On Jun 8, 12:47 pm, Rthoreau <rthor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> You could also think about Intel only deal that pumped millions into
> Dell as well, I find it kind of funny when Dell finally went neutral
> they started loosing money. It makes one wonder just how much they
> needed Intel's help to booster up profits.
An interesting thought, but the story might be a tad more
complicated. Like Wal-Mart, Dell didn't care so much how much it paid
for its purchases, just so long as it was the customer paying the
lowest price. Intel was happy to arrange that for Dell in a mutually
beneficial agreement that allowed Intel to advertise itself and Dell
at the same time while picking up the tab for much of Dell's
advertising.
That was just fine, so long as there was no compelling to reason for
customers to be annoyed by not being able to buy AMD instead of
Intel. Opteron made it more than just annoying, and Dell had to
decamp from its profitable arrangement. That decision made sense only
as long as there was a compelling reason to buy AMD, and there isn't
any more. Dell wound up paying the price that potential AMD customers
have always feared: that AMD wouldn't be able to deliver.
Robert.
|
