Robert Myers;949143 Wrote:
> 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.
it is too complikated...........
--
saboarsenal
|
