As far as graphic hardwares concerned, ATI has a heck lot more brand recognition than AMD. Especially in the descreet graphic cards market, people look for ATI, not AMD. This is going to cause very much unncessary confusion and errosion of value. Another stupid marketing move from AMD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron
From the story:
"AMD said it conducted research that found its brand is stronger than ATI, and that consumer preference toward ATI triples when they are aware of the ATI-AMD merger."
Newtron, XSU is right. ATI has a greater recognition than AMD brand. (At least as I can estimate here in Germany ).
And you give an examle from the story. Now the words from the slide:
AMD preference triples when respondent is aware of ATI-AMD merger
Did they have different marketing departments? It seems that ATI margeting head has lost politically.
P.S. How do you understand the words from the slide: "AMD brand stronger than ATI vs. graphics competitors"?
It can have so many interpretations. Probably they [b]played with the statistics[b] to get the result they wanted - to remove ATI brand.
Brand which cost billions. Will the AMD be able to pump these money into the consolidated name?
I didn't know for a fact that there were people who thought that the New Coke fiasco was a good thing, but I always believed those people existed. Buy this logic, AMD is switching its graphics card brand to AMD in a devious scheme to revitalize the ATI brand.
Only if you ignore the reason why this fact was cited. It was cited to correct the perception that Coke lost money from the New Coke introduction.
Nobody has ever said that AMD is trying to use the same strategy. Correcting the economic facts of the New Coke intro is NOT the same as saying that AMD is trying to emulate the New Coke strategy.
Probably they [b]played with the statistics[b] to get the result they wanted - to remove ATI brand.
Why would a profit-seeking company do that? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. Are they emotional? Do they not employ statisticians and accountants and such? Are they seeking to make less profit in order to "remove the ATI brand"?
This is indeed a smart move, enthusiasts do not need to know much because they already do and will know that amd=ati. The rest of the public will associate amd with a great product already on their computers, a gfx card, and they ll get more accustomed to it and more inclined to switch to a cpu by amd in the future. As others have said, this should have happened years ago, but at least it coincides here with the merging of cpu and gpu in the future, so this is a good opportunity too.
Now let's see how apple will play its cards here, I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that a good tight relationship with amd that will include proprietory drivers for mac gpus, and close working together for the gpu/cpu combo in coding will benefit all, but intel. Amd will need not look any further than apple to assure their livelihood (that and of course the integrated chip market which I am hearing they are strong in) and apple will have a partner that won't turn around and ... over like they did a few months ago with the integration of that piece of crap igfx in the i core series. Apple will also save a lot of money by completely phasing out nvidia too, which will be the only undesired casualty in all this, and having amd across the board. All that of course provided that amd will be around and with the products they speculate they will have in 2012 (I really don't see it any sooner than that).
Why would a profit-seeking company do that? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. Are they emotional? Do they not employ statisticians and accountants and such? Are they seeking to make less profit in order to "remove the ATI brand"?
Huh?
Probably becuase "The new AMD/ATI Fusion chip, with an AMD CPU and ATI GPU in one" doesn't roll off the tongue as well as just plain old "AMD Fusion with an AMD CPU and GPU" does.
Dedicated graphics are already relegated to a small enthusiast crowd.
Off-the-shelf ones certainly but I meant even GPUs in the iMac, Macbook Pro and Mac Pro, which are all dedicated GPUs. Even the XBox 360 has gone this way:
The main implication is for NVidia because Intel have their own IGP and AMD have their own too. So once they go their own routes, NVidia is largely out in the cold. Manufacturers of desktop and laptop computers just won't bother with a dedicated chip even if it's an option because it's simply down to needs and if the chip bundled with the CPU plays games at near photoreal quality then there's no reason to have the headache of driver development, larger motherboard, lower battery life, more heat for the sake of a few more FPS, which most people won't notice.
Probably becuase "The new AMD/ATI Fusion chip, with an AMD CPU and ATI GPU in one" doesn't roll off the tongue as well as just plain old "AMD Fusion with an AMD CPU and GPU" does.
Are you saying THAT is the reason why they did this:
"Probably they [b]played with the statistics[b] to get the result they wanted"?
They played with the statistics for that reason? Even though it might cause them to lose money? That makes little sense to me, but let's just let it go.
intel computers, with Intel Inside and graphics by AMD Radeon stickers. Ouch for Intel.
Ouch because Intels graphics blow, and AMD's graphics are the market performance leader, especially in Mac-type computers, where 280 Watt GTX 480s will never live.
People will associate AMD with better performance, and might start looking for AMD inside.
Ouch because Intels graphics blow, and AMD's graphics are the market performance leader, especially in Mac-type computers, where 280 Watt GTX 480s will never live.
...
Apple does not put those kinds of stickers on its computers.
Comments
Ask your parents about one of the most famous examples of market research in history--New Coke
Ah. One blunder, and so all market research will backfire in a hideous manner?
You ignore that your example is a famous flop, while there exist hundreds (millions?) of counterexamples.
What else do you believe based upon spectacular outliers? That airplanes are a dangerous mode of transportation?
