I don't see anything that Fleckstein said where he meant AMD would become Intel without greed; in fact, he fairly pointed out that
"...AMD officials also said the company had not received one negative comment from a customer or business partner. However, in all fairness, that might change over time."
I had always wondered why I suddenly saw fewer Gateway AMD powered computers. This explains why.
I'm not familar with those other sites, and I can agree Fleckstein's thought of Intel being more a "marketing machine than technological powerhouse" is erroneous.
Otherwise, the whole point of the article seems to support how Intel bullies others into not using AMD. Sure, other companies have done it, but is it right and should it not be stopped, so AMD is given a fair chance to compete? The fact is that although these 'threats and tactics' were allegedly done by lower-level Intel managers, a CEO by definition is responsible for knowing and being responsible for everything that happens in the company (that falls under the 'daily business operations' part of a CEO's contract, something Ken Lay of Enron said he wasn't responsible for), even if it's a 'lower-level' manager. If the CEO isn't getting that information, nor is aware of it, then the CEO is responsible for seeing he finds ways to get informed. Otherwise, if the CEO allows 'plausible deniability,' said CEO is complicit and approves of said under-handed tactics.
That's a little off-topic, but the point is that while Intel very well made it to the top with innovation at first, it unethically uses its muscle now to limit AMD's reach, because it is obviously threatened by AMD's work. So, I hope at least Intel is seriously sanctioned for this behavior. Should AMD 'move up' and resort to the same tactics in the future, then it should have the same done to it then as well. However, the only sure thing is that we'll have to wait to see what happens and what its effects are.