Has HP lost the desktop plot?

UNTIL AROUND February this year, Hewlett Packard's Compaq X gaming PC line-up had been available from its US Web site since its July launch last year - a cursory Google search didn't reveal product availability. During that time period though, the IT vendor had positioned its far better performing AMD Athlon 64 processor based offering below its Intel Pentium 4 (P4) powered counterparts. And this after we praised its Pavilion PC marketing efforts in May last year.

HP's Compaq X line-up was launched with two models. One based on the socket 478 Intel Netburst platform and the other designed around socket 939 AMD64 technology. The IT vendor later introduced another Netburst model based on the chip giant's latest socket 775 infrastructure.

HP had promoted its two P4 based offerings as "…optimized for demanding gamers" and "Extreme gaming PC" but had described its far better performing Athlon 64 based rig as "packed with features gamers want". Also, it had positioned in the worse sales spot the best performing platform. The P4 based platform did have one advantage though - price. When the top P4 and Athlon 64 based offerings were configured the same, the P4 based solution cost $130 less. But that 4.5% saving didn't correlate too well with performance that was up to 25% worse.

To see how misleading HP's "…optimized for demanding gamers" and "Extreme gaming PC" claims had been we'll use an Anandtech review to highlight performance differences. This pitched together the Intel P4 570 J processor - what was then the chip giant's only 3.8GHz device - with the AMD Athlon 64 4000+. Those processors matched the top devices that HP had offered. The Athlon 64 FX53 chip had been the IT giant's top-of-the-line AMD64 offering, which has been superseded by the FX55 and the FX57, but had the same frequency and level two cache as the 4000+ so performance will be the same. Since HP's rigs had been marketed as gaming platforms, only Anandtech's gaming benchmark results will be used.

Battlefield Vietnam
P4 - 240
Athlon 64 - 240
Score draw

Both chips take the first corner neck and neck.

Halo
P4 - 88.9
Athlon 64 - 96.7
Athlon 64 won by 8.8%

Athlon 64 cruises past the P4.

Counterstrike: Source
P4 - 148
Athlon 64 - 185.6
Athlon 64 won by 25.4%

Athlon 64's pedal hits the metal.

UT2004
P4 - 61.1
Athlon 64 - 70.9
Athlon 64 won by 16%

The P4 can't be seen in Athlon 64's rear view mirror.

Doom 3
P4 - 87.1
Athlon 64 - 100.7
Athlon 64 won by 15.6%

Athlon 64 is just in a different league.

The Sims 2
P4 - 49.7
Athlon 64 - 56.5
Athlon 64 won by 13.7%

Athlon 64 can't be this good. AMD must have Michael Schumacher driving behind the wheel.

Far Cry
P4 - 135.1
Athlon 64 - 154.9
Athlon 64 won by 14.7%

The P4 has now been lapped.

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
P4 - 101.2
Athlon 64 - 108.9
Athlon 64 won by 7.6%

Athlon 64 is now coasting home to the finish line.

Star Wars Battlefront
P4 - 141
Athlon 64 - 145
Athlon 64 won by 2.8%

Only engine failure can stop the Athlon 64 from winning.

Warcraft III
P4 - 61
Athlon 64 - 62
Athlon 64 won by 1.6%

Athlon 64 takes the chequered flag by a very comfortable margin.

The P4 based platform didn't win a benchmark. Of the nine benchmarks that the Athlon 64 rig won, the winning margin in five of those were in double figures. There should be no doubt that HP's claims were misleading.

From the comparison that has been made it should be clear to HP that the AMD Athlon 64 processor is the device that has been "optimized for demanding gamers" - not the P4. The P4 might be able to venture into the premier league when the chip giant increases the front side bus (FSB) bandwidth and clock frequency. But wait. Intel has already done that with the 3.46GHz Extreme Edition P4. But as Anandtech said in a review about that chip: "So there you have it folks - the 1066MHz FSB does absolutely nothing for performance. The 3.46EE does manage to outperform its 3.4GHz/800MHz FSB predecessor, but the margin of improvement is negligible."

So with HP's second best gaming offerings, unsuspecting consumers who may have been taken in by the "…optimized for demanding gamers" and "Extreme gaming PC" claims - because they believe HP is an upright company which doesn't mislead - may have been misled into purchasing those second tier offerings.

