It's a market where Intel already has the biggest market share. They keep improving their IGPs but it isn't their main target. Last quarter they already had a market share of 65,1%. To achieve even more they had to do dedicated cards but I doubt they will ever do this. Larrabee ended in Xeon Phi but I doubt this will ever reach normal consumers.

A big part of that is due to it being harder to find computers with AMD and most people not even realizing the difference. All my PCs for now on will be powered by AMD I like them for taking a stand for consoles and I am mad at Nvidia for comparing 1000$+ GPUS to a 400$ console lol

I would want to correct with "and most people not even caring about the difference". People who buy IGPs intentionally (whether AMD or Intel) are not the hardcore gamers, anyway. I don't know about the current state of tech regarding Notebook tech but Intel was intentionally chosen far more often in Notebooks as their designs generally had way better TDP and idle power consumption. IIRC the Turion never had a chance against Centrino based Notebooks and therefore only a few barebones featured AMD tech.

AMD notebooks tend to have a longer battery life than Intel ones from my experience. I do not know the facts though. I think anyone would take an A4 over a Centrino if they knew the differences. It is the AMD E-series that is really bad.

I always bought expensive notebooks so I don't know about AMD and only the stuff that was some years ago.

I never used them for gaming and to me it was especially important to have a high Linux compatibility which is almost always guaranteed with Intel hardware.

So if you buy a Dell Latitude or a Thinkpad "lspci" (a Linux command line utility which will list pci-devices) will show a lot of Intel hardware. If you buy cheap, you get cheap. And this also means damn cheap Linux support.

I know a lot of people who would easily spend more money to get rock-solid hardware which is Linux-compatible and don't give a sh** about gpu-performance.

This especially ... You wouldn't believe the amount of crap that I keep hearing about Intel graphics. Their not exactly high end but they do stack up quite decently today and I'm willing to bet that once broadwell releases AMD won't be touting their integrated graphics capabilities at all for their APUs anymore. 

Personally speaking I felt that Intel has done more for graphics technology than what AMD or Nvidia has pulled off recently. You have to give some serious credits to Intel for pixel sync as it does some pretty awesome stuff like adaptive transparency and deep shadow maps. Definitely more interested in that than Mantle or DX12. 

*Hopes AMD bring programmable blending to pirate islands* 

They tried to make dedicated discreet graphics processors, it was a *massive* flop, I introduce you to the AGP Intel i740...



Fact of the matter is, Intel has never been proficient at building graphics hardware, usually just "good enough". - What HAS occured is that AMD raised the "Good enough" bar with it's APU's and Intel has to match or exceed it (Aka. Competition does wonderfull things!), however drivers still leave much to be desired in Intel's camp.
AMD is essentially playing against Intel's weakness.

Intel didn't just have lower TDP and power consumption, but they sold an "Entire package" to OEM's which started with Centrino, that's chipset, processor, graphics, controllers, networking etc'.
Which when you're buying and building systems in bulk is a very attractive proposition, this is how Intel got the leg up over AMD in the notebook space.
Prior to that Intel used some pretty bad practices to try and exclude AMD out of the market during AMD's domination period with the Athlon XP and Athlon 64.

Converesly, Intel has MASSIVE marketing budgets, more so than AMD could ever dream of (We are thinking Billions) this throws another consumer-recognizable name onto the face of a notebook to help shift hardware.

No they don't.

AMD processors tend to be hotter, more power hungry and slower in almost every segment, this is slowly changing however.
Intel had low-powered states before AMD (Where it will reduce the clockspeeds and/or voltages.), power gating where it will completely shut-off parts of the chip, heck even dynamically-powered caches where chunks of say... The L2 cache will be turned off in order to conserve energy.
Intel is also much farther ahead in lithography, which helps with various power characteristics.

Plus Intel processors are significantly faster, if you are doing *any* kind of processing... The sooner you can get the data processed, the sooner the processor can return to idle and consume a very tiny amount of energy, again, because of Intels CPU advantage, this also benefits power consumption.

There is also more to power consumption than the CPU too, chipsets, display, connectivity, various controllers all consume energy, for instance when Intel introduced the Intel Atom, they essentially just re-used a hot and old power hungry chipset that was a few nodes behind on the CPU's lithography, the result was the Chipset consumed almost as much energy as the processor itself, thus the first-gen Atom's tend to be power hogs because of it.

MXM and AXIOM. :P

Yes, there was a second one - I just didn't want to google it :) But you are right about the "Centrino package". It was a smart move for Intel but also a good decision for consumers, in my opinion. Say what you want about intel hardware but they are definitely always what is top of the market. Especially the 2200BG chip was great at its time and my guess is that current wlan modules they build are also very good. It also helped to make notebooks in general more compatible to Linux as crucial hardware was from Intel and they have a very good driver support and generally very good Linux support until today.

I guess we read different things in that wording: it starts explicitly saying that in case of change of AMD ownership, the licensing will be further limited to AMD processors made for PCs, not totally revoked...
Section 1.5 is just about definitions, and they apply to the whole contract, but in Section 6.3 a distinction is introduced to clearly state that in case of change of ownership AMD from then on can use cross-licensed tech only in that explicitly named market, PC (that is clearly defined too in Section 1.5).

About your last points:
Yes MIPS and PowerPC are almost irrelevant on tablets and phones, that currently are the biggest user device markets, but they are still present in other embedded markets both for users and enterprises.
About phones and tablets, AMD can still make GPUs for them, and not only, it can go downstream instead of upstream in those markets and make, alone or in joint-ventures, ARM+Radeon-based APUs. Outside of PC market companies don't give a damn if Intel doesn't license them x86, actually they don't even ask for it. Actually, without AMD, Intel chances to expand the share of x86 architecture in the markets outside of PC decrease, and given that one-sided deal with AMD, it's very unlikely that other companies will want to take AMD's uncomfortable place in markets where such deals with Intel aren't needed at all, when POWER and ARM are licensed in a far fairer way (MIPS too, but despite not dead it's weaker than POWER and ARM, except in China, where it's still quite strong and liked).

Linux has better support for AMD hardware than Intel hardware for the most part. You said you do not game on your laptops, Intel graphics drivers are not great on Linux. AMD drivers are on par with WIndows (for the most part).

Nvidia drivers are the most annoying on Linux. I have gamed extensively on Linux for years on various hardware configs and I know this is true.

I had been waiting ages for Nvidia to release a proper driver for Linux and they finally did recently.