AMD sues Intel (antitrust)

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

YKhan wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:
> > If Intel did its homework right, it should have been able to design
> > volume incentives that would be legal and that would insure that Intel
> > product is first out the door. You just make the volume target high
> > enough that the vendor really _has_ to push Intel chips.
>
> Well, there's the problem with free and fair market-driven economics.
> If Intel made its volume targets too high, AMD would have to simply
> compete by offering the same discounts at lower volumes. Then Intel
> would have to retaliate by lowering its volume targets too. Then AMD
> would lower its targets farther, etc. Very messy and inconvenient. At
> least with monopoly market economics, you can simply tell your
> customers to take it or leave it.
>

Here's how it works: Sales up to a certain point are at some price
that is okay. At that price, Intel's customers can resell, but
probably not make a profit. If they want to make a profit, they have
to sell above the volume quota, where the price is *so* attractive that
AMD simply cannot compete. As long as Intel hits its target average
selling price, it is happy to have those low price sales above the
volume quota.

> > That will
> > naturally lead to aggressive discounting, especially on big orders,
> > like racks and racks of Xeon for a "supercomputer." Then, customers
> > who might have liked to have had hypertransport and the onboard memory
> > controller will be just as happy with Xeons, which do hit very decent
> > SpecFP scores.
>
> Except for the fact that AMD could just as easily match those
> discounts, and then those people who wanted Direct Connect Architecture
> could still have it.
>
AMD can't match Intel on price, and it controls less of the product
than does Intel, which sells everything but the case. For those
*really* big sales, Intel can do things that no one else in the
business can do because its margins are so high and because it controls
so much of the product.

> > Intel's marketing savvy impresses me much more than the execution
> > they've displayed recently. That Intel can stumble so badly
> > technically and _still_ dominate the market should tell you something.
>
> Oh yeah, it is telling us something, definitely. Guess what it tells
> us? 🙂
>
I think we know what you think the answer is. I'll be interested to
see what comes out of this. Mush, probably.

> > As to AMD proving its case, I'll believe it when I see it.
>
> John C. Dvorak thinks that this may be the most entertaining anti-trust
> case ever. AMD is definitely going for a court of public opinion
> verdict more than anything. It's demanded a jury for the trial. Also
> it's made its legal brief readable in English rather than in
> Lawyer-ian; and it reads more like a series of stories. No doubt these
> are as a result of the PR firm that it's hired.
>
> John Dvorak's Second Opinion: The motives behind AMD's suit against
> Intel - Computer Hardware - Computer Software - Software - Opinion
> http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?g=E447CED9F4C54384AF915BCB4F39C788&siteid=mktw&dist=nbk
>

Well, I read the complaint. AMD accuses Intel of using the exact
strategy I proposed:

"Intel intentionally sets a rebate trigger at a level of purchases
it knows to constitute a dominant percentage of a customer's needs.
It is able to develop discriminatory, customer-by-customer unit or
dollar targets that lock that percentage (without ever referencing it)
because industry publications accurately forecast and track anticipated
sales and because OEM market shares - which industry publications
also report weekly,
monthly and quarterly - do not change significantly quarter to
quarter."

What a surprise. Those who are really interested might find out quite
a good deal about competitive pricing strategies. Most just aren't
going to be that interested.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Carlos Moreno wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> >>>You got time to be seriously disturbed by my rhetorical style? You
> >>>ain't payin' attention to what's goin' on in the world.
> >>
> >>The fact that something is wrong is in no way diminished by the fact
> >>that other things are worse.
> >>
> >>If I hit you with a baseball bat and crush your skull because I don't
> >>like you, would it be an acceptable argument in my defense that "c'mon,
> >>what is this tiny insignificant incident compared to ____________"
> >>
> >>(where you can replace the fill-in-the-blank with your preferred
> >>choice of the atrocities that *are happening* around the world)
> >
> > My reference to Mugabe's actions wasn't a defense. I was ridiculing
> > your use of "seriously disturbed" about a posting in a Usenet group
> > referring to a civil action to which neither of us is a party.
> >
> > I had no reason to defend myself. I hadn't attacked you or anyone else
> > in any way, and now you are making a simile to crushing someone's skull
> > with a baseball bat.
>
> And the irony gets ever thicker... I wonder if we're speaking two
> completely different languages (which would not be surprising -- you
> definitely speak English; I tend to think that I also speak English,
> but since English is a language that I learned after being an adult,
> perhaps I do not really understand it or write it the right way...)
>
> I'm having a really hard time understanding what you're trying to
> say with that "you are making a smile to crushing someone's skull"...
>

Since I don't know where the transformation from "simile" to "smile"
happened, I don't know whether you read my original text correctly or
not.

The word I used was simile:

http://www.answers.com/simile&r=67

<quote>

A figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared,
often in a phrase introduced by like or as, as in "How like the
winter hath my absence been" or "So are you to my thoughts as food
to life" (Shakespeare).