It should be obvious that informed, "demanding gamers" wouldn't have forked out top dollar for performance that didn't live up to the hype.

Keystone Kops product planning
When the AMD Athlon 64 processor had clearly outperformed its Intel P4 counterpart in gaming, one has to ask why HP included such pedestrian systems in its line-up. The company could have offered its customers more value by using the socket 754 AMD64 platform instead. If HP had done that, it could have offered it alongside its socket 939 stablemate. With that platform, configurable Athlon 64 processors from model number 2800+ to 3700+ could have been offered, which could have included the AMD Sempron 3100+ as the bottom dollar entry level offering.

Marketing 101: Why didn't HP position its Athlon 64 based Compaq X PC to conquer?
Compared to the gaming PCs that Gateway and Dell had offered during the time that HP gaming PCs were available from its Web site, the IT vendor's Athlon 64 based Compaq X offering did blow its competitors out of the water. If this were the Battleships board game, the blue ships would already be lying on the bottom of the ocean. Why didn't HP take full advantage of that? It should have been making hay while the sun was shining. HP should have used its top performing desktop offering to drive the sales of its higher volume PCs, which of course includes its Intel processor based solutions. Why didn't that happen? HP should have learnt from Intel that perception in this industry is everything. Didn't HP want to tell the world that it offered from its Web site the best tier one gaming PC period?

HP's media center PC product claims mislead
On HP's US Web site, the IT giant promotes its Intel P4/Pentium D based offering as the "Ultimate entertainment PC" and "Latest Pentium D technology in the ultimate entertainment PC" but describes its AMD Athlon 64/Athlon 64 X2 based counterpart as "Powerful entertainment".

It has already been demonstrated in gaming that the P4 is pedestrian. The Pentium D, which is a dual core processor, is essentially just two P4s in the same package. What other mainstream PC entertainment is there besides gaming? Is HP seriously saying that its Intel Netburst based media center PC somehow delivers a TV, DVD, and CD viewing and listening experience that is perceivably superior? If so, I'd love to see the evidence.

Some may say that Intel's high definition audio, which HP's P4/Pentium D based media center PCs are endowed with, is a real technology breakthrough. But as Sudhian Media concluded in a review about that technology:

"Overall, a lot was expected from High Definition Audio, but a lot of it wasn't delivered. Still lacking is Dolby Pro Logic IIx, better Jack Sensing/Reassignments, better DAC's, and 32 bit/192 KHz support. The limitations of High Definition Audio seem to stem from the UAA drivers. Simply put, UAA wasn't designed for Windows XP, getting UAA running on Windows XP was a hack job, as it was designed with Longhorn in mind. This could explain the lack of Dolby Pro Logic IIx support. Sure it's a massive improvement over existing ALC650 equipped audio solutions, but that's not saying much. Compared to ADI AC'97 solutions, High Definition Audio with the ALC880 simply made it on par with a three year old ADI solution."

The author did explain in his review that the lack of 32-bit/192 KHz support was a limitation of the Realtek ALC880 codec.

Does Intel's dual core measure up?
In an AMD Web cast, the company's chief sales officer Henri Richard best described Intel's predicament. He said putting two four cylinder engines into a car doesn't make it a V8. That's clearly Intel's problem, especially when the rubber meets the road. Read what Tom's Hardware Guide concluded in its AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual core review: "Here's the bottom line. If we had to recommend a single core processor, the choice would depend greatly on the type of applications in use. But in the dual core arena, though, there is not much that speaks for Intel: go with the Athlon 64 X2."

Second slowest AMD dual core out-performs Intel's best
In fact, AMD's second slowest dual core processor, the Athlon 64 X2 4200+, out-performs the chip giant's finest counterpart offering - yes, the Pentium 840 extreme edition device, which costs over twice as much. I haven't read a review that specifically highlighted that comparison, so we'll use an Anandtech review to show those differences here. That was the review site's Athlon 64 X2 4800+ and 4200+ dual core preview, which included the Pentium 840 extreme edition part. I won't give a blow by blow account as the section results says it all.

