I think I know why: becuase it followed the path early on to allow
3rd parties to make the motherboards and now it's worried about
the relationship with those vendors. If AMD offered it's own board,
yes it would hurt the 3rd parties, but it's own profits would soar I
think. AMD recognizes the disadvantages of not supplying their
own boards and has put in place some programs to get more
consistent and higher quality boards produced from the board
vendors. That still falls way short of them supplying their own boards,
and that will keep them in the niche markets rather than the
mainstream IMO. ATI is an example of a company that does it
both ways and perhaps analysis of that company could provide
some insight as to the effectiveness of that business strategy.

Tony

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:40:25 GMT, "tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I think I know why: becuase it followed the path early on to allow
>3rd parties to make the motherboards and now it's worried about
>the relationship with those vendors. If AMD offered it's own board,
>yes it would hurt the 3rd parties, but it's own profits would soar I
>think. AMD recognizes the disadvantages of not supplying their
>own boards and has put in place some programs to get more
>consistent and higher quality boards produced from the board
>vendors. That still falls way short of them supplying their own boards,
>and that will keep them in the niche markets rather than the
>mainstream IMO. ATI is an example of a company that does it
>both ways and perhaps analysis of that company could provide
>some insight as to the effectiveness of that business strategy.

Where do you get the idea that AMD is not "mainstream" right now? Seems
you're a little out of touch with reality. Would you really claim that
ATI's "both ways" is turning out to be more effective?

Do you really think that Intel makes its "own boards" and that it
contributes to their profits?

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:40:25 GMT, "tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I think I know why: becuase it followed the path early on to allow
>3rd parties to make the motherboards and now it's worried about
>the relationship with those vendors. If AMD offered it's own board,
>yes it would hurt the 3rd parties, but it's own profits would soar I
>think. AMD recognizes the disadvantages of not supplying their
>own boards and has put in place some programs to get more
>consistent and higher quality boards produced from the board
>vendors. That still falls way short of them supplying their own boards,
>and that will keep them in the niche markets rather than the
>mainstream IMO. ATI is an example of a company that does it
>both ways and perhaps analysis of that company could provide
>some insight as to the effectiveness of that business strategy.
>
>Tony

AMD is too smart to get into the motherboard business. But that doesn't say
much, in light of the market.

With the utter commoditization of the peecee motherboard business, the
population of motherboard manufacturers has diminished substantially, and
continues to diminish. There's precious little real profit available in the
motherboard business to any other than the huge producers that can push
components, pcb and assembly/test costs to the bone through volume...

/daytripper

AMD has made their own Motherboards in the past.

"daytripper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:40:25 GMT, "tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >I think I know why: becuase it followed the path early on to allow
> >3rd parties to make the motherboards and now it's worried about
> >the relationship with those vendors. If AMD offered it's own board,
> >yes it would hurt the 3rd parties, but it's own profits would soar I
> >think. AMD recognizes the disadvantages of not supplying their
> >own boards and has put in place some programs to get more
> >consistent and higher quality boards produced from the board
> >vendors. That still falls way short of them supplying their own boards,
> >and that will keep them in the niche markets rather than the
> >mainstream IMO. ATI is an example of a company that does it
> >both ways and perhaps analysis of that company could provide
> >some insight as to the effectiveness of that business strategy.
> >
> >Tony
>
> AMD is too smart to get into the motherboard business. But that doesn't
say
> much, in light of the market.
>
> With the utter commoditization of the peecee motherboard business, the
> population of motherboard manufacturers has diminished substantially, and
> continues to diminish. There's precious little real profit available in
the
> motherboard business to any other than the huge producers that can push
> components, pcb and assembly/test costs to the bone through volume...
>
> /daytripper

