AMD kills off ATI brandname, finally

Discussion in 'Video Cards' started by Yousuf Khan, Aug 30, 2010.

  1. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    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    still bear ATI's trademark red colouring but the ATI has been replaced
    by AMD."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/230418,goodbye-ati---amd-now-the-big-name-in-graphics-cards.aspx
     
    Yousuf Khan, Aug 30, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yousuf Khan

    Mike S. Guest

    In article <-lp.com>, Yousuf Khan <> 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/230418,goodbye-ati---amd-now-the-big-name-in-graphics-cards.aspx


    For those who remember, it's somewhat miraculous that ATI survived the
    video code affectionately known as the "VGA Blunder".
     
    Mike S., Aug 30, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Yousuf Khan

    Intel Guy Guest

    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?)
     
    Intel Guy, Aug 30, 2010
    #3
  4. In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Intel Guy <> 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
     
    Robert Redelmeier, Aug 30, 2010
    #4
  5. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    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
     
    Yousuf Khan, Aug 30, 2010
    #5
  6. 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.
     
    Bill Davidsen, Sep 9, 2010
    #6
  7. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    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
     
    Yousuf Khan, Sep 10, 2010
    #7
  8. Yousuf Khan

    Robert Myers Guest

    On Sep 9, 7:56 pm, Yousuf Khan <> 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.
     
    Robert Myers, Sep 10, 2010
    #8
  9. 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. :-(
     
    Bill Davidsen, Sep 10, 2010
    #9
  10. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    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
     
    Yousuf Khan, Sep 11, 2010
    #10
  11. Yousuf Khan

    Rick Jones Guest

    In comp.sys.intel Yousuf Khan <> wrote:
    > 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.


    Are CPUs and GPUs really going to be all that much out of phase with
    one another?

    rick jones
    --
    I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
    "when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
    these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
    feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
     
    Rick Jones, Sep 13, 2010
    #11
  12. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    On 13/09/2010 5:09 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
    > In comp.sys.intel Yousuf Khan<> wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    > Are CPUs and GPUs really going to be all that much out of phase with
    > one another?
    >
    > rick jones


    Well, they have been up until now. I assume that with GPUs being
    integrated into CPUs now, that those GPUs will get behind or leap ahead
    in lockstep with the CPUs. But discrete GPUs might still be going for a
    little while, so those might have their own development tracks and
    they'll be ahead or behind their own respective competition from Nvidia,
    etc.

    Yousuf Khan
     
    Yousuf Khan, Sep 14, 2010
    #12
  13. Yousuf Khan

    GMAN Guest

    In article <4c7c0e9f$-lp.com>, Yousuf Khan <> wrote:
    >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.
    >


    You can thank that ****er obama buying up GM for losing those brand names.



    >> 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
     
    GMAN, Sep 14, 2010
    #13
  14. Yousuf Khan

    Joe Pfeiffer Guest

    (GMAN) writes:

    > In article <4c7c0e9f$-lp.com>, Yousuf Khan <> wrote:
    >>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.
    >>

    >
    > You can thank that ****er obama buying up GM for losing those brand names.


    No, you can thank GM for turning Pontiac into a brand that meant
    "plastic body crap" and for ever creating a Hummer brand other than the
    civilianized HUMVEE. And Olds and Plymouth were gone long before Obama
    was president.

    I've got very little good to say about the marionette in chief, but I
    prefer to blame him for things he's guilty of. There's plenty of that
    without trying to pin GM and Chrysler's brand mistakes on him.
    --
    As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
    be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
    and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
     
    Joe Pfeiffer, Sep 15, 2010
    #14
  15. Yousuf Khan

    Guest

    On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:03:41 -0400, Yousuf Khan <>
    wrote:

    <snip>
    >
    >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.


    What happened to Mercury? It was there this morning.

    http://www.mercuryvehicles.com/
     
    , Sep 15, 2010
    #15
  16. Yousuf Khan

    Trent Guest

    On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:39:40 -0600 Joe Pfeiffer <>
    wrote in Message id: <>:

    >No, you can thank GM for turning Pontiac into a brand that meant
    >"plastic body crap"


    And boy did they blow it on the return of the GTO. Think of what it could
    have been had they made it more retro like the Mustang and Challenger.
     
    Trent, Sep 15, 2010
    #16
  17. Yousuf Khan

    Joe Pfeiffer Guest

    Trent <> writes:

    > On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:39:40 -0600 Joe Pfeiffer <>
    > wrote in Message id: <>:
    >
    >>No, you can thank GM for turning Pontiac into a brand that meant
    >>"plastic body crap"

    >
    > And boy did they blow it on the return of the GTO. Think of what it could
    > have been had they made it more retro like the Mustang and Challenger.


    What really hurts is that was (by all accounts) an excellent car.
    --
    As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
    be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
    and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
     
    Joe Pfeiffer, Sep 15, 2010
    #17
  18. Yousuf Khan

    Joe Pfeiffer Guest

    "" <> writes:

    > On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:03:41 -0400, Yousuf Khan <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >>
    >>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.

    >
    > What happened to Mercury? It was there this morning.
    >
    > http://www.mercuryvehicles.com/


    For has announced that Mercury is being discontinued; I don't remember
    the timetable. Like Plymouth, it's been pretty much on life support for
    years and they're now turning off the machine.

    Actually, as I look around, Ford appears to have abandoned the high-end
    American luxury market to Cadillac and moved Lincoln down into the
    former Mercury territory, so Mercury becomes pretty much redundant.
    --
    As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
    be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
    and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
     
    Joe Pfeiffer, Sep 15, 2010
    #18
  19. Yousuf Khan

    Guest

    On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:32:00 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <> wrote:

    >"" <> writes:
    >
    >> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:03:41 -0400, Yousuf Khan <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>>
    >>>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.

    >>
    >> What happened to Mercury? It was there this morning.
    >>
    >> http://www.mercuryvehicles.com/

    >
    >For has announced that Mercury is being discontinued; I don't remember
    >the timetable. Like Plymouth, it's been pretty much on life support for
    >years and they're now turning off the machine.
    >
    >Actually, as I look around, Ford appears to have abandoned the high-end
    >American luxury market to Cadillac and moved Lincoln down into the
    >former Mercury territory, so Mercury becomes pretty much redundant.


    Ah, I hadn't heard that. Thanks. A friend has an LM dealership. I bet he's
    not happy.
     
    , Sep 15, 2010
    #19
  20. Yousuf Khan

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    On 15/09/2010 12:35 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
    > On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:03:41 -0400, Yousuf Khan<>
    > wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    > What happened to Mercury? It was there this morning.
    >
    > http://www.mercuryvehicles.com/


    It's gone up here in Canada. If it comes back, it's usually just a one
    off vehicle here or there.

    Yousuf Khan
     
    Yousuf Khan, Sep 16, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Air Raid

    AMD buying ATI: would it add up?

    Air Raid, Jun 15, 2006, in forum: Video Cards
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    258
    Air Raid
    Jun 15, 2006
  2. nv55
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    244
    chrisv
    Jun 28, 2006
  3. AirRaid

    it seems AMD has bought ATI Technologies

    AirRaid, Jul 5, 2006, in forum: Video Cards
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    272
    Gato Loco
    Jul 9, 2006
  4. RadeonR600
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    687
    RadeonR600
    May 19, 2007
  5. AirRaid Mach 2.5
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,476
    AirRaid Mach 2.5
    Apr 24, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page