Business/general use performance
Athlon 64 X2 won 80% of the tests

Multimedia content creation performance
Athlon 64 X2 won 100% of the tests

Video creation/photo editing
Athlon 64 X2 won 100% of the tests

Audio/video encoding
Athlon 64 X2 won 100% of the tests

Gaming performance
Athlon 64 X2 won 88% of the tests

3D rendering
Pentium 840 EE won 57% of the tests

When AMD's second slowest dual core offering out-performs the chip giant's fastest extreme edition counterpart in five of six disciplines, it's obviously a no-brainer when someone asks which dual core offering to go for, especially since the launch of AMD's mainstream dual core chip - the Athlon 64 X2 3800+. People will come away thinking that Intel's dual core implementation is not only second best but also second rate.

Anandtech did run additional tests that showed the extreme edition dual core in a far better light. But for those tests the hardware review site didn't use industry standard benchmarks.

I couldn't find a review with a sufficiently broad benchmark suite comparing the latest AMD dual core device with the chip giant's extreme edition counterpart. But I would imagine that duel would show the 3800+ in a very good light for a part that costs over $600 less.

If entertainment performance is really what HP's media center PCs are all about, maybe what the IT giant's "Latest Pentium D technology in the ultimate entertainment PC" claim is really saying is that dual core processor technology will allow you to watch a DVD, listen to a CD, watch TV, and play your favorite game all at the same time.

Of course, I'm being facetious. But you get the point I'm making.

More Keystone Kops product planning
If HP is really promoting its media center PCs as digital entertainment hubs - it has already been demonstrated in gaming that the P4 processor is ordinary and the Pentium D's overall performance is just embarrassing - one has to ask again why the IT giant included such systems in its line-up.

More Marketing 101: Positioning HP's Athlon 64 X2 based media center PC to conquer
I said earlier in this piece: “Compared to the gaming PCs that Gateway and Dell had offered during the time that HP gaming PCs were available from its Web site, the IT vendor's Athlon 64 based Compaq X offering did blow its competitors out of the water. If this were the Battleships board game, the blue ships would already be lying on the bottom of the ocean. Why didn't HP take full advantage of that? It should have been making hay while the sun was shining. HP should have used its top performing desktop offering to drive the sales of its higher volume PCs, which of course includes its Intel processor based solutions. Why didn't that happen? HP should have learnt from Intel that perception in this industry is everything. Didn't HP want to tell the world that it offered from its Web site the best tier one gaming PC period?”

In light of HP's gaming PC demise, which makes its media center PC its flagship desktop product, and knowing how the AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual core chip makes mincemeat of its Intel Pentium counterparts, the above questions can be applied equally well to HP's AMD64 based media center product.

Dropping the marketing ball
What incentive is their for Dell and other Intel only IT vendors to adopt AMD64 based technology when HP, which has probably sold more AMD64 based systems than any one else, has been so inept at marketing a performance leading technology.

When it comes to marketing 101, it really does look like the baby was thrown out with the bath water.

Hewlett Packard shouldn't mislead
Imagine you buy your next sports car on-line and you're unaware that the car dealer's marketing is misleading, which just happens to be similar to how HP had promoted its Compaq X PCs. You believe the car dealer is reputable, so you take its word as gospel. You end up buying a Ford Mustang - believing it's the sports car for "demanding drivers" - only to later find out that you could have purchased a Porsche instead, which offers up to 25% better performance for around 1300 dollars more. Don't you think you'd be instructing your lawyer to sue the misleading dealer?

In June last year, Hewlett Packard recalled faulty memory modules for up to 900,000 of its notebooks. HP spokesman Mike Hockey said: "We're doing what's right for the customer". When the IT giant showed that level of customer care shouldn't the same concern be applied to how it sells its offerings? Surely HP doesn't want to misrepresent its products. If anything, it should be going the extra mile to inform and educate its customers.

HP: A standards based company?
HP keeps telling the world about standards based computing. But if standards not only means setting the pace with the best standards based technology available, but more importantly, making its performance advantages clearly known as well, the IT giant has obviously failed to do that with its gaming and media center PCs.

