Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
So, by your logic, the R520 launch would have been fine if they had come out on November 5th (or whenever) and said "Okay, here's the cards!", but because they announced the specs and release date a month or two in advance they blew it?
That isn't my logic, that is the industry standard definition of launching. Again, apologizing is one thing but changing definitions is pushing it.
...you didn't really answer my question. If that's how you are defining a 'launch', then I disagree with how you are defining the term. 'Announcing' a product before it is 'launched' or 'made available' is standard practice in many industries (such as the automotive industry).
If a company comes out and says "okay, we've got a new product coming out, here's the specs and pricing, and it'll be available on date X", and then it's available to purchase on date X in quantity -- I would call that successful. Assuming that 'date X' isn't too far away, and they actually hit the date and don't bait-and-switch you with inflated specs, I don't see how this is worse than announcing the product the day it is available for sale.
...and they instantly went OOS because NVIDIA didn't have enough to supply the launch and didn't ship any more for weeks.
When has there ever been huge demand for a $600-$700 part? nV had launched priced in that realm numerous times(factoring in the Quadro parts) and there has never been that much of a demand for a 512 part.
Well, they sort of did the same thing with the 512MB 6800Us, so they might have seen it coming this time.
Also, isn't MSRP on the cards supposed to be $599 -- not much more than the 7800GTX debuted at originally? Clearly they'd sold quite a few of those, so it should not have been hard to anticipate demand.
That isn't to say they didn't blow it post launch, but the quantities they had available for day one exceeded what had been required for all of the prior launches in that pricing range.
Given how quickly they sold out of the cards, and how few showed up over the next few weeks and months, it seems clear to me that NVIDIA "launched" them knowing full well what would happen. Everything about it screamed 'PR stunt'.
None of which were flagship products, and the 6800U/UE issues were around that timeframe.
Why have you been trying to twist this conversation around into flagship products?
Because IMO that's what generates the most 'mindshare', and is therefore the most important product to get right? Plus, they're often the first product launched of a new generation of hardware, and screwing them up sets the tone for the whole product line.
ATi has been blowing it on every level, not just the flagship.
They had a number of supply issues at first with the X600 and X800 cards; I won't dispute that. After the initial problems, the cards were not hard to get (other than maybe the X800XTPE).
They also had other products that, IIRC, were launched without too much of a problem (like the X300s and most of the Mobility RADEON products, and the X850 line as they replaced the X800s).
Mindshare in terms of product availability is won in the mass market enthusiast consumer segment- where ATi has been the poorest.
I would basically disagree with the logic that availability of 'mass market' cards completely determines 'mindshare in terms of product availability'.
Which is basically a rerelease of the 6800GT, but yes, they launched this product (at least the PCIe version) just fine.
A completely different chip, with different layout, different build process and different clock speeds is a rerelease?
It's essentially a higher-clocked PCIe 6800NU with the chip built at 110nm rather than 130nm. Design-wise, it's nothing new.
The AGP versions were late, and actually used NV40 chips, so they should have needed even fewer changes.
Using that logic the x1900xtx is a rerelease of the x300 so ATi shouldn't have had any problems there at all.
I think there's a *slight* difference in the example you cited.
Which are generally not tied in any way to the video cards, but okay.
It is tied to video cards in the sense that they haven't been anywhere near dishonest enough to push out early reviews of platforms half a year before anything would hit retail. Missfire lost ATi a ton of mindshare in terms of them being an enthusiast solution with that stunt, and last I was aware they are the same company.
I meant that the products are not really related in any way in terms of engineering. Obviously they're being sold by the same company.
Yes, the delays on the XPress 200 chipset (and the further delays on the Crossfire version) were not cool. However, the boards seem to be doing quite well now that they're actually on the market (although the reaction to Crossfire itself has been pretty muted).
Again, your logic here astounds me. You are the only person I have seen that has referred to that 'launch' as anything but a disaster.
Ask the thousands of people that bought a part on launch day. Find anyone that purchased an ATi vid card in '05 on launch day.
Evidence that 'thousands' of people actually acquired said boards on launch day (and how much did they pay for them?)