>> Not enough to offset existing business agreements with Intel

Translation, Anti-Trust violating agreements that Intel has been guilty of in the past

There are also legal business agreements like "buy 100,000 CPUs from me and you'll pay 10% less", which are really commonplace, don't violate antitrust at all, and AMD will also be negotiating these with major OEMs all the same.

The issue with those is when you look at the business the customer does to begin with. If they sell 103,000 laptops and you say "buy 100,000 CPUs from me and you'll pay 10% less" and a competitor sells 255,000 laptops and you say "buy 250,000 CPUs from me and you'll pay 15% less" and so on, always offering the deal where you choose between a discount for making >95% of your sales volume Intel or paying retail prices for CPUs, the fact that you're specifying that proportion of their sales as an absolute number rather than a percentage doesn't seem like it ought to change very much.

>for the money

No, they now simply make better chips, period.

In addition they are also cheaper.

Users don't want to switch, either. I won't take a chance on an AMD machine to save a couple of dollars.

Maybe I'm being rational, maybe I'm not, but I'm sure I'm not the only consumer who feels this way. I want to buy the "happy path" when I'm getting a product.

What's the chance your taking? Intel has dropped the ball in many ways, both long and short term, from their handling of Spectre/Meltdown, to pricing, to technology rollouts, and more. AMD has been a reliable player in the CPU hardware space for decades.

So, please explain what risks you are taking on by choosing a device that satisfies your needs but has an AMD CPU inside instead of something else.

I'll forever be baffled at people treating one of the biggest semiconductor companies in the world which has historically released products which easily outlast the rest of the components in the system as some fly-by-night alternative to Intel.

This sentiment also caused my family to get a Pentium4 over the superior Athlon64 years back and I'm still salty.

...and the Athlon XP in early P4 days (Willamette and Northwood).

...and the Athlon in P3 days, but that was a closer call.

...and (IIRC?) the K6 in P2 days, but that was before my time.

In retrospect, AMD's fallout past the Athlon64- and prior to the Ryzen-era is actually the odd one out in the company's history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_microprocessors

I think most consumers are not very knowledgeable of chip manufacturers. A business guy buys Dell/lenovo, couldn't care less what chip is inside.

At most they might check if it has a graphics card, or number of cores

IT professionals usually buy the hardware, and they're typically somewhat familiar with the market. As far as CPUs go, their options are "does this person need an i5 or an i7". When buying server hardware they'll gloss over the selection of Xeon systems their budget can accommodate.

You rarely get consequences for buying Intel/Cisco/etc, no matter how overpriced and otherwise maladapted their products may be.

So Intel ~= IBM? Things make so much sense after realizing this.

Users don't switch. They buy whatever is in their price range