HP says one thing but actually does another
In a June conversation with hp.com, HP CEO Mark Hurd said: "Customers are the most important asset that HP has," he said. "We're very focused on helping customers solve problems and improve their business. And we're determined to earn the trust, loyalty and confidence of our customers every day. That takes focus and commitment from every one of us at HP."

Let's hope whoever signed off on HP's misleading media center and gaming PC product claims understands now what the "new focus" is. Also, let's hope it doesn't take a call from the CEO's office to fix what's patently wrong.

Putting one's customers first
If HP wants to see a tier one OEM that's actually put its customers first, the IT vendor only has to take a look at Sun Microsystems. In March last year, Sun began its "in-your-face" media campaign for its AMD Opteron based two-way server. The systems vendor didn't have a problem telling its customers "directly" what the bottom line was. It's still the same today.

Sun's forthrightness has no doubt helped the company grow its AMD64 based system sales. Its executive vice president John Fowler said, according to IDC worldwide quarterly server tracker data from February 2005: "We are the only major server vendor that has grown AMD Opteron processor factory revenue market share every quarter since announcing our first server based on the industry-standard AMD Opteron processor."

If the IDC data is accurate, putting its customers first has certainly paid off for Sun.

Will HP's CEO change bring to pass a strategy that delivers?
When one sees how well HP promotes its AMD64 based xw9300 workstation model - see the quotes below that it used to promote the said model - it's clear that the IT giant's home/home office and enterprise marketing groups haven't been singing off the same hymn sheet. That also tells you there has not been an overall AMD64 strategy that should have been designed to kick Dell and Gateway, its principle volume competitors, well and truly into touch.

Randall Simpson, postmagazine.com: "Without question, this is the finest workstation I have ever tested....your ultimate creative super-weapon is ready to be picked up - it's called the HP xw9300 workstation...you will be spending more time creating and less time stepping out for coffee with this kind [of] visualization power."

Ed Leonard, CTO, DreamWorks Animation SKG: "Innovation is a critical part of our business as it expands the palette available to our artists. The introduction of the HP xw9300 Workstation represents a significant advancement in workstation technology that is sure to excite and enable our film makers in new and interesting ways."

Why didn't HP use those sort of quotes for the AMD Athlon 64 processor that it used in its AMD64 based Compaq X and media center PCs. There were plenty out there to choose from.

Read also the quote that HP used on its US Web site promoting its P4/Pentium D based xw4300 workstation model:

"With the HP xw4300, featuring the Intel Pentium D processor and the Intel 955X Express chipset, HP is continuing its history of being an innovator and bringing leading-edge technologies to customers. HP's strong technical capabilities coupled with Intel's exciting new Dual-Core technology will allow customers to accomplish much more with their workstations than ever before."

Phil Brace,
General Manager of Marketing
Intel's Digital Enterprise Group

The thing to note is that HP relied on an Intel quote for its workstation model. The chip giant must be HP's biggest component supplier. The question has to be asked: are there any positive third party quotes out there?

If Mr. Brace would like to tell the world what's actually exciting and leading-edge about Intel's new dual core technology - when compared to the AMD64 competition - I'm sure the informed world would love to hear what the marketing man has to say.

Of course, we don't expect to hear from Mr. Brace or Intel on the record. But since HP would appear to endorse the quote since it used it on its Web site, I'm sure a spinner from HP would only be too willing to step in for the general manager.

One can only hope that the change at the top will light a bonfire under the seats of those who will be responsible for planning HP's future success, which hopefully includes a strategy that puts its business and consumer customers first.

Making sense of it all
I would have a hard time making sense of HP's desktop strategy if I was a HP stockholder or an institutional investor, especially when the IT giant had a great opportunity - and still has - to not only make marketing inroads against Dell and Gateway, its principle volume competitors, it should have also been able to grow its sales as a direct result of doing its marketing homework.

When one also factors in that in March last year an industry source said Intel would take at least 18 months to catch AMD up - 18 months are up and the chip giant is still in catch-up mode. In June the same year, the chip giant's 3.6GHz P4 was paper launched - there was no volume availability. Intel first delayed a year last July and then canned the following October its 4GHz P4 processor. And last October, the Intel CEO blamed the company's employees for the chip giant's string of execution failings. When taken altogether, one has to question the IT vendor's desktop strategy as it didn't take advantage of a business opportunity that was begging - and still is begging - to be exploited.

