Goodbye ATI - AMD now the big name in graphics cards - News - PC Authority
"Way back in 2006 AMD shocked the technology world by acquiring Canadian
graphics company Array Technologies Inc (ATI). Since that time ATI's
Radeon graphics cards have become one of AMD's major strengths, thanks
largely to the company's CPUs slipping behind Intel's in the performance
stakes.

Since the acquisition AMD has continued to use the ATI brand for its
Radeon graphics cards. That changes today, as AMD announces that the
next generation of graphics from the company will not use the ATI branding.

Instead the cards will be labelled AMD Radeon. Despite the name change
the logos will be remarkably similar to that used currently. They will
still bear ATI's trademark red colouring but the ATI has been replaced
by AMD."
http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/2...ics-cards.aspx

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Goodbye ATI - AMD now the big name in graphics cards - News - PC Authority
>"Way back in 2006 AMD shocked the technology world by acquiring Canadian
>graphics company Array Technologies Inc (ATI). Since that time ATI's
>Radeon graphics cards have become one of AMD's major strengths, thanks
>largely to the company's CPUs slipping behind Intel's in the performance
>stakes.
>
>Since the acquisition AMD has continued to use the ATI brand for its
>Radeon graphics cards. That changes today, as AMD announces that the
>next generation of graphics from the company will not use the ATI branding.
>
>Instead the cards will be labelled AMD Radeon. Despite the name change
>the logos will be remarkably similar to that used currently. They will
>still bear ATI's trademark red colouring but the ATI has been replaced
>by AMD."
>http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/2...ics-cards.aspx

For those who remember, it's somewhat miraculous that ATI survived the
video code affectionately known as the "VGA Blunder".

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> AMD announces that the next generation of graphics from the company
> will not use the ATI branding.

I don't know why these major brands are being killed like this.

ATI has incredible marketing value. It takes years and lots of $$$ to
build a recognizable brand name like this, and to kill it off is just
stupid.

They could have continued to market AMD video chips and boards under
it's own name AND ATI simultaneously and have the potential to multiply
your exposure to purchasers and end-users by having multiple brands.
This was done by the auto industry during the 1960's until the
mid-2000's.

Delta did the same thing recently when it killed the Northwest brand
when the two airlines merged.

Oracle is doing the same with Sun (by the way, where is Java for the
iPhone and Touch?)

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Intel Guy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in part:
> I don't know why these major brands are being killed like this.

How else to destroy value?

> ATI has incredible marketing value. It takes years and
> lots of $$$ to build a recognizable brand name like this,
> and to kill it off is just stupid.
>
> They could have continued to market AMD video chips and
> boards under it's own name AND ATI simultaneously and have
> the potential to multiply your exposure to purchasers and
> end-users by having multiple brands. This was done by the
> auto industry during the 1960's until the mid-2000's.
>
> Delta did the same thing recently when it killed the
> Northwest brand when the two airlines merged.
>
> Oracle is doing the same with Sun (by the way, where is
> Java for the iPhone and Touch?)


Dinosaur-brains kill brands to show the stock anal ysts they are
"vigorously persuing synergies" (ie cutting costs irrespective
of profit). The real reason is territorial dominence. Can't
leave the vanquished unbowed.

-- Robert

On 30/08/2010 10:44 AM, Intel Guy wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> AMD announces that the next generation of graphics from the company
>> will not use the ATI branding.
>
> I don't know why these major brands are being killed like this.
>
> ATI has incredible marketing value. It takes years and lots of $$$ to
> build a recognizable brand name like this, and to kill it off is just
> stupid.

Well, waiting 4 years to do it is not exactly a rash decision. I guess
their marketing surveys showed that the AMD brand name was improved when
being associated with the video cards. And the video card brand
recognition also went up when associated with the AMD name. Both brands
helped each other. However, the ATI name was no longer needed in the
middle, they could go straight from AMD to Radeon without needing to
also say ATI.

Also there was talk that the reason that AMD didn't kill the ATI name
way back when it first purchased ATI was because they didn't want any
conflict with Intel when marketing video cards. Because as soon as Intel
sees the name "AMD", it acts like a bull seeing a red cape, everything
with that name is a target. For example, when AMD had a flash memory
division, now Spansion, Intel targeted it mercilessly with flash price
wars; once AMD spun it off, Intel lost all interest in flash too and
sold its division off to Micron. Now that Intel has had its horns
chopped off, AMD is feeling freer to go ahead and do more things under
its own name.

> They could have continued to market AMD video chips and boards under
> it's own name AND ATI simultaneously and have the potential to multiply
> your exposure to purchasers and end-users by having multiple brands.
> This was done by the auto industry during the 1960's until the
> mid-2000's.