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:58:42 GMT, "dawg" <don't (E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>"daytripper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:40:25 GMT, "tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >I think I know why: becuase it followed the path early on to allow
>> >3rd parties to make the motherboards and now it's worried about
>> >the relationship with those vendors. If AMD offered it's own board,
>> >yes it would hurt the 3rd parties, but it's own profits would soar I
>> >think. AMD recognizes the disadvantages of not supplying their
>> >own boards and has put in place some programs to get more
>> >consistent and higher quality boards produced from the board
>> >vendors. That still falls way short of them supplying their own boards,
>> >and that will keep them in the niche markets rather than the
>> >mainstream IMO. ATI is an example of a company that does it
>> >both ways and perhaps analysis of that company could provide
>> >some insight as to the effectiveness of that business strategy.
>> >
>> >Tony
>>
>> AMD is too smart to get into the motherboard business. But that doesn't
>say
>> much, in light of the market.
>>
>> With the utter commoditization of the peecee motherboard business, the
>> population of motherboard manufacturers has diminished substantially, and
>> continues to diminish. There's precious little real profit available in
>the
>> motherboard business to any other than the huge producers that can push
>> components, pcb and assembly/test costs to the bone through volume...
>>
>> /daytripper
>
>AMD has made their own Motherboards in the past.

So you'd change the question to "AMD offers no motherboard today, why?", then?

Easier to just think about it a little:
Why *did* AMD offer motherboards? And why *don't* they now?

They *did* to help jump-start a market. They *don't* because the market
*exists*. Making a profit from it is someone else's problem to solve...

Cheers

/daytripper

"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:40:25 GMT, "tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I think I know why: becuase it followed the path early on to allow
>>3rd parties to make the motherboards and now it's worried about
>>the relationship with those vendors. If AMD offered it's own board,
>>yes it would hurt the 3rd parties, but it's own profits would soar I
>>think. AMD recognizes the disadvantages of not supplying their
>>own boards and has put in place some programs to get more
>>consistent and higher quality boards produced from the board
>>vendors. That still falls way short of them supplying their own boards,
>>and that will keep them in the niche markets rather than the
>>mainstream IMO. ATI is an example of a company that does it
>>both ways and perhaps analysis of that company could provide
>>some insight as to the effectiveness of that business strategy.
>
> Where do you get the idea that AMD is not "mainstream" right now?

The marketshare numbers?

> you're a little out of touch with reality. Would you really claim that
> ATI's "both ways" is turning out to be more effective?

I was asking. I don't really keep up with exotic components such as
video cards. There might be enough similarity with ATI and the potential
AMD-as-MB-vendor to be used as a case study.

> Do you really think that Intel makes its "own boards"

The branding of them is enough. AMD "should" do the same. I thought
of another reason why it may not be doing so (producing motherboards):
to do so would give an apples-to-apples comparison of AMD vs. Intel and
they think the risk of losing is too great.

> and that it
> contributes to their profits?

By the marketshare numbers, I say it does (amongst other factors).

Tony

"daytripper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:58:42 GMT, "dawg" <don't (E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>"daytripper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:40:25 GMT, "tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I think I know why: becuase it followed the path early on to allow
>>> >3rd parties to make the motherboards and now it's worried about
>>> >the relationship with those vendors. If AMD offered it's own board,
>>> >yes it would hurt the 3rd parties, but it's own profits would soar I
>>> >think. AMD recognizes the disadvantages of not supplying their
>>> >own boards and has put in place some programs to get more
>>> >consistent and higher quality boards produced from the board
>>> >vendors. That still falls way short of them supplying their own boards,
>>> >and that will keep them in the niche markets rather than the
>>> >mainstream IMO. ATI is an example of a company that does it
>>> >both ways and perhaps analysis of that company could provide
>>> >some insight as to the effectiveness of that business strategy.
>>> >
>>> >Tony
>>>
>>> AMD is too smart to get into the motherboard business. But that doesn't
>>say
>>> much, in light of the market.
>>>
>>> With the utter commoditization of the peecee motherboard business, the
>>> population of motherboard manufacturers has diminished substantially, and
>>> continues to diminish. There's precious little real profit available in
>>the
>>> motherboard business to any other than the huge producers that can push
>>> components, pcb and assembly/test costs to the bone through volume...
>>>
>>> /daytripper
>>
>>AMD has made their own Motherboards in the past.
>
> So you'd change the question to "AMD offers no motherboard today, why?", then?
>
> Easier to just think about it a little:
> Why *did* AMD offer motherboards? And why *don't* they now?
>
> They *did* to help jump-start a market. They *don't* because the market
> *exists*. Making a profit from it is someone else's problem to solve...