What HP should have done
If HP had been serious about selling AMD64 based gaming and media center PCs, the IT giant would have properly promoted and differentiated those offerings. Naming them Compaq X Plus and Media Center Plus would have set them apart from the pretenders. The Intel Netburst based platforms would only have qualified for the plus addition when their overall entertainment performance, which of course includes gaming, had come to within 5% of the Athlon 64/Athlon 64 X2 based solutions. At least with those differentiations, HP's less informed clientele would have been given an opportunity to ask what the Plus actually means.

What HP needs to fix
HP's P4/Pentium D based media center PC product claims should not continue to mislead. The "Ultimate Entertainment PC" claim would be far more appropriate for HP's AMD64 based media center product.

Holding the chip giant's hand
We reported last October that a growing list of hardware review sites had presented the Asus P5AD2 premium motherboard awards for performance that can only be described as ordinary. That board was based on the Intel 925X chipset that only supports Intel Netburst processors. Having misrepresented its Intel Netburst based Compaq X and Media Center PCs, HP has also given the performance challenged Intel a helping hand.

Are retail and on-line outlets also holding the chip giant's hand?
Knowing the entertainment performance advantages of AMD's AMD64 based Athlon 64/Athlon 64 X2 processors, one would expect to see media center PCs based on that technology widely available - that is systems that ship with Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005.

A visit to Fry's Electronics, Sam's Club, and Office Depot - three retail stores in the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex area - proved in these examples at least that AMD64 based media center PCs were far from widely available.

Fry's retail store had eleven Intel Netburst based media center PCs available for sale. There were just two AMD64 based counterparts. Out of 12 offerings on Fry's Outpost.com Web site, only three were AMD64 based.

Sam's Club was worse. There were no AMD64 based media center PCs in its retail store or on its Web site. The membership store had two Intel Netburst based media center PCs in its retail store and two on its Web site.

It was another clean sweep for Intel at Office Depot's retail and on-line store - no AMD64 based media center product. The office products outlet had two Netburst based media center PC available for sale in its retail store and two on its Web site.

If we tally the numbers together there were just five AMD64 processor based media center PCs out of 33 available - and all of them from just one reseller. That is just amazing.

One has to ask what else AMD has to do besides delivering not only the best performing media center processor technology available, but one that knocks its Intel processor based solutions well and truly for six.

Where are the over-a-grand AMD processor based PCs?
It's also interesting to note that Sam's Club on-line desktop offerings over one thousand dollars did not have any AMD processor based representation - that was out of 4 PCs available. Office Depot's Web site was no better. There were no AMD processor based desktops priced over a grand - it had three Intel processor based offerings over that figure. Fry's Outpost.com desktop page had no AMD processor based offering over $1,000 - there were 11 Intel Netburst based solutions priced over that amount.

If we tally the numbers together again there were no AMD processor based PCs over $1,000 out of 18 available. Again, taking into account the performance that AMD64 technology delivers, that is just staggering.

From just those three on-line examples, it would appear that AMD is being squeezed in the higher margin desktop market as well.

If AMD Athlon 64/Athlon 64 X2 based media center PC availability - that is systems that ship with Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 - is poor in your part of the world, drop me a line. If AMD processor based PCs are poorly represented in your local retail and/or on-line store, tell me that as well.

Does new technology really knock barriers down?
In April this year, the introduction of AMD's AMD64 dual core technology launch quoted the company's CEO Hector Ruiz:

"New technology should not introduce new barriers. It should knock them down."

If the above quote is true, and the examples above are typical of what can be found generally in US retail and on-line stores, a retail barrier exists for AMD Athlon 64/Athlon 64 X2 based media center PCs.

If the on-line, over one thousand dollar desktop examples are typical as well, AMD has a barrier there as well.

Of course, let's not forget Dell. The Intel only computer vendor still doesn't offer AMD processor based solutions.

The AMD Athlon 64 processor has been a performance leader since its September 2003 launch. If media center PCs turn out to be the next big revenue earner, especially with the advent of x86 dual core processor technology, Intel processor based media center PCs will already have a stranglehold on the market if their market dominance is typical of the retail and on-line examples given above. That could mean consumers may again be offered a lesser PC deal because PC manufacturers and resellers choose or are coerced not to make widespread the best technology available.

