We want competition, competition pushes progress. Maintaining the status quo, not so much. And if your biggest argument against AMD upsetting the status quo is you'll have to put a little more effort into shopping, well that's not really a problem for most of us...
> OH NO! Your business isn't so valuable that it's incentive for AMD to active try and stay in second place.
Not every post is about what's strategically best for a company. They very clearly stated it's what they personally wanted, and why.
What's the point of ripping into someone because they've actually expressed desire for a specific scenario? If you think they won't actually get what they want from the scenario or action they've described, just point out how you don't think it will end up that way.
Where only two competitors sell too similar a product, two dogs chasing the same rabbit, market forces will only amplify this lack of diversity. I want a range of core/clock options at a variety of price points. If AMD and Intel become too similar on close speeds I fear the inevitable race will reduce my options to a binary of two very similar product lines. This is s recognized realworld phenomena.
AMD taking the lead could also make them complacent when it comes to the more annoying things like DRM and privacy. I want them to remain the lean company. I don't want them investing in all the chaotic side projects that intel chips participate in. AMD needs to stick to number crunching and not allow their CPUs to become gateways for other tasks. They need to stay as they are now.
Lastly, atm AMD and intel sell very different chips. They do different things well. Those who pick one or the other do so for clear reasons. If they get too close on per-core performance we risk endless brand debates. Two tribes will emerge. Wagons will circle and fanboys appear. Competition betters the breed, but with only two players on the field we all know what will happen.