</quote>

> You complain that I took too seriously/literally your reference to
> Mugabe, as opposed to simply a way to ridicule my comment... And
> then, when I use an example (making use of hyperbole to make it very
> obvious), then, what? You really think that that's something I use
> as standard practice? Or that I would be seriously planning to take
> such action if I could? Either you need help, or I really need to
> learn how to read and write English, to see if I can finally get to
> understand you :-(
>

Maybe it would have been better if I had just said, "Don't you think
describing yourself as 'seriously disturbed' about a comparison between
two lawsuits a little over the top?"

What's happened here is that we have played one-upsmanship with
language: you described yourself as "seriously disturbed" about a
comparison I had made, I replied with an example of something I thought
would warrant being "seriously disturbed" about, and you responded with
an escalation of language that could conceivably be taken the wrong
way.

I'm not worried about you and baseball bats, and I'm not worried about
you and your mastery of English (although I'm not sure how you
interpreted the sentence that used the word 'simile'). I do think your
use of "seriously disturbed" as a reaction to my comparing the AMD
lawsuit to the SCO lawsuit was over the top, especially since I
intended (and stated) the comparison only in the sense of what a drain
on resources a lawsuit can be.

Maybe I am to be faulted twice in this exchange: once for using an
example with imflammatory overtones (the SCO lawsuit), and once for
escalating the rhetoric when I could have defused it. By making the
comparison to SCO, maybe I was, even if subconsciouly, expressing an
opinion about AMD's lawsuit other than that it would be a drain on
resources. As to making the comparison to Mugabe, maybe I could have
found some other way to say that "You are just taking this way too
seriously."

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

chrisv wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> >Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed
> >the enthusiasms of Usenet groups.
>
> And significantly reduce the cost of computing for everyone on the
> planet.

Judging by the numbers, I predict it will be Via, not AMD, that ends up
reducing the cost of computing for "everyone" on the planet. So
"everyone" won't be getting a quad core out-of-order widget with SSE7.
So what?

If AMD, Via, and all other potential x86 competitors disappeared from
the planet and Intel started price-gouging, that would create
opportunity for Motorola or IBM. Having Power still alive as a viable
consumer achitecture wouldn't be more attractive than a marginally
competitive me-too x86 maker that's been reduced to lawsuits as a means
of marketing?

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

>>>You got time to be seriously disturbed by my rhetorical style? You
>>>ain't payin' attention to what's goin' on in the world.
>>
>>The fact that something is wrong is in no way diminished by the fact
>>that other things are worse.
>>
>>If I hit you with a baseball bat and crush your skull because I don't
>>like you, would it be an acceptable argument in my defense that "c'mon,
>>what is this tiny insignificant incident compared to ____________"
>>
>>(where you can replace the fill-in-the-blank with your preferred
>>choice of the atrocities that *are happening* around the world)
>
> My reference to Mugabe's actions wasn't a defense. I was ridiculing
> your use of "seriously disturbed" about a posting in a Usenet group
> referring to a civil action to which neither of us is a party.
>
> I had no reason to defend myself. I hadn't attacked you or anyone else
> in any way, and now you are making a simile to crushing someone's skull
> with a baseball bat.

And the irony gets ever thicker... I wonder if we're speaking two
completely different languages (which would not be surprising -- you
definitely speak English; I tend to think that I also speak English,
but since English is a language that I learned after being an adult,
perhaps I do not really understand it or write it the right way...)

I'm having a really hard time understanding what you're trying to
say with that "you are making a smile to crushing someone's skull"...

You complain that I took too seriously/literally your reference to
Mugabe, as opposed to simply a way to ridicule my comment... And
then, when I use an example (making use of hyperbole to make it very
obvious), then, what? You really think that that's something I use
as standard practice? Or that I would be seriously planning to take
such action if I could? Either you need help, or I really need to
learn how to read and write English, to see if I can finally get to
understand you :-(

Carlos
--

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

>Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed
>the enthusiasms of Usenet groups.

And significantly reduce the cost of computing for everyone on the
planet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>> >Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed
>> >the enthusiasms of Usenet groups.
>>
>> And significantly reduce the cost of computing for everyone on the
>> planet.
>
>Judging by the numbers, I predict it will be Via, not AMD, that ends up
>reducing the cost of computing for "everyone" on the planet.

Sorry, but your predictions don't mean squat. AMD's presence in the
market has been benefitting the planet for years. Fact.

>So "everyone" won't be getting a quad core out-of-order widget with SSE7.
>So what?

It's your question, you answer it.

>If AMD, Via, and all other potential x86 competitors disappeared from
>the planet and Intel started price-gouging, that would create
>opportunity for Motorola or IBM.

Pshaw. Motorola, IBM, and the other big computer companies have
already demonstrated their fear of competing with Intel.

>Having Power still alive as a viable
>consumer achitecture wouldn't be more attractive than a marginally
>competitive me-too x86 maker that's been reduced to lawsuits as a means
>of marketing?

You're almost down to the level of trolling, now, Robert.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120128753.865660.290200@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Del Cecchi wrote:
>> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1120094337.721210.143210@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > As to AMD proving its case, I'll believe it when I see it.
>> >
>>
>> Why would you take a position one way or another? How could you
>> possibly
>> know? You like Intel and can't imagine they would do something
>> stupid?
>> Hmmm IBM in the early 50's did and they were pretty smart. ATT did,
>> and
>> they were too.
>>
>
> I didn't think I had taken a position. You want me to believe
> something before I see it?

