Henri Richard explains why AMD failed to gain more marketshare

[jimmysmitty]

It appears that the reason for AMD's failings is having this guy employed at all, let alone as a VP.

I mean, in 2004, who "would never buy AMD chips?" Really? Even people who prefer Intel can admit that Athlon 64 was fantastic (released in 2003, a VP had to have known they were great for some time before release).

It wasn't the CPUs themselves he meant, more the fact that at the time in 2004 AMD didn't have a platform to sell.

At that time AMD had to rely on VIA, SIS, nVidia and ATI for chipsets. The VIA and SIS ones sucked as they wouldn't even properly recognize a CPU. A friend of mine had a VIA chipset, bought a Athlon 3200+ and it clocked it at 700MHz. The best stable we could get with the BIOS was as a 2700+.

nVidia was ok and ATI was really good but still AMD had no platform like they do now. They had no chipsets and no GPUs/IGPs to sell to the OEMs and to thus sell to businesses. Businesses prefer a platform approach because it ends up cheaper in the bulk and thats how places like Wal Mart can under cut everyone in everything. They buy it all in bulk.

AMD at the time for the whole alleged whatever towards Intel did not have the execution they do today. The AMD we see today is not the AMD of 2000-2006. Thank God too or they would have put themselves out of business.

And yess they did have supply issues. I found an article about their snubbing the little OEMs to push more on Dell just as I said all along was an issue. If you can't meet the demand, they will go to the next bidder.

 

[amdfangirl]

So now you consider them running ads by putting a advertisement on some online show about a video game(least I think that is video game)? AMD fails miserably at marketing. I take that back. They do not even market at all.

I do recall AMD on tv now. One of them channels like QVC had a tech hr and they where selling a AMD based system on it.

I want to be in charge of marketing for AMD. Be a nice job to have. Paid vacation 24/7 365 days a year for a decade.

Hey!

Command and Conquer is an awesome game.

Look, I was trying to prove the point that AMD does in fact advertise.

Please don't be mean to me or I'll cry.

 

[sonoran]

And who claimed Intel had the best lawyers? CMoooooonnnn Maaaannnn

Did you notice in that original FTC filing that the accused gets...wait for it...a whopping 2 weeks to respond to all the allegations? Fail to respond and you're assumed to be admitting guilt.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Did you notice in that original FTC filing that the accused gets...wait for it...a whopping 2 weeks to respond to all the allegations? Fail to respond and you're assumed to be admitting guilt.

The FTC is a lot like the FCC. While the FCC censors you and tells you whats good and bad, the FTC tells companies the smae thing. Its their way or the highway. But wow. 2 weeks. Thats not normal for a large case like this. Civil cases, yes but corporate? Not that short.

 

[randomizer]

So Intel are claiming that someone in AMD didn't like AMD processors? Next we'll see AMD claim that Moore said he doesn't like transistors or something.

 

[chunkymonster]

I didn't know the Wall Street Journal was Just some blog?

Are you serious? You don't see the irony about a blog, in the WSJ or not, that claims Intel possesses a document where a former employee talks trash about the company they used to work for?

While I agree the WSJ is not a blog, that supposed jumble of conjecture and hearsay posing as legitimate news is a blog. The fact that the blog is in WSJ does not lend it any more credibility than any other editorial or opinion piece that appears in any other newspaper.

I call FUD and BS on this supposed document...

EDIT - Given the post directly below this from fazers_on_stun I rescind the above FUD and BS statement and admit that I did not fully read the .pdf containing Intel's response.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Are you serious? You don't see the irony about a blog, in the WSJ or not, that claims Intel possesses a document where a former employee talks trash about the company they used to work for?

While I agree the WSJ is not a blog, that supposed jumble of conjecture and hearsay posing as legitimate news is a blog. The fact that the blog is in WSJ does not lend it any more credibility than any other editorial or opinion piece that appears in any other newspaper.

I call FUD and BS on this supposed document...

This document is part of Intel's official response filed with the FTC:

In a recent response to longstanding antitrust accusations from chipmaking rival Advanced Micro Devices, Intel included in a Federal Trade Commission filing a quote from one of AMD's own executives critical of AMD chips.
...
Intel got the internal AMD communication through the discovery process, Mulloy said. "Over time, more and more [of] this kind of information will be available in the case," he said Wednesday.

I doubt even evil Intel 😛 would file some "FUD and BS" as part of their official response to the FTC lawsuit, esp. since they can trace this to AMD's own internal documents, of which we are just beginning to find out about apparently...

 

[fazers_on_stun]

BTW, concerning the Dell deal, there's evidence pointing to the fact that AMD screwed over its other longtime OEM customers in pursuing this deal with Dell, since yes indeed they were capacity-constrained due to having just one fab online at the time. IIRC even Dell got upset with AMD over the short supply after the deal was done...

Anyway, for the fanbois arguing that no court trial is needed since Intel is already 'convicted' in 4 countries (even though the FTC case hasn't gone before the administrative law judge yet), this just goes to show that not all the facts are known yet. Didn't Intel file a countersuit in the now-dismissed-due-to-settlement AMD lawsuit, showing that AMD was being obstructive during the evidence discovery phase?

 

[chunkymonster]

This document is part of Intel's official response filed with the FTC:

While I rescind the FUD and BS statement about the document, I still believe that Intel using the statements of former employees to build their case and justify their position is lame.

