I think this headline is a bit sensationalized. Dr. Su's quote in the article says nothing about the undershipping being "to maintain high prices". Retailers are likely just not interested in carrying large amounts of stock in a precarious market.
Interesting. I started limiting my demand for AMD CPUs and GPUs because of the artificially high prices.<p>AMDs were a thing because of the value proposition. You put up with the lack of new technology, or driver support, or customer support, because they were cheaper than Intel or nVidia.<p>But at high prices, AMD's entire value proposition disappears. If you're going to pay $1000 for a video card, you might as well get the future-proof nVidia card over the AMD card clinging to the past.
Why shouldn’t they? Luxury car makers do it. Luxury watch brands do it.<p>These are not essential goods; if they can make more profit by selling fewer, I don’t see a problem.
Isn't there a risk of never selling your stock once the GPU is seen as "previous generation" by limiting the supply artificially? Or are they just not producing enough cards in the first place? I don't really know what "We have been undershipping the sell-through or consumption for the last two quarters" means.
Either they do it or the scalpers do it. Might as well cut out the dodgy middleman. I’d much rather get the thing from retail with a receipt and warranty and second hand from Bob’s Bot Hardware Warehouse with locations on Craigslist and prices starting at $1.
I don't mind them doing this.<p>It probably makes financial sense because Intel has a fixed market share.<p>No matter how cheap AMD gets a hefty segment of the market will not be swayed. If it weren't for this I suspect AMD want to pounce and saturate the market.
I think people should primarily be mad about AMD continuously raising prices (particularly in lockstep with nVidia), because limiting supply naturally follows from that as a consequence or side-effect.