Yeah I think that the part people have a hard time wrapping their heads around. AMD has done a lot of Anti-consumer, for the stock holders moves in their lives. They become more consumer friendly when they are desperate for business. Even at their worse they are only borderline terrible (locked multipliers, holding back supply of consumer parts for server/workstation parts, up pricing their parts due to the market. Rarely do they do the extremes of Intel and Nvidia in those steps (The X2 FX chips only got up to the prices they did after Intel paved the way, 6900xt/6950xt only followed Nvidia and was no where near severe). The largest reason for this is they are much more production limited than either of them, while competing in both markets. AMD has to maximize profits, perfect that demand and supply high point. All should but the smaller you are the more important this is, you can't leave millions on the table just to make people happy (though the fact you can get any 5k CPU considering the server market, says they are to some degree). But no one is really blaming Intel and Nvidia for that even though they tend to be a lot more lethal about their pricing.
Its the monopolistic abuses, the illegal anti-competitive stuff that they do. Some small like Hairworks and Intels compilers specifically making games and programs run worse on AMD hardware. Or Intel paying manufacturers for lowering their ratio or not offering AMD products. Threatening to limit hardware to companies that offer equipment for competitors. Many people here might not even have been alive when AMD announced the OG Slot A Athlon. Shortly before it was do to come out Intel announced they might have a shortage on 440BX chipsets, and basically told Motherboard manufacturers that if offered any AMD based boards they might see their access to 440BX chips reduced. So lots of board guys sold boards unlabeled in plain white boxes, including giants like Asus with their K7M. Some of these there is enough legal room that the true illegalness depends on who is in charge when investigated. But ridiculously unethical.
There is always the feeling that power corrupts and AMD may become just as bad if placed in a similar position. But it seems really terrible go with the well AMD would do X, having never done X, when you have absolute proof that Intel whenever they have the chance to do X they always will. Same to a lesser sense Nvidia. You might think AMD would create as many featuresets limited solely to AMD. But whenever there is an option for AMD to do something they could limit to their hardware, they don't Mantle which was the kick needed to move DX and Vulcan to where it is was open. Freesync is open even though they could have kept it closed but not require an expensive controller on the monitor. They have lived in an open life, all their life, no reason to believe they would ever release a tech locked in that requires not only their expensive cards, but an implementation in another non-AMD hardware that would make that device $100 more expensive. Not just the Sync chip, but back in the day, when they offered chipsets, SLI only worked on their boards, and after they stopped, they required purchasing their PLX chip and only offered it to companies building Intel based boards. This went on for like a decade.
No company is your friend. But some companies are your enemies. Intel is certainly one of those and Nvidia isn't far behind.