Hardware Analysis - Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

Re: Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

A_Pickle — 2006-03-29T07:15:15-05:00

Wow.

That was a fantastic way to wake up an old thread. Bravo. You should be shot.

-Pikl

Re: Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

Mr. know it all — 2006-03-29T06:24:09-05:00

lol

Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

Everett Williams — 2006-01-27T21:48:27-05:00

Mr. Farrell,

I've had forty years in this business since my first computing course at U.T. Austin in 1966. I have no advanced degrees, only years of experience working for many and varied companies within varied industries. I've watched the damage done to the market and to other businesses by those who attempt what you call "'bad boy'" stuff. In the long run, such tactics fail, and the companies involved go belly up or are much reduced, leaving destroyed marketplaces and companies and investors and workers in their wake. Intel has taken a large hit in the most business-friendly of markets, Japan. It is hard to believe that even in the current administration in the U.S., that will not translate into some significant action. We shall see. I'm sure that you can find work with whichever "bad boy" is currently ascendant, and that you will hop to the next if that one goes down. Such sinking ships certainly deserve such as yourself. There is no shortage of cynical opportunists in this world. Whether they live long or die young, it matters little. Their passing is little mourned.

Re: Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

Tony Farrell — 2006-01-27T14:19:29-05:00

blah blah blah

it happens every day in every business

your diatribe about how the 'law' is supposed to take this crap and make everyone play
on a level playing field is so naive, almost to a point of laughter.

i'm sure you are well trained by the professors at your college
and i'm simply positive you think you are correct in you interpitation
of the 'law' as it is 'supposed' to apply in one of your 'worlds' that you referenced.
but the fact is this, plain and simple -
companies offer 'perks' to companies to use thier products -
and sometimes posturing and 'bad boy' attitudes are utilized
when the stakes are very high, such as vendors competeting for
a large market share.

There was a funny movie, with mr. dangerfield, i think it was called
back to school - where the well educated professor was talking his
well versed crap about how to run a business, when mr. dangerfield
told it how it really is in the real world -

maybe a little 'on the street' knowledge on how the engines work
will help you in your lifes journey; but then again, maybe the professors
are right, and us people that deal with this stuff everyday
are wrong.

but here is one thing to keep in mind - do the professors cut you
a check every week to feed your family?

i didn't think so.

best of luck

take care

Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

Everett Williams — 2006-01-26T23:03:31-05:00

Mr. Farrell,

Any business, public or private is subject to the antitrust provisions, and is required to operate within the law. Threatening other corporations with loss of business based on their purchase of equipment from other than you is considered extortion in any world. You are allowed to compete on price so long as you do not consistently leverage a monopoly by using monopoly profits to subsidize your entry into or control of other marketplaces.

As recent political occurrences have reminded us, all are or should be subject to the rule of law. Without that, we are back to the shootouts of the 19th and early 20th century or the rule of the robber barons, where workers could be killed for refusing to work for a company. The modern weapons are different, but the results are the same. Many die or are seriously damaged due to the predatory practices of a few.

Re: Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

James Marlin — 2006-01-26T22:44:35-05:00

Old thread, but Still!
ROTFLMAO!
Amazing how things work out now isn't it?

Re: Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

Tony Farrell — 2006-01-26T16:25:06-05:00

Grandmaster -

you still think GM is the s**t??

4.8 BILLION loss in the fourth quarter

sounds like a ROSEY effn picture to me....

hows the wiring harnesses going?

oh - they are going to china -

ouch

Re: Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

Marshall Kiewiet — 2005-08-12T09:11:12-05:00

AMD is not normal in their heads.

You cant just sue someone because they market their products better than you do.

AMD has been trying to compete with Intel for years but they just cant cut it, is it because their marketing sucks or is Intels products are just better.

Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

Everett Williams — 2005-07-26T20:53:37-05:00

Mr. Farrell,

I believe that you should follow your stated premise. Shortly, we will at least be absolutely sure from where you are posting.

Re: Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

Tony Farrell — 2005-07-26T14:01:28-05:00

Mr Everett,

>>You may offer discounts based on volume, but you may not offer incentives to shut out an opponent if >>you have monopoly market power.

You may do ANYTHING you want to in business - you are only obligated to the shareholders (if your public)

if your private - you can do ANYTHING you want to - thats the bottom line!

"The only thing that has kept AMD in business is a sufficient patent portfolio to force Intel into cross-licensing"

IBM required a second vendor for the first IBM PC's CPU - thats THE ONLY reason AMD ever got into the x86 market - THE ONLY REASON. (and they reversed engineered it)
INTEL woke up and pulled the plug from AMD - AMD got mad and filed suit.

goto the wikipedi and lookup AMD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD

Intel might see that it is cheaper just to buy off AMD (again)
and shut thier mouths - but i think this one is gunna go all the way
to the courts....

thanks for the spirited dialogs!!

Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

Everett Williams — 2005-07-26T03:55:06-05:00

Mr. Farrell,

Whatever you may or may not know about hardware and software, you know nothing about law or basic ethical business practice. You may offer discounts based on volume, but you may not offer incentives to shut out an opponent if you have monopoly market power. You may not use such market power to sell below your cost of production to drive out a competitor. But, you say, Intel is vastly profitable. The marketing agreements employed by Intel allow it to sell their processors at a higher price than Intel, but actually make less than AMD in direct competitive areas due to what amount to bribes, while making huge profits elsewhere. Using these methods to limit AMD's ability to expand over many years has only partially worked, but it has worked sufficiently for Intel's purposes. The only thing that has kept AMD in business is a sufficient patent portfolio to force Intel into cross-licensing, allowing AMD to compete in a monopoly marketplace, which is only possible when one can match the monopolist feature for feature. AMD has done that matching and much, much more, a credit to their creativity and tenacity. Processor by processor, fab by fab, AMD is better and more productive, but monopoly power has limited their market intrusion.

Think of the types of things that Intel has done recently. USB is a perfect example. Compared to IEEE 1394 a and b, USB is a processor dependent piece of junk, and it is not sufficiently cheaper than 1394 to make it worth the lack of flexibility inherent to a client server architecture as opposed to a peer to peer architecture. Only with USB 2.0 has USB even approached the capability of 1394, but head to head, still loses. 1394 b is completely beyond USB's capabilities, but will probably never happen. We will be left with another processor dependent technology that will both slow our computing and hurt the flexibility of our connections. Think again of the awful garbage of the Intel instruction architecture that we have suffered with until very recently. Had we adopted a flexible and powerful instruction set like that of the IBM 360/370 or the Motorola 68000 architecture, our software would be at least a generation ahead of where it is. Of course, it was IBM that gifted us with the twin monopolies, Microsoft and Intel, Wintel as many call it. One monopoly begat two more...certainly not intentionally, but done. If we allow those to drive out all competition, we shall continue to thrash around in the mud for quite a bit longer than we should.

Re: Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

OCGW — 2005-07-26T03:32:29-05:00

Bankruptcy: An option for GM?

Some analysts say it could help the world's largest automaker shave costs; others say not so fast.
June 8, 2005: 2:57 PM EDT
By Chris Isidore, CNN/Money senior writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - General Motors Corp. might be one of the richest troubled companies in history.

The world's largest automaker had $52.6 billion in cash and marketable securities on its balance sheet at the end of the first quarter, even as it was reporting a $1.1 billion net loss. While that cash balance is down about $1 billion from the beginning of the quarter, it's up about $3 billion from where it was a year ago.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/08/news/fortune500/gm_healthy_hurting/

General Motors Corp. has $52,600,000,000USD CASH MONEY FOOL

ROTFLMAO

Those glasses look rosier than a MF from where I am standing

The #'s you quoted are from GMAC, a subsiderary of General Motors Corp

Back to the grease pits, & friers for you

1 question, are you even intelligent enough to feel stupid @ this point??

OCGW

PEACE

Re: Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

Tony Farrell — 2005-07-25T21:59:13-05:00

<quote>
Remember, I am an Automotive Engineer, @ the World famous Warren Techinical Center
I build experimental, prototypes, there is no assembly line, & there ae no production ppl on our campus
You are going to have to learn how to "pay attention to detail", if you ever want to be "gainfully" employed
Duuuuh!!
GM hires thousands of new, talented ppl every year, but you have to have a degree to start, & even after that you will be in the "school of life long learning", it would be the best investment you ever made
& until you can show 1/10 my achievement
That will be OverClockingGrandWizard to you
Who's yo' Daddy?
OCGW
</quote>

Oh SOOO right - Grandmaster Bug...
The published report for 2004

http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/docs/fin_data/g...pp_03.html

States that GM total net sales was - 193 Million
With Total assets of 479 million

I don't see anywhere that GM has that much in the bank;
maybe you are looking with rosy glasses on -
but the total assets of 479 MILLION is a LONNNNGGGGGG
way off of your bank amount estimate.

Don't let the thought of closing plants -
killing entire communities
moving work offshore
outsourcing and all that other stuff
is basically taking the legs out of the american middle class....

Now go back to your wiring harnesses.

Re: Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

Tony Farrell — 2005-07-25T21:38:50-05:00

Yup - appology accepted.

Couple things to straighten out...

I am NOT and Intel fan - I do own an AMD box now (gotta get ready for 64bit)
i did not purchase the unit for fun and games, but to further my knowledge of
the 64 bit world.

I purchased the AMD 386 unit and mobo when it came out a hundred years ago,
so no, i am not an Intel fan.

I do not agree with AMD and the tactics they are taking, file suit on this, file suit on that
file suit on intel C compilers, the list goes on.

As i have stated many times, AMD is suit happy, that seems (IMO) the only way
they can stay afloat and offer ANY kind of production capability increases.

As to refute your comments on muddying the water in my posts, i give examples
in other real world situations where the common practice of giving better deals
to companies that are LOYAL.

Dell has a LOT of money invested in packaging, distribution and advertising tied in
with Intel - that is a FACT.

AMD wants to be compensated for missing the Dell(s) boat...

AMD can continue to sell to gateways and the such all they want,
but the simple fact is AMD cannot compete in more ways than one -
Marketing
Production
Support
Established brand name

AMD cannot do it - so they will die.

I am not a AMD hater, and as I have stated before - i now own a 64 bit AMD unit.

but the fact remains - Intel is WELL within its rights to enforce the
branding and front page advertising -
As for "holding a gun to thier heads" i don't believe that for a single moment -

Paying a visit to a customer - i do beleive that
and if the language does get a little harsh - so be it.

The customer could have left the room at ANY time,
and went with AMD 100% - but the bottom line is MONEY
advertising dollars, branding dollars, kickback dollars
perks - what ever you call it - Intel has it, and Intel used it
to keep the customers HAPPY and in business.

Here is a quote....
"Fujitsu Siemens has never locked out AMD processors in the same way as manufacturers like Dell are alleged to have done, but AMD claimed in its deposition that Intel had convinced Fujitsu Siemens to impose restriction on AMD processors."
http://www.pcw.co.uk/vnunet/news/2139877/fujitsu-siemens-gets-back-amd

IMO - Intel told Fujitsu to push Intel and you get a discount -
This is NOT antitrust by ANY definition,
and If this is ANY indication of the types of material AMD
hopes to use in court - then all your (and now my) dollars are going to get
wasted away by lawyers....

Another Quote -
It also said former Gateway CEO Ted Waitt told AMD that Intel offered him large sums not to deal with AMD.
"I have to find a way back to profitability," the complaint quotes Waitt as saying. "If by dropping you I become profitable, that is what I will do."
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/28/technology/amd_intel.reut/

THATS THE BUSINESS

Buy from me, vendor A, close out vendor B and i'll give you extra incentives...

BUSINESS EVERYDAY

People that think this kinda stuff doesn't happen everyday
need to pull thier heads out of the sand and smell the coffee -

Re: Re: AMD doesn�t trust Intel, should you care?

James Marlin — 2005-07-25T20:47:36-05:00

I'm sorry for calling you an idiot, in fact though I haven't posted here for quite awhile, been too busy playing WoW. Any one who has seen my posts in the past will be able to say I very seldom reach the point of name calling. Why in this case? Because even in your post in response to mine, you choose to only respond to what you want to and in the manner you want to. You don't challenge or refute the points made in the posts responding to yours, instead you go off on another tangent, which in no way proves the points made in response to you to be wrong or in error.

To quote you
"Car dealerships have brand loyalty, and brands (manufactures) pay the dealerships
in different ways, some provide signs, some provide better deals - especialy when
they ONLY sell GM (right grandmaster bug?)
but the bottom line is this..."

This was obviously in response to my post about dealerships that have more then one brand on their lot. Could you please explain to me how this proves my point wrong and yours right. Or more importantly how this challenges the original subject of this thread, which was about the AMD/Intel lawsuit

That you don't know how to debate, or even argue if you will, effectively but continue to attempt to "muddy the waters" with your muddy logic, and obvious hate of AMD/GM, plus worship at the Intel alter, is why I feel your an idiot. As well if you must know, as I stated I'm a admitted AMD "fanboy", but this doesn't mean I feel that AMD is an object of worship, nor Intel a object to be vilified. In the same sense I use Microsoft programs, but I'm well aware of MS's short comings, neither AMD nor Intel are perfect. This whole debate centres around one pivot, the lawsuit AMD has filed against Intel, nothing more.

We all get it, you hate AMD, and love Intel. But it doesn't change the facts if proved in a court of law, Intel violated the anti-trust laws, and needs to be brought to heel. That's if we're ever going to have a fair and level playing field in the CPU market place.

P.s. I need to add this as well. AMD did not, nor has not survived by suing as you suggest. AMD did two things, that has allowed them to survive.
First off, AMD supported the socket 7 main boards (and extended it with the SS7 initiative), when Intel had abandoned S7, not too long after it was introduced. By doing this they created the sub $1000 PC market, and IMHO were the major factor in driving down prices on everything to do with PCs. Remember at one time when Intel was the only game in town, a middle of the road PC was $3000+, and top of the line, outrageous.
Secondly, AMD produce the Athlon CPU, which proved to be superior to any thing Intel had to offer at the time. The Athlon has had nothing more then "word of mouth" and great reviews to promote it, and it's still been able to give not only the P3, but early P4s a good run for the money.
Again you "muddy the waters" with opinion instead of facts!
Now Creative on the other hand is the master of surviving by suing.