Reason for AMD to sell motherboards: to get more people buying their CPUs
instead of Intel's. What if that move were to make it 50/50 (not likely)?

Tony

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:18:45 GMT, "tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Reason for AMD to sell motherboards: to get more people buying their CPUs
>instead of Intel's. What if that move were to make it 50/50 (not likely)?

The demand might increase. The supply will not follow. Comparing to
Intel, AMD has not enough fab capacity to support the volume,
especially on low end. Seems that AMD already sell all they can
manufacture. I just don't see the demand drop so low that AMD
capacity would amount to 50% of it

NNN

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:18:45 GMT, "tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"George Macdonald" <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:40:25 GMT, "tony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>I think I know why: becuase it followed the path early on to allow
>>>3rd parties to make the motherboards and now it's worried about
>>>the relationship with those vendors. If AMD offered it's own board,
>>>yes it would hurt the 3rd parties, but it's own profits would soar I
>>>think. AMD recognizes the disadvantages of not supplying their
>>>own boards and has put in place some programs to get more
>>>consistent and higher quality boards produced from the board
>>>vendors. That still falls way short of them supplying their own boards,
>>>and that will keep them in the niche markets rather than the
>>>mainstream IMO. ATI is an example of a company that does it
>>>both ways and perhaps analysis of that company could provide
>>>some insight as to the effectiveness of that business strategy.
>>
>> Where do you get the idea that AMD is not "mainstream" right now?
>
>The marketshare numbers?

Depends how you break them down - people who "know" are buying AMD just now
and sufficiently that AMD has several of what you want to call niches:
consumer retail, gaming (BIG $$... high ASP) and the server market (high
ASP again) is developing nicely, as is mobile. Ya better let NASCAR know
that their hooked up with a technology partner that is not "mainstream".:-)

>> you're a little out of touch with reality. Would you really claim that
>> ATI's "both ways" is turning out to be more effective?
>
>I was asking. I don't really keep up with exotic components such as
>video cards. There might be enough similarity with ATI and the potential
>AMD-as-MB-vendor to be used as a case study.

I don't look at details too closely there either but it's looking like ATI
is losing much of the gains from recent years... and part of the reason is
their confused, chameleon(?) marketing strategy.

>> Do you really think that Intel makes its "own boards"
>
>The branding of them is enough. AMD "should" do the same. I thought
>of another reason why it may not be doing so (producing motherboards):
>to do so would give an apples-to-apples comparison of AMD vs. Intel and
>they think the risk of losing is too great.

A buyer would have to be ill-informed (neophyte... dense ?) to think that
branding means anything. For years now, the better mbrds have come from
3rd parties in server, workstation and yes, even desktop. AMD lose to
Intel with a home-baked mrd? What *are* you smoking?... no way they could
degrade what independent chipsets/mbrd mfrs are making to that extent.

>> and that it
>> contributes to their profits?
>
>By the marketshare numbers, I say it does (amongst other factors).

Nope - mbrds is a loser... hoping to maybe break-even.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Depends how you break them down - people who "know" are buying AMD just now
> and sufficiently that AMD has several of what you want to call niches:
> consumer retail, gaming (BIG $$... high ASP) and the server market (high
> ASP again) is developing nicely, as is mobile. Ya better let NASCAR know
> that their hooked up with a technology partner that is not "mainstream".:-)

How many other race sanctioning bodies require carburetors?
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
skype: jjpfeifferjr