As far as graphic hardwares concerned, ATI has a heck lot more brand recognition than AMD. Especially in the descreet graphic cards market, people look for ATI, not AMD. This is going to cause very much unncessary confusion and errosion of value. Another stupid marketing move from AMD.
From the story:
"AMD said it conducted research that found its brand is stronger than ATI, and that consumer preference toward ATI triples when they are aware of the ATI-AMD merger."
Newtron, XSU is right. ATI has a greater recognition than AMD brand. (At least as I can estimate here in Germany
And you give an examle from the story. Now the words from the slide:
AMD preference triples when respondent is aware of ATI-AMD merger
Did they have different marketing departments? It seems that ATI margeting head has lost politically.
P.S. How do you understand the words from the slide: "AMD brand stronger than ATI vs. graphics competitors"?
It can have so many interpretations. Probably they [b]played with the statistics[b] to get the result they wanted - to remove ATI brand.
Brand which cost billions. Will the AMD be able to pump these money into the consolidated name?
I didn't know for a fact that there were people who thought that the New Coke fiasco was a good thing, but I always believed those people existed. Buy this logic, AMD is switching its graphics card brand to AMD in a devious scheme to revitalize the ATI brand.
Only if you ignore the reason why this fact was cited. It was cited to correct the perception that Coke lost money from the New Coke introduction.
Nobody has ever said that AMD is trying to use the same strategy. Correcting the economic facts of the New Coke intro is NOT the same as saying that AMD is trying to emulate the New Coke strategy.
Probably they [b]played with the statistics[b] to get the result they wanted - to remove ATI brand.
Why would a profit-seeking company do that? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. Are they emotional? Do they not employ statisticians and accountants and such? Are they seeking to make less profit in order to "remove the ATI brand"?
Huh?
Now let's see how apple will play its cards here, I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that a good tight relationship with amd that will include proprietory drivers for mac gpus, and close working together for the gpu/cpu combo in coding will benefit all, but intel. Amd will need not look any further than apple to assure their livelihood (that and of course the integrated chip market which I am hearing they are strong in) and apple will have a partner that won't turn around and ... over like they did a few months ago with the integration of that piece of crap igfx in the i core series. Apple will also save a lot of money by completely phasing out nvidia too, which will be the only undesired casualty in all this, and having amd across the board. All that of course provided that amd will be around and with the products they speculate they will have in 2012 (I really don't see it any sooner than that).
Why would a profit-seeking company do that? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. Are they emotional? Do they not employ statisticians and accountants and such? Are they seeking to make less profit in order to "remove the ATI brand"?
Huh?
Probably becuase "The new AMD/ATI Fusion chip, with an AMD CPU and ATI GPU in one" doesn't roll off the tongue as well as just plain old "AMD Fusion with an AMD CPU and GPU" does.
Dedicated graphics are already relegated to a small enthusiast crowd.
Off-the-shelf ones certainly but I meant even GPUs in the iMac, Macbook Pro and Mac Pro, which are all dedicated GPUs. Even the XBox 360 has gone this way:
http://www.product-reviews.net/2010/...combo-details/
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...combo-chip.ars
The main implication is for NVidia because Intel have their own IGP and AMD have their own too. So once they go their own routes, NVidia is largely out in the cold. Manufacturers of desktop and laptop computers just won't bother with a dedicated chip even if it's an option because it's simply down to needs and if the chip bundled with the CPU plays games at near photoreal quality then there's no reason to have the headache of driver development, larger motherboard, lower battery life, more heat for the sake of a few more FPS, which most people won't notice.
Probably becuase "The new AMD/ATI Fusion chip, with an AMD CPU and ATI GPU in one" doesn't roll off the tongue as well as just plain old "AMD Fusion with an AMD CPU and GPU" does.
Are you saying THAT is the reason why they did this:
"Probably they [b]played with the statistics[b] to get the result they wanted"?
They played with the statistics for that reason? Even though it might cause them to lose money? That makes little sense to me, but let's just let it go.
Ouch because Intels graphics blow, and AMD's graphics are the market performance leader, especially in Mac-type computers, where 280 Watt GTX 480s will never live.
People will associate AMD with better performance, and might start looking for AMD inside.
...
Ouch because Intels graphics blow, and AMD's graphics are the market performance leader, especially in Mac-type computers, where 280 Watt GTX 480s will never live.
...
Apple does not put those kinds of stickers on its computers.
All I've ever known growing up was ATI vs. nVidia.
I'm an nVidia fanboy and ATI was often known to have driver issues.
The company I really miss is 3dfx, they made kick-ass cards, still have a voodoo3 kicking around somewhere...
Apple does not put those kinds of stickers on its computers.
But they do put the names and logos in their marketing
intel computers, with Intel Inside and graphics by AMD Radeon stickers. Ouch for Intel.
Nope- there's an alternate sticker which only says "Radeon" for Intel's pet manufacturers to use.
...
But they do put the names and logos in their marketing
Correction: some of their marketing.
Correction: some of their marketing.
Fair enough :-p