark of a lifetime. I know I'll be making HEAVY use of this one...
In case you didn't know, you and "context" are MORTAL ENEMIES. (Shall I point to the thousands of your responses to me where you omit critical context? There are JUST. SO. MANY.)
Now, on to this particular "context" which is supposed to help you. (LOL.)
Let's do it line by line, because there's so much to unpack here... In fact, let's add some MORE context:
Do YOU have any visibility into the role these factors played at DELL?
I certainly do. I've worked on products used by Dell but that need not be a factor here. Every company takes far more than price into consideration when choosing a design win. So A) Yeah, nothing DELL specific like I thought, and B) All of DELL's peers were considering Intel's "factors", using AMD, and winning marketshare from DELL. Even as DELL's own customers were demanding AMD, DELL ignored these factors and remained an Intel-exclusive shop.
you're just making the assumption that they played THE key role in the decision(s), without any evidence.
You have that backwards. Every company does it that way. It's the industry standard and you have no evidence otherwise. Yes, and "every company" (but DELL) was using AMD, and winning marketshare from DELL, who's own customers were demanding AMD... But DELL refused to sell them.
DELL was an anomaly, even by your own "industry standard."
I HAVE multiple, corroborating streams of evidence that Intel payed DELL to stay Intel-exclusive.
You have evidence that, if interpreted your myopic way, would draw your conclusion, provided you saw no other evidence. As I said, Intel doesn't trash talk to the press, that's AMD's crybaby game. LOL A) Intel talks a metric s**t ton of trash to the press, and B) the evidence I'm talking about did not come from AMD at all, it came directly from the CEOs of DELL and Intel among other sources. Do I need to repost the quote again? As in the quote, "Additionally, we are transferring over $1 billion per year to Dell for [MCP] efforts. This was judged by your team to be more than sufficient to compensate for the competitive issues." -- Paul Otellini
Was DELL's business model to NOT serve their customers?
Dells' business model is to maximize profits for Dell. Yes, and DELL would have somewhat less "profitable" without that $6B in "loyalty rebates" that nobody else was getting, even while these competitors were taking market share from DELL. Screw the customers, take the cash!
Classy.
DELL's customers were demanding AMD, and voting with their feet for DELL's competitors who WERE offering AMD.
Again, if you understood the business you'd realize that design decisions are made well before products hit the market. Yes, yet all of DELL's peers had plenty of time to make decisions including AMD-based product lines, which they used to take market share out of DELL's hide.
Somehow, DELL's decision-making process was anomalous in a way that locked them into Intel-based designs.
Hmmm... What could the difference have been? Could it be the similarly anomalous $6,000,000,000.00 worth of "loyalty rebates" Intel gave to DELL?
"Nahh" says Elmer. "DELL stuck with their Intel-based market-share-losing product lines, for years (oops!), for some other 'special' reason."
In retrospect, Dell made the wrong decision Now, let's make sure we have the FULL CONTEXT for this statement...
Immediately preceding this sentence, you discuss DELL's "design decisions" that were "made well before products hit the market." You know, DELL's "design decisions" which resulted in exclusively Intel-based designs. You know, the subject of the argument.
Is that not the proper context within which to interpret your statement? Is there some OTHER decision you meant, other than the "design decisions" you were JUST mentioning one sentence earlier?
You know, what you said in response to my statement saying, "DELL's customers were demanding AMD, and voting with their feet for DELL's competitors who WERE offering AMD."
Because in that immediately surrounding context, the one you JUST REPOSTED IN ORDER TO PUT YOUR SENTENCE IN THE PROPER CONTEXT, your statement seems to mean that:
In retrospect, Dell made the wrong design decisions,(which resulted in exclusively Intel-based designs), (while DELL's customers were demanding AMD, and voting with their feet for DELL's competitors who WERE offering AMD.)
You know, because of this exact sequence of sentences:
DELL's customers were demanding AMD, and voting with their feet for DELL's competitors who WERE offering AMD. Again, if you understood the business you'd realize that design decisions are made well before [those] products hit the market.
In retrospect, Dell made the wrong decision
Context FTW!
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!
but contrary to your view, parts are not parts, and Dell had already charted their course for that product cycle. You think they can just open a bag of AMD instead of Intel chicken nuggets and dump them into the deep fryer. It doesn't work that way. My supposed "parts is parts" "view" suddenly means that I "think they can just open a bag of AMD instead of Intel "parts" and dump them into the "decided designs" for which "Dell had already charted their course for that product cycle?"
I.e. "parts is parts" now means "socket compatible?"
Isn't that COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than any BS you've EVER spewed about "parts is parts?"
So let's recap our little context-sensitive adventure:
- DELL made "design decisions" using "industry standard" practices that "all companies" use.
- They nevertheless "charted a course" that was anomalous compared to its peers.
- (an anomaly that you're sure had had nothing to do with anomalous $6B in "loyalty rebates.")
- The "charted course" exclusively specified Intel-based designs...
- (Where they couldn't "just open a bag of AMD [parts] instead of Intel [parts]")
- (Which my supposed "parts is parts" view supposedly permits)
- ...that even though, "in retrospect, DELL made the wrong decision",
- DELL followed the "course" they "charted" based on a "wrong decision" for years.
(oopsie!)
Way to make your case, Elmer. Ain't context GREAT?
fpg
PS: I think you left a little "context" out here. |