Well, you said ...
"> Intel's marketing savvy impresses me much more than the execution
> they've displayed recently. That Intel can stumble so badly
> technically and _still_ dominate the market should tell you something.
>
> As to AMD proving its case, I'll believe it when I see it.
>
> RM"

Which at least has the tone of strongly doubting AMD's case. When
somebody around here says "I'll believe it when I see it" that is
generally considered to only be one step removed from ANFW. But maybe it
is different there.
>
> As to my *liking* Intel, I don't know that there's much to like or
> dislike, but, speaking of AT&T, the breakup of the Bell System wasn't
> necessarily a good thing for technology in the US. AT&T had the money,
> IBM has the money, Intel has the money to spend on research. That's
> where my bias is. Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed
> the enthusiasms of Usenet groups.

Whether or not it was a good thing, all those companies were pillars of
the business world, had dominant positions, and were either convicted of
or pled out of accusations of unlawful competitive behavior.
>
> One more time: I don't know how this lawsuit is going to come out, any
> more than I really know how the SCO/IBM lawsuit is going to come out.
> The best predictor I know of is what the markets do to the stock
> prices.
>

Unfortunately, the market seems to be at best a short term predictor.
And the lawsuit will have no effect in the short term.
> RM
>
del

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Del Cecchi wrote:
> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120128753.865660.290200@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Del Cecchi wrote:
> >> "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1120094337.721210.143210@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > As to AMD proving its case, I'll believe it when I see it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why would you take a position one way or another? How could you
> >> possibly
> >> know? You like Intel and can't imagine they would do something
> >> stupid?
> >> Hmmm IBM in the early 50's did and they were pretty smart. ATT did,
> >> and
> >> they were too.
> >>
> >
> > I didn't think I had taken a position. You want me to believe
> > something before I see it?
>
> Well, you said ...
> "> Intel's marketing savvy impresses me much more than the execution
> > they've displayed recently. That Intel can stumble so badly
> > technically and _still_ dominate the market should tell you something.
> >
> > As to AMD proving its case, I'll believe it when I see it.
> >
>
> Which at least has the tone of strongly doubting AMD's case. When
> somebody around here says "I'll believe it when I see it" that is
> generally considered to only be one step removed from ANFW. But maybe it
> is different there.

ANFW?

Let's see. I'd be absolutely amazed if Intel had not engaged in
strongarm tactics similar to those described in the AMD complaint. I
am very skeptical, though, of AMD getting significant monetary relief
from their lawsuit.

IBM and Microsoft came out of their woodshedding for anticompetitive
behavior with barely even a sore butt, and IBM and Microsoft were being
hounded by the US DoJ, backed by the full faith and credit of the US
Treasury. Given that experience, known by all, I'd say a little
skepticism would be in order.

> >
> > As to my *liking* Intel, I don't know that there's much to like or
> > dislike, but, speaking of AT&T, the breakup of the Bell System wasn't
> > necessarily a good thing for technology in the US. AT&T had the money,
> > IBM has the money, Intel has the money to spend on research. That's
> > where my bias is. Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed
> > the enthusiasms of Usenet groups.
>
> Whether or not it was a good thing, all those companies were pillars of
> the business world, had dominant positions, and were either convicted of
> or pled out of accusations of unlawful competitive behavior.
> >

Well, let the wheels of so-called justice grind away. The jobs are all
going to Bangalore, anyway.

> > One more time: I don't know how this lawsuit is going to come out, any
> > more than I really know how the SCO/IBM lawsuit is going to come out.
> > The best predictor I know of is what the markets do to the stock
> > prices.
> >
>
> Unfortunately, the market seems to be at best a short term predictor.
> And the lawsuit will have no effect in the short term.

Anyone who believes that they have information that would allow them to
outguess the markets can easily monetize that information by taking an
appropriate long or short position in equities markets. I have no
confidence that I can outguess the markets in this or in any other
matter.

RM

 

[Ed]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 28 Jun 2005 04:36:19 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>As previously predicted here, the AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit
>against Intel in a Delaware court.
>
>EETimes.com - AMD claims Intel used coercion in antitrust suit
>http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=164903291
>
>AMD sues Intel, the monopolist
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24236
>
> Yousuf Khan


If the claims AMD is making against Intel turn out to be true then the
people who made and accepted these deals (at Intel, Sony, NEC, HP, IBM,
etc, etc) should do some jail time,... maybe then these illegal deal
makers will start playing by the rules.

Has anyone ever went to jail over anti-trust or do they just pay their
way out of it?

Ed

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

chrisv wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> >chrisv wrote:
> >
> >> Robert Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> >Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed
> >> >the enthusiasms of Usenet groups.
> >>
> >> And significantly reduce the cost of computing for everyone on the
> >> planet.
> >
> >Judging by the numbers, I predict it will be Via, not AMD, that ends up
> >reducing the cost of computing for "everyone" on the planet.
>
> Sorry, but your predictions don't mean squat. AMD's presence in the
> market has been benefitting the planet for years. Fact.
>
You missed the point. The vast majority of people who still need
computers aren't going to need and aren't going to be able to pay for
the performance that AMD and Intel are jockeying over. That's the
market Via is aiming for.

<snip>

> >If AMD, Via, and all other potential x86 competitors disappeared from
> >the planet and Intel started price-gouging, that would create
> >opportunity for Motorola or IBM.
>
> Pshaw. Motorola, IBM, and the other big computer companies have
> already demonstrated their fear of competing with Intel.
>
It's not a question of fear. It's a question of economics. If they
don't make money in the business, they quit the business, no matter who
they're competing with.

Now, admittedly, Intel is in a position to keep just about any
competitor off-balance and weak. I don't think this lawsuit is going
to change that.

> >Having Power still alive as a viable
> >consumer achitecture wouldn't be more attractive than a marginally
> >competitive me-too x86 maker that's been reduced to lawsuits as a means
> >of marketing?
>
> You're almost down to the level of trolling, now, Robert.

When I want to say something sharp, I generally do better than
name-calling. AMD took its best shots: x86-64 and hypertransport.
Those shots moved AMD into profitability, but that's about all. Now
it's filed a lawsuit that is apparently a marketing tool. I'd rather
have Power alive as a viable consumer architecture--about as
hypothetical at this point, I'm afraid, as bringing alpha back from the
dead (counting the game boxes as embedded applications).

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > If AMD, Via, and all other potential x86 competitors disappeared from
> > the planet and Intel started price-gouging, that would create
> > opportunity for Motorola or IBM. Having Power still alive as a viable
> > consumer achitecture wouldn't be more attractive than a marginally
> > competitive me-too x86 maker that's been reduced to lawsuits as a means
> > of marketing?
>
> Well, you're the one who says he's much more impressed at Intel for its
> marketing prowess than its engineering prowess:
>
> > Intel's marketing savvy impresses me much more than the execution
> > they've displayed recently. That Intel can stumble so badly
> > technically and _still_ dominate the market should tell you something.
>
> So why the scorn at AMD's marketing opportunity?
>

Because I don't agree that it's a marketing opportunity. AMD will get
more sympathy where it's always gotten sympathy. No one else will
care.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Ed wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2005 04:36:19 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>As previously predicted here, the AMD has filed an antitrust lawsuit
>>against Intel in a Delaware court.
>>
>>EETimes.com - AMD claims Intel used coercion in antitrust suit
>>http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=164903291
>>
>>AMD sues Intel, the monopolist
>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24236
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
>
>
> If the claims AMD is making against Intel turn out to be true then the
> people who made and accepted these deals (at Intel, Sony, NEC, HP, IBM,
> etc, etc) should do some jail time,... maybe then these illegal deal
> makers will start playing by the rules.

This makes about as much sense as making the victims of recketiring
responsible for the "protection money" they were forced to pay to the
recketiers under treat of burning down their shop, or making a bulgary
victim responsible of paying a "bribe" to the bulglar for not killing
him.
The whole beauty of this law-suit is that it is as much on behalf of
the companies being intimidated into submistion by Intel as it is on
behalf of AMD itself. Except the first once of cause are afraid to talk
about it.

Regards,
Evgenij

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
> > So why the scorn at AMD's marketing opportunity?
> >
>
> Because I don't agree that it's a marketing opportunity. AMD will get
> more sympathy where it's always gotten sympathy. No one else will
> care.

Well, it looks like the marketing is being targetted at congressmen and
federal civil servants and members of the high-tech communities in
Austin and Silicon Valley. Very specific communities, not exactly the
everyman, who probably wouldn't care.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
> If AMD, Via, and all other potential x86 competitors disappeared from
> the planet and Intel started price-gouging, that would create
> opportunity for Motorola or IBM. Having Power still alive as a viable
> consumer achitecture wouldn't be more attractive than a marginally
> competitive me-too x86 maker that's been reduced to lawsuits as a means
> of marketing?

Well, you're the one who says he's much more impressed at Intel for its
marketing prowess than its engineering prowess:

> Intel's marketing savvy impresses me much more than the execution
> they've displayed recently. That Intel can stumble so badly
> technically and _still_ dominate the market should tell you something.

So why the scorn at AMD's marketing opportunity?

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

chrisv wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:
>
> >chrisv wrote:

> >> Robert Myers wrote:

<snip>

>
> I missed nothing. I'm just sticking to the issue of your claim that
> "Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed the enthusiasms of
> Usenet groups." Note that your statement uses the word "don't", as in
> present tense, not "won't", which would be future tense.
>
> I gave an example of something that AMD does besides "feed the
> enthusiasms of Usenet groups", proving your statement wrong.
>

Computing is *not* inexpensive because of AMD. Computing is
inexpensive because absolute top-of-the-line microprocessors are a
commodity, and they are a commodity because that's the way Intel chose
to play it, and it succeeded in playing it that way.

Intel didn't play it the way it has out of the kindness of its
corporate heart. Intel saw a way to turn into a money factory, and it
has done so.

AMD probably has pushed Intel along, but we don't know whether the net
effect of that pushing has been good or bad. I tend to think the net
effect has been bad, but I'll concede that someone else could easily
think differently.