Seriously, as a defensive measure and as a means for Intel to justify their position, citing quotes of a former AMD employee is pretty weak...it's like Intel is saying, "Hey, AMD's claims about our unfair and anti-competitive practices are a moot point because one of their former employees even says that their (AMD's) products suck and can't compete with us (Intel).

It still amazes that even after four countries found Intel guilty of anti-competitive practices, billions of dollars in fines, and the voluntary $1.25B Intel pay-off to AMD folks are still willing to give Intel the benefit of the doubt and defend their actions. It just seems to me that if anyone viewed the entire situation objectively, no matter what excuses or justification Intel offered, anything Intel had to say would be taken with a grain of salt and, at this stage in the game, would first be viewed as the antagonist instead of the victim.

 

[sonoran]

Yeah chunky, let's just assume companies are guilty when it suits our desires. Why offer them a day in court? Hey - maybe we can just nationalize like Chavez does? That'll be even better. Mean old companies, trying to sell as much of their product as they can. How dare they!? We'll show them!

 

[speedbird]

I think the Bug that was reported in the original Phenom CPU didn't do AMD any favours for their reputation. I remember the articles about how the fix hurt performance and that's considering the original Phenom wasn't that good anyway. It didn't matter that it sucked because it was a 'True Quad' :lol:

At least AMD have upped their game now and the Phenom 2 is a decent choice for the value market.

 

[roofus]

speedbird, the rebate debacle and time era that brought the FTC suit predate the Phenom shortcomings.

 

[speedbird]

speedbird, the rebate debacle and time era that brought the FTC suit predate the Phenom shortcomings.

I know, but I was making a point about the Phenom.

 

[OvrClkr]

The TLB bug was really not that much of an issue. Many were able to work their way around it with a bios update or TLB patch. The people that did get annoyed were the ones that did not do proper reaserch.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

While I rescind the FUD and BS statement about the document, I still believe that Intel using the statements of former employees to build their case and justify their position is lame.

Seriously, as a defensive measure and as a means for Intel to justify their position, citing quotes of a former AMD employee is pretty weak...it's like Intel is saying, "Hey, AMD's claims about our unfair and anti-competitive practices are a moot point because one of their former employees even says that their (AMD's) products suck and can't compete with us (Intel).

I should point out that the quote from Henri Richards was from when he was still the VP of marketing at AMD, not after he left. However I would also bet that, as another poster opined, Intel probably took it out of context 😛.

It still amazes that even after four countries found Intel guilty of anti-competitive practices, billions of dollars in fines, and the voluntary $1.25B Intel pay-off to AMD folks are still willing to give Intel the benefit of the doubt and defend their actions. It just seems to me that if anyone viewed the entire situation objectively, no matter what excuses or justification Intel offered, anything Intel had to say would be taken with a grain of salt and, at this stage in the game, would first be viewed as the antagonist instead of the victim

But all we are arguing is that Intel was not found guilty in any court of law, which is important because a gov't agency like the FTC or the EC doesn't play by the same set of legal rules as does a court (i.e., legally admissible evidence, not hearsay, plus the requirement for full disclosure of the material facts by all parties including AMD, legal precedent, etc). If and when Intel gets its day in court and a court does find them guilty, I'll shut my big trap on the issue ...

 

[chunkymonster]

Yeah chunky, let's just assume companies are guilty when it suits our desires. Why offer them a day in court? Hey - maybe we can just nationalize like Chavez does? That'll be even better. Mean old companies, trying to sell as much of their product as they can. How dare they!? We'll show them!

Nationalize like Chavez? WTF? Don't be a sensationalist!

I'm all for giving Intel defending themselves to the FTC. Heck, I wholly support it. But once again, it is very difficult to ignore and dispute the fact that four countries have found Intel guilty of anti-competitive practices, they have been fined billions of dollars as a result of those findings, and Intel voluntarily offered AMD $1.25 Billion to make the lawsuits go away. As they say, "If it looks like $hit, smells like $hit, and tastes like $hit...it must be $hit!"

Again, at this stage in the game, when considering any evidence offered by Intel to justify their actions or dispute any anti-competitive business practices, the source must be taken into consideration.

Now, if you really want to get sensationalist, I will gladly kick it up a notch! Intel citing an AMD exec as defense for their actions is like letting a pedophile prove that he doesn't molest children by leaving him alone with a 3 year old!

 

[chunkymonster]

But all we are arguing is that Intel was not found guilty in any court of law, which is important because a gov't agency like the FTC or the EC doesn't play by the same set of legal rules as does a court (i.e., legally admissible evidence, not hearsay, plus the requirement for full disclosure of the material facts by all parties including AMD, legal precedent, etc). If and when Intel gets its day in court and a court does find them guilty, I'll shut my big trap on the issue ...

Again, four countries, billions in fines, and a pay off to AMD to make the lawsuits go away...I support Intel getting a chance to defend themselves and state their case to the FTC, but regardless of that, it is impossible for all but the most faithful of fanboys to deny that Intel screwed the pooch and is effectively guilty in at least four countries of anti-competitive business practices. And, when/if the FTC or State of NY finds Intel guilty it should not be a surprise to anyone.

And, given that this is not civil or private litigation, the chances of Intel getting "their day in court" in the classical sense is probably never going to happen. Like it or not, whatever the FTC finds come this September is what will be legally binding.

 

[chunkymonster]

Anyway, for the fanbois arguing that no court trial is needed since Intel is already 'convicted' in 4 countries (even though the FTC case hasn't gone before the administrative law judge yet), this just goes to show that not all the facts are known yet. Didn't Intel file a countersuit in the now-dismissed-due-to-settlement AMD lawsuit, