>If Intel really could manipulate the market successfully, AMD would not exist at all, instead of just having slightly lower profit margins but otherwise similar products, as you describe.
AMD has been less than financially healthy for years. They've spun off Spansion and GlobalFoundries in the past few years trying to keep head above water.
The point is that Intel was successful in keeping AMD from being able to expand its market share when AMD had a better product and the two were much closer to parity in terms of manufacturing process than they are today. As a result, AMD couldn't afford to reinvest in manufacturing and design, and Intel was able to widen the gap between them.
AMD is still afloat, but they're nowhere near the threat to Intel that they were circa 2000-2005.
>And also, there wouldn't be ARM, which seems to be taking more and more marketshare from Intel. Intel couldn't "lock them out."
ARM was in a completely different market segment that Intel didn't really view as a competitor. As things shift toward mobile, Intel is starting to address that segment, and I think that the process advantage they hold could end up being an even bigger deal there since overall package size and power consumption is such a major factor in mobile. Even if your design is equivalent or slightly better than Intel's from a performance per transistor standpoint, Intel can still win out by being able to churn out more chips than you can at the same cost.
>IE isn't such a huge kludge/security problem now, but it used to be a serious competitive disadvantage. (This is just a hokey theory only tangentially related to the discussion, though.)
Microsoft's bread and butter is the enterprise and IE is still a huge competitive advantage for them there. We're tied hugely to Windows at my workplace almost entirely because of IE.
AMD has been less than financially healthy for years. They've spun off Spansion and GlobalFoundries in the past few years trying to keep head above water.
The point is that Intel was successful in keeping AMD from being able to expand its market share when AMD had a better product and the two were much closer to parity in terms of manufacturing process than they are today. As a result, AMD couldn't afford to reinvest in manufacturing and design, and Intel was able to widen the gap between them.
AMD is still afloat, but they're nowhere near the threat to Intel that they were circa 2000-2005.
>And also, there wouldn't be ARM, which seems to be taking more and more marketshare from Intel. Intel couldn't "lock them out."
ARM was in a completely different market segment that Intel didn't really view as a competitor. As things shift toward mobile, Intel is starting to address that segment, and I think that the process advantage they hold could end up being an even bigger deal there since overall package size and power consumption is such a major factor in mobile. Even if your design is equivalent or slightly better than Intel's from a performance per transistor standpoint, Intel can still win out by being able to churn out more chips than you can at the same cost.
>IE isn't such a huge kludge/security problem now, but it used to be a serious competitive disadvantage. (This is just a hokey theory only tangentially related to the discussion, though.)
Microsoft's bread and butter is the enterprise and IE is still a huge competitive advantage for them there. We're tied hugely to Windows at my workplace almost entirely because of IE.