But as to microprocessors being inexpensive, thank the greedy
executives and marketeers at Intel you so dearly love to loathe for
that blessing, not AMD.

<snip>

> >> >If AMD, Via, and all other potential x86 competitors disappeared from
> >> >the planet and Intel started price-gouging, that would create
> >> >opportunity for Motorola or IBM.
> >>
> >> Pshaw. Motorola, IBM, and the other big computer companies have
> >> already demonstrated their fear of competing with Intel.
> >>
> >It's not a question of fear. It's a question of economics.
>
> So, you are reduced to a silly semantic argument. Bottom line, they
> don't want to try competing with Intel.
>
> >If they
> >don't make money in the business, they quit the business, no matter who
> >they're competing with.
>
> How does this rebute my point about IBM and Mot not wanting to compete
> with Intel?
>
*If* Intel started price-gouging, making it economically more
attractive for competition, the competition would appear. Intel's
business model is to sell lots of chips for a relatively low price--low
enough to discourage competitors. That happens with or without AMD.

RM

 

[Ed]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:35:28 -0500, Evgenij Barsukov
<evgenij_b_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> If the claims AMD is making against Intel turn out to be true then the
>> people who made and accepted these deals (at Intel, Sony, NEC, HP, IBM,
>> etc, etc) should do some jail time,... maybe then these illegal deal
>> makers will start playing by the rules.
>
>This makes about as much sense as making the victims of recketiring
>responsible for the "protection money" they were forced to pay to the
>recketiers under treat of burning down their shop, or making a bulgary
>victim responsible of paying a "bribe" to the bulglar for not killing
>him.

OK, well if Intel is found guilty then their deal makers should get some
jail time. ;p

Ed

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>> >chrisv wrote:
>> >
>> >> Robert Myers wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed
>> >> >the enthusiasms of Usenet groups.
>> >>
>> >> And significantly reduce the cost of computing for everyone on the
>> >> planet.
>> >
>> >Judging by the numbers, I predict it will be Via, not AMD, that ends up
>> >reducing the cost of computing for "everyone" on the planet.
>>
>> Sorry, but your predictions don't mean squat. AMD's presence in the
>> market has been benefitting the planet for years. Fact.
>>
>You missed the point.

I missed nothing. I'm just sticking to the issue of your claim that
"Companies like AMD don't do much more than to feed the enthusiasms of
Usenet groups." Note that your statement uses the word "don't", as in
present tense, not "won't", which would be future tense.

I gave an example of something that AMD does besides "feed the
enthusiasms of Usenet groups", proving your statement wrong.

>The vast majority of people who still need
>computers aren't going to need and aren't going to be able to pay for
>the performance that AMD and Intel are jockeying over.

Conjecture, and irrelevant to the issue at hand.

>That's the market Via is aiming for.

I wish them luck.

>> >If AMD, Via, and all other potential x86 competitors disappeared from
>> >the planet and Intel started price-gouging, that would create
>> >opportunity for Motorola or IBM.
>>
>> Pshaw. Motorola, IBM, and the other big computer companies have
>> already demonstrated their fear of competing with Intel.
>>
>It's not a question of fear. It's a question of economics.

So, you are reduced to a silly semantic argument. Bottom line, they
don't want to try competing with Intel.

>If they
>don't make money in the business, they quit the business, no matter who
>they're competing with.

How does this rebute my point about IBM and Mot not wanting to compete
with Intel?

>Now, admittedly, Intel is in a position to keep just about any
>competitor off-balance and weak. I don't think this lawsuit is going
>to change that.

More conjecture.

>> >Having Power still alive as a viable
>> >consumer achitecture wouldn't be more attractive than a marginally
>> >competitive me-too x86 maker that's been reduced to lawsuits as a means
>> >of marketing?
>>
>> You're almost down to the level of trolling, now, Robert.
>
>When I want to say something sharp, I generally do better than
>name-calling. AMD took its best shots: x86-64 and hypertransport.
>Those shots moved AMD into profitability, but that's about all. Now
>it's filed a lawsuit that is apparently a marketing tool.

What it appears to you is not necessarily the reality of the
situation.

>I'd rather
>have Power alive as a viable consumer architecture--about as
>hypothetical at this point, I'm afraid, as bringing alpha back from the
>dead (counting the game boxes as embedded applications).

Irrelevant.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
> Here's how it works: Sales up to a certain point are at some price
> that is okay. At that price, Intel's customers can resell, but
> probably not make a profit. If they want to make a profit, they have
> to sell above the volume quota, where the price is *so* attractive that
> AMD simply cannot compete. As long as Intel hits its target average
> selling price, it is happy to have those low price sales above the
> volume quota.

Great in theory, but ever since I can remember, ever since AMD was the
value-price seller, there wasn't a price that it couldn't match of
Intel's. The only difference was that Intel was able to front-end load
the price, while AMD back-end loads it (i.e. we'll give you the discount
*after* you've already sold that volume of product). Just because now
it's the high-performance seller doesn't mean that it doesn't know how
to maximize the volume discounts anymore.

>>Except for the fact that AMD could just as easily match those
>>discounts, and then those people who wanted Direct Connect Architecture
>>could still have it.
>>
>
> AMD can't match Intel on price, and it controls less of the product
> than does Intel, which sells everything but the case. For those
> *really* big sales, Intel can do things that no one else in the
> business can do because its margins are so high and because it controls
> so much of the product.

Did you read the story where AMD offered to give HP /1 million/
processors for *free*, and HP was still not able to accept it? Can't see
how you can get much more "*really* big sales" than that.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

chrisv wrote:

> Robert Myers wrote:
>

> >Computing is
> >inexpensive because absolute top-of-the-line microprocessors are a
> >commodity, and they are a commodity because that's the way Intel chose
> >to play it, and it succeeded in playing it that way.
>
> Nope. Intel is not playing it the way they would prefer, they way
> they could if not for AMD. Not only would post-Athlon x86 performance
> and price have been significantly worse, Intel would be moving the
> market into Itanic right now, if they could. That's hardly choosing
> the path of the "commodity" product, is it now?
>
> >Intel didn't play it the way it has out of the kindness of its
> >corporate heart. Intel saw a way to turn into a money factory, and it
> >has done so.
>
> Your point is they want to make money? That we can agree on.
>
No, Chris. There is more than one way to make lots of money. You can
sell modest numbers at very high prices: the IBM business model. Or
you can sell huge numbers at much lower prices: the Intel business
model. There are vestiges of the IBM business model hanging on (the
mainframe business), but it's a threatened species.

Now, the real blame for cracking the IBM business model (and taking DEC
down in the process) might properly go to Compaq, not to Intel.
Probably does, in fact. But Intel wasted no time figuring it out and
cashing in. The microprocessor revolution is predicated on selling at
commodity prices. No commodity pricing, and we're still buying DEC's
with alpha microprocessors as the best alternative to IBM's exorbitant
pricing. Intel is limping along and AMD is out of business in that
scenario.

> >AMD probably has pushed Intel along,
>
> Probably? Guffaw.
>
> >but we don't know whether the net
> >effect of that pushing has been good or bad. I tend to think the net
> >effect has been bad,
>
> Mind boggling.
>
There's a whole series of arguments I've had, and I just don't want to
have them again. If you think the best of all worlds is a series of
incremental improvements of x86 driven by competition between Intel and
AMD, then AMD has been a good thing. If you don't think that's the
best of all worlds, and I don't, you're not particularly admiring of
AMD's contribution to civilization.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > Here's how it works: Sales up to a certain point are at some price
> > that is okay. At that price, Intel's customers can resell, but
> > probably not make a profit. If they want to make a profit, they have
> > to sell above the volume quota, where the price is *so* attractive that
> > AMD simply cannot compete. As long as Intel hits its target average
> > selling price, it is happy to have those low price sales above the
> > volume quota.
>
> Great in theory, but ever since I can remember, ever since AMD was the
> value-price seller, there wasn't a price that it couldn't match of
> Intel's. The only difference was that Intel was able to front-end load
> the price, while AMD back-end loads it (i.e. we'll give you the discount
> *after* you've already sold that volume of product). Just because now
> it's the high-performance seller doesn't mean that it doesn't know how
> to maximize the volume discounts anymore.
>
Why are you arguing with me? AMD's complaint alleges exactly what I
described.

> >>Except for the fact that AMD could just as easily match those
> >>discounts, and then those people who wanted Direct Connect Architecture
> >>could still have it.
> >>
> >
> > AMD can't match Intel on price, and it controls less of the product
> > than does Intel, which sells everything but the case. For those
> > *really* big sales, Intel can do things that no one else in the
> > business can do because its margins are so high and because it controls
> > so much of the product.
>
> Did you read the story where AMD offered to give HP /1 million/
> processors for *free*, and HP was still not able to accept it? Can't see
> how you can get much more "*really* big sales" than that.
>
No.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

YKhan wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> > > So why the scorn at AMD's marketing opportunity?
> > >
> >
> > Because I don't agree that it's a marketing opportunity. AMD will get
> > more sympathy where it's always gotten sympathy. No one else will
> > care.
>
> Well, it looks like the marketing is being targetted at congressmen and
> federal civil servants and members of the high-tech communities in
> Austin and Silicon Valley. Very specific communities, not exactly the
> everyman, who probably wouldn't care.
>

Frankly, Yousuf, this is beyond me. Intel has a presence in the
marketplace that just boggles the imagination. With so much money
flowing through Intel's hands, I have a hard time imagining that AMD is
anything but naive to think that it can mount a marketing, advertising,
PR, political, or any other kind of campaign against Intel. The odds
are just stacked so heavily against it. AMD is a *nit*. So many
players are so utterly dependent on Intel. Why would anybody risk
their livelihood for a slightly less expensive x86?

That's it. That's the bottom line. I can't imagine that *anybody*
really wants to play. That's where my mind just stops dead in its
tracks. Why would anybody want to mess with a good thing, and what
could AMD possibly say to them to persuade them that it is a good
thing?

As to congressmen and what not, I don't pay attention to what Intel
does with its political contributions, but it's a safe bet that Intel
makes them. Sure, if AMD can nail Intel in court, no amount of
political influence will save Intel. But you're arguing that AMD is
waging a campaign of political influence with an expectation of
winning. Not in the industry. Not in the world of finance. Not in
the world of politics. And certainly not among consumers, because they
just don't care.

RM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

>> I gave an example of something that AMD does besides "feed the
>> enthusiasms of Usenet groups", proving your statement wrong.
>
>Computing is *not* inexpensive because of AMD.

I didn't say it was. I said that the AMD presence in the market has
significantly reduced the cost of computing.

>Computing is
>inexpensive because absolute top-of-the-line microprocessors are a
>commodity, and they are a commodity because that's the way Intel chose
>to play it, and it succeeded in playing it that way.

Nope. Intel is not playing it the way they would prefer, they way
they could if not for AMD. Not only would post-Athlon x86 performance
and price have been significantly worse, Intel would be moving the
market into Itanic right now, if they could. That's hardly choosing
the path of the "commodity" product, is it now?

>Intel didn't play it the way it has out of the kindness of its
>corporate heart. Intel saw a way to turn into a money factory, and it
>has done so.

Your point is they want to make money? That we can agree on.

>AMD probably has pushed Intel along,

Probably? Guffaw.

>but we don't know whether the net
>effect of that pushing has been good or bad. I tend to think the net
>effect has been bad,

Mind boggling.

>but I'll concede that someone else could easily
>think differently.
>
>But as to microprocessors being inexpensive, thank the greedy
>executives and marketeers at Intel you so dearly love to loathe for
>that blessing, not AMD.

Please provide substantiation for your implication that I feel any
different toward Intel executives than I do toward AMD executives.

>> >If they
>> >don't make money in the business, they quit the business, no matter who
>> >they're competing with.
>>
>> How does this rebute my point about IBM and Mot not wanting to compete
>> with Intel?
>>
>*If* Intel started price-gouging, making it economically more
>attractive for competition, the competition would appear.

Yeah, like AMD. NOT the big computer companies like IBM and Mot.

> Intel's
>business model is to sell lots of chips for a relatively low price--low
>enough to discourage competitors.

Didn't discourage AMD. But, as I said, the big computer companies
sure don't want to challange Intel, as I've already explained.

>That happens with or without AMD.

Evidence, please.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120172871.411159.227740@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>
>> >Computing is
>> >inexpensive because absolute top-of-the-line microprocessors are a
>> >commodity, and they are a commodity because that's the way Intel
>> >chose
>> >to play it, and it succeeded in playing it that way.
>>
>> Nope. Intel is not playing it the way they would prefer, they way
>> they could if not for AMD. Not only would post-Athlon x86 performance
>> and price have been significantly worse, Intel would be moving the
>> market into Itanic right now, if they could. That's hardly choosing
>> the path of the "commodity" product, is it now?
>>
>> >Intel didn't play it the way it has out of the kindness of its
>> >corporate heart. Intel saw a way to turn into a money factory, and
>> >it
>> >has done so.
>>
>> Your point is they want to make money? That we can agree on.
>>
> No, Chris. There is more than one way to make lots of money. You can
> sell modest numbers at very high prices: the IBM business model. Or
> you can sell huge numbers at much lower prices: the Intel business
> model. There are vestiges of the IBM business model hanging on (the
> mainframe business), but it's a threatened species.
>
> Now, the real blame for cracking the IBM business model (and taking DEC
> down in the process) might properly go to Compaq, not to Intel.
> Probably does, in fact. But Intel wasted no time figuring it out and
> cashing in. The microprocessor revolution is predicated on selling at
> commodity prices. No commodity pricing, and we're still buying DEC's
> with alpha microprocessors as the best alternative to IBM's exorbitant
> pricing. Intel is limping along and AMD is out of business in that
> scenario.
>
>> >AMD probably has pushed Intel along,
>>
>> Probably? Guffaw.
>>
>> >but we don't know whether the net
>> >effect of that pushing has been good or bad. I tend to think the net
>> >effect has been bad,
>>
>> Mind boggling.
>>
> There's a whole series of arguments I've had, and I just don't want to
> have them again. If you think the best of all worlds is a series of
> incremental improvements of x86 driven by competition between Intel and
> AMD, then AMD has been a good thing. If you don't think that's the
> best of all worlds, and I don't, you're not particularly admiring of
> AMD's contribution to civilization.
>
> RM
>
Actually IBM saved Intel's bacon long about the time they were "figuring
it out". And Intel wants high margin business, that's why they allegedly
abused their market power. And don't forget to cogitate on why Intel
switched from x86 to Itanium (well, tried to), too many cross licenses
laying around from back in the day. If Intel could get the same revenue
with 1/3 the capital expenditure, don't you think they would? What
prevents Intel from charging double the current price list?

Clearly Intel has a dominant position and exercises its market power to
preserve it. The question is are those actions a violation of US law?
The Sherman Act?

For example " Robinson-Patman Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1936 to
supplement the Clayton Antitrust Act. The act, advanced by Congressman
Wright Patman, forbade any person or firm engaged in interstate commerce
to discriminate in price to different purchasers of the same commodity
when the effect would be to lessen competition or to create a monopoly."

del cecchi

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
> Frankly, Yousuf, this is beyond me. Intel has a presence in the
> marketplace that just boggles the imagination. With so much money
> flowing through Intel's hands, I have a hard time imagining that AMD is
> anything but naive to think that it can mount a marketing, advertising,
> PR, political, or any other kind of campaign against Intel. The odds
> are just stacked so heavily against it. AMD is a *nit*. So many
> players are so utterly dependent on Intel. Why would anybody risk
> their livelihood for a slightly less expensive x86?
>
> That's it. That's the bottom line. I can't imagine that *anybody*
> really wants to play. That's where my mind just stops dead in its
> tracks. Why would anybody want to mess with a good thing, and what
> could AMD possibly say to them to persuade them that it is a good
> thing?

Well there's not much I can do to improve *your* imagination. 🙂

But quite obviously they're not messing with a good thing, because this
is definitely not a good thing. Since when is it ever a good thing when
one of your suppliers can just reduce your allocation of a component
for your product and get away with it with absolutely no repercussions.
These guys are used to being able to play off suppliers against each
other in every other component, except one, which is processors; with
processors its the supplier that plays off the OEMs against each other.
If they keep trying to play Intel's game any longer they will all be
bankrupt, all of their profits siphoned off by Intel and given over to
Dell.

> As to congressmen and what not, I don't pay attention to what Intel
> does with its political contributions, but it's a safe bet that Intel
> makes them. Sure, if AMD can nail Intel in court, no amount of
> political influence will save Intel. But you're arguing that AMD is
> waging a campaign of political influence with an expectation of
> winning. Not in the industry. Not in the world of finance. Not in
> the world of politics. And certainly not among consumers, because they
> just don't care.

Actually, you'd be surprised how much influence these sort of tactics
have. There's a group of PR firms out there specializing in this sort
of public flogging. The last US election was an example of the success
of these sorts of campaigns.

AMD and Intel both contributed to the Republicans (and Democrats)
during the last several elections. Neither company really derives much
assistance out of congress for their particular industry (think oil and
defence industries, that's where politicians make their money). The
semiconductor industry for the most part operates on its own without
much thought from congress. In fact, recently Craig Barrett complained
loudly about education and immigration policies in the USA regarding
foreign workers, and it got heard as loudly as a mouse by congress. For
the most part, the semiconductor industry doesn't do a lot of lobbying.


Anyways, enough of politics. Here's another couple of interesting
articles about the lawsuit:

David Kirkpatrick - AMD's Suit Against Intel: The First Punch - FORTUNE
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fastforward/0,15704,1078376,00.html?promoid=email

Tom Yager
http://weblog.infoworld.com/yager/2005/06/29.html

Kirkpatrick observes that "So far, industry reaction seems moderately
pro-AMD." Though most of the OEMs are still afraid to give their names
out.

Yager observes, "So much of what AMD claims is patently obvious."

Yousuf Khan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
> Computing is *not* inexpensive because of AMD. Computing is
> inexpensive because absolute top-of-the-line microprocessors are a
> commodity, and they are a commodity because that's the way Intel chose
> to play it, and it succeeded in playing it that way.

This is where your true colors come out -- Intel blue all the way. Only
an ignorant fool would think Intel decided to reduce prices of its
processors on its own. The fact of the matter is that AMD and Cyrix
pushed down prices so drastically in the early 1990's that we wouldn't
have ever gotten to a $500 PC without them. I remember being happy to
pay /only/ $1500 for a PC-XT compatible back in 1988.

> Intel didn't play it the way it has out of the kindness of its
> corporate heart. Intel saw a way to turn into a money factory, and it
> has done so.

This is the most idiotic thing I've heard from you, and I've heard a
lot of idiotic things from you. Intel saw a way to "become a money
factory"? Intel was already a money factory prior to the advent of
competition from AMD & Cyrix. It was already comfortable being a
high-price per unit medium-volume money factory, until these two came
in and forced it to change to a medium-priced high-volume money
factory.

>
> AMD probably has pushed Intel along, but we don't know whether the net
> effect of that pushing has been good or bad. I tend to think the net
> effect has been bad, but I'll concede that someone else could easily
> think differently.

You think AMD's pushing Intel along was a bad thing, but you're willing
to accept somebody else's different opinion? How big of you. You're the
only person that's going to have that opinion! What do you mean you'll
accept somebody else's different opinion? It's like having the opinion
that the Earth is flat, but accepting that other people believe it's
round.

> But as to microprocessors being inexpensive, thank the greedy
> executives and marketeers at Intel you so dearly love to loathe for
> that blessing, not AMD.

ROFL. I'm going to have to start thinking of you as our local resident
insane dancing mental patient. That's the only way to rationally
explain and accept your opinions from now on.

> *If* Intel started price-gouging, making it economically more
> attractive for competition, the competition would appear. Intel's
> business model is to sell lots of chips for a relatively low price--low
> enough to discourage competitors. That happens with or without AMD.

The competition is already here, therefore Intel is price-gouging.
You've answered your own question.

Yousuf Khan