You mean like GM with all of its brand names that have had to be
hatcheted down? Goodbye Oldsmobile, so long Pontiac, never knew ya
Saturn, and good riddance Hummer. Or Chrysler and its Plymouth brand,
and Ford and its Mercury brand.

> Delta did the same thing recently when it killed the Northwest brand
> when the two airlines merged.
>
> Oracle is doing the same with Sun (by the way, where is Java for the
> iPhone and Touch?)

Oracle just sued Google for putting Java into Android, BTW.

Yousuf Khan

Intel Guy wrote:
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> AMD announces that the next generation of graphics from the company
>> will not use the ATI branding.
>
> I don't know why these major brands are being killed like this.
>
> ATI has incredible marketing value. It takes years and lots of $$$ to
> build a recognizable brand name like this, and to kill it off is just
> stupid.
>
That's not clear. I certainly don't see any benefit to dropping a well known
brand name, and I can't say that it improves my perception of either the company
or the product. Generally when a known brand is killed it's because the new
owner wants to walk away from the practices associated with that brand. In the
case of Oracle and Sun, killing the Sun brand makes it clear that the vale of
good will has changed. In the case of ATI, for years I leaned toward them over
Nvidia because I had fewer problems with the product. You know, those case where
something odd happens but you can't really reproduce it to submit it as a bug?

Too bad.

On 08/09/2010 11:59 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> That's not clear. I certainly don't see any benefit to dropping a well
> known brand name, and I can't say that it improves my perception of
> either the company or the product. Generally when a known brand is
> killed it's because the new owner wants to walk away from the practices
> associated with that brand. In the case of Oracle and Sun, killing the
> Sun brand makes it clear that the vale of good will has changed. In the
> case of ATI, for years I leaned toward them over Nvidia because I had
> fewer problems with the product. You know, those case where something
> odd happens but you can't really reproduce it to submit it as a bug?

Difference is that Oracle is killing off the Sun brandname right away,
whereas AMD kept it around for 4 years largely intact and even nurturing
it. It doesn't sound like AMD is trying to walk away from the ATI name,
whereas Oracle is definitely trying to walk away from the Sun name.

Yousuf Khan

On Sep 9, 7:56*pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:

> Difference is that Oracle is killing off the Sun brandname right away,
> whereas AMD kept it around for 4 years largely intact and even nurturing
> it. It doesn't sound like AMD is trying to walk away from the ATI name,
> whereas Oracle is definitely trying to walk away from the Sun name.

The only reason Sun hasn't been renamed "Larry Elllison" is because
Oracle is a well-known pseudonym for Larry Ellison.

The only time you can engage in this kind of chatter and not sound
silly is when either you are being paid hundreds of dollars an hour as
a marketing consultant or to do so or you are writing a PhD thesis at
a business school with the aim of making even more money writing and
lecturing on similar topics.

Robert.

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 08/09/2010 11:59 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> That's not clear. I certainly don't see any benefit to dropping a well
>> known brand name, and I can't say that it improves my perception of
>> either the company or the product. Generally when a known brand is
>> killed it's because the new owner wants to walk away from the practices
>> associated with that brand. In the case of Oracle and Sun, killing the
>> Sun brand makes it clear that the vale of good will has changed. In the
>> case of ATI, for years I leaned toward them over Nvidia because I had
>> fewer problems with the product. You know, those case where something
>> odd happens but you can't really reproduce it to submit it as a bug?
>
> Difference is that Oracle is killing off the Sun brandname right away,
> whereas AMD kept it around for 4 years largely intact and even nurturing
> it. It doesn't sound like AMD is trying to walk away from the ATI name,
> whereas Oracle is definitely trying to walk away from the Sun name.
>
I think they are, not to disavow it, but in hopes that there will be a single
AMD brand in the public perception, perhaps. As I noted, I disavow understanding
of how this could help AMD, that doesn't make it wrong, but I agree with the
original post to which I replied, it's not clear how this can help.

Having ATI as a separate brand allows it to be sold off the next time they
re-invent themselves. :-(

On 10/09/2010 2:31 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> I think they are, not to disavow it, but in hopes that there will be a
> single AMD brand in the public perception, perhaps. As I noted, I
> disavow understanding of how this could help AMD, that doesn't make it
> wrong, but I agree with the original post to which I replied, it's not
> clear how this can help.

It probably helps both the CPU and GPU divisions to boost each other up
in lean times when one might be doing better than the other.

> Having ATI as a separate brand allows it to be sold off the next time
> they re-invent themselves. :-(

I doubt that AMD is going to be able to sell that off anymore, CPUs and
GPUs are becoming one. But anyways, if they did want to sell it off,
it's not so hard to sell it off with a new name.

Yousuf Khan