Could Intel marketing be doing such a fantastic job that it really doesn't matter that its Netburst processor offerings are second best performers overall?

If consumers can be taken in by advertising, which I don't believe is the case if they're properly informed of what the performance facts are, then it's a sad reflection on the decision makers of PC manufacturers, resellers, and maybe Intel who ultimately decide the PC choice that is placed before us.

I'm sure if those decision makers were given a choice of taking home a Intel Netburst or AMD64 based media center PC, especially if their entertainment pastime is gaming, more than 95% of those would choose the latter system.

As a counterpoint to the above, a Current Analysis study claims sales of media center PCs have skyrocketed since July 9 of this year. For week ending August 20, media center PCs apparently accounted for 43% of all desktop computers sold in US retail - results were based on sample data. The study also reported some additional tidbits:

1. 71% of the Media Centers sold in the week ending August 20 did not have a TV tuner.
2. 53% of the Media Centers sold in the week ending August 20 utilized AMD's Athlon 64 processor.
3. 67% of the Media Centers sold in the week ending August 20 used a 250-GB hard drive.

Has the retail market suddenly woken up to what AMD64 technology delivers? If it has, it's two years too late. Does that mean I may soon have the option to buy an AMD64 based media center PC from Sam's Club or Office Depot? If the study proves accurate let's hope so.

Antitrust concerns
Let us not forget that in March this year, Japan's Fair Trade Commission had found Intel guilty of violating Section 3 of its Antimonopoly Act. AMD said in a statement:

"It is unfortunate that even when presented with specific - and very disturbing - findings of deliberate and systematic anti-competitive behavior, Intel refuses to face the facts and admit the harm it has caused to competitors and consumers," said Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer. "Although Intel's willingness to comply with the JFTC Recommendation is a step in the right direction, it has conspicuously failed to either accept responsibility for its actions or acknowledge that competition is best served when customers and consumers have a choice. The JFTC determined that Intel conditioned its pricing based on customers not doing business with competitors; governments around the world must ensure that such anti-competitive actions are not impacting their markets as well."

The JFTC specifically found that:

1. Some manufacturers were required to buy 100 percent of their CPUs from Intel; another manufacturer was forced to curtail its non-Intel purchases to 10 percent or less;

2. Intel separately conditioned rebates on the exclusive use of Intel CPUs in specific PC product lines or brands in order to eliminate competitor CPUs from key OEM brand lines;

3. Intel's activities in Japan include the use of its "Intel Inside" program, market development funds and other rebate programs. Intel's tactics lock-in OEMs and prevent them from doing business with Intel's competitors.

AMD also said:

“Issued on March 8, 2005, the JFTC Recommendation found that Intel has abused its monopoly power to exclude fair and open competition, thereby violating Section 3 of Japan's Antimonopoly Act. These findings reveal that Intel used illegal tactics to stop AMD's increasing market share by imposing limitations on Japanese PC manufacturers.”

“The Recommendation reveals that Intel imposed these restrictions in direct response to AMD's growing market share in Japan from 2000-2002. The Recommendation also notes that as a result of this misconduct, the combined Japanese market share of AMD and a second, much smaller CPU company fell from 24 percent in 2002 to 11 percent in 2003.”

“The JFTC imposed a number of restrictions on Intel including ending the use of rebates and other funds to illegally distort competition, notifying its customers and educating its employees that it may no longer provide rebates and other funds to Japanese computer manufacturers on conditions that exclude competitors' CPUs.”

“Intel had ten days to either comply with or appeal this ruling and requested a two week deadline extension. Intel elected to accept the Recommendation which means that the company will need to alter business practices and implement other remedies immediately to meet the guidance in the Recommendation.”

“The European Commission recently stated that it is investigating Intel for possible similar anti-competitive business practices in Europe and is cooperating with the Japanese authorities.”

Has the Japanese incident been replicated in Europe and the US?

Are we seeing behaviour - that could be perfectly legal - that is restricting real and open competition in the US and European PC markets? If that is so, the so called "open market" has again failed to deliver real consumer choice.

Without real and open competition prices remain artificially high, even for die-hard Intel supporters. So it's in everybody's interest to have real competition that drives down the cost of IT. If that doesn't exist, Joe Public is the one who will ultimately pay by lining the pocket's of those who strive to maintain the status quo.

AMD sues Intel
I can't say I'm surprised. Of course, AMD will have to win its day in court to prove that its complaint had been legitimate.

AMD CEO Hector Ruiz summarized in an open letter what the chip maker's 48 page complaint is all about:

1. Forcing major customers to accept exclusive deals
2. Withholding rebates and marketing subsidies as a means of punishing customers who buy more than prescribed quantities of processors from AMD
3. Threatening retaliation against customers doing business with AMD
4. Establishing quotas keeping retailers from selling the computers they want
5. Forcing PC makers to boycott AMD product launches

If the retail barrier examples given above are typical across the US market place, the INQUIRER may have unearthed a quota system already in effect.

Putting pen to paper - who should raise an objection?
Without consumer and business customers there would be no IT market. We are ultimately responsible for the revenue that IT companies make. As IT vendors plan their product roadmaps the IT buying public should be foremost in those deliberations. If IT vendors conducted their business with that in mind we would begin to see the balance of power shift from monopolistic/monopolistic type companies to where it rightly belongs.

It's a sad fact that some IT vendors don't look out for the less informed. So it's left to publications like us and our readers to highlight practices that harm the IT buying public.

If you're a HP stockholder or an institutional investor, you may wish to question the IT vendor's desktop strategy. If you're concerned about HP's past and current misleading claims, you would certainly want to tell the IT vendor to fix and avoid such misrepresentations in the future. If you're a stakeholder, that is someone who wants to see the widest availability of the best technology at the cheapest possible cost, you would want to remind HP that it needs to nurture the IT market for the benefit of the IT buying public - not its monopolistic type supplier.

People power can work
In 2003, EDA users had demanded AMD Opteron processor support and got it. In the middle of last year, INQUIRER readers proved instrumental in getting Microsoft to update its less than accurate gaming PC page. So don't be apathetic. Your voice amongst the many is important. Make sure it gets heard.

The INQUIRER can only bring you the story. If you want to see real change within the IT industry you the reader have to act.

In the light of AMD's lawsuit, I believe it's even more imperative to act. If you should decide to write and HP has the courtesy to respond, drop me a line.

Just two last thoughts which don't require a response. Based on its ordinary gaming performance, if Intel had sold the AMD Athlon 64 processor and AMD its Intel P4 counterpart, would HP have offered a P4 powered Compaq X PC?

Based on its embarrassingly slow performance, if AMD had sold the Intel Pentium D dual core chip and Intel its AMD Athlon 64 X2 counterpart, would HP have offered a Pentium D powered media center PC?

That's certainly food for thought. µ

* THIS ARTICLE was originally published as a PDF for INQ subscribers to our ad free pages. There were some errors in that PDF, for which Mario Rodrigues apologises. He said: "I said in the piece that the chip giant's dual core Pentium processor was manufactured using two pieces of silicon, which was wrong. Intel's dual core processor is manufactured using one piece of silicon. Because of the above, I went on to say that a HP press release for its xW4300 workstation model had made an erroneous claim about the Pentium D processor - that it was manufactured using one piece of silicon - which was wrong again. I apologise to Intel, HP, and our readership for this unintended error."

See Also
HP's Pavilion family shows AMD gets equality
Slowest Athlon 64 humbles fastest P4 in gaming
Sun launches "in-your-face" media campaign for Opteron server
Intel "will take 18 months" to catch AMD up
Intel flagship 3.6GHz Pentium 4 rare as hen's teeth
Intel delays 4GHz Pentium 4
Intel drops plans for 4GHz Pentium 4
Intel blew it on 4GHz Pentium 4, Otellini says
Intel chief lays down law to workers
Are editors' awards editorially challenged?
Intel offices raided by European Commission
AMD and Intel trial coverage and reports
EDA users demand Opteron support and get it
Microsoft gaming PC page still fails to deliver

L'INQ
HP's contact page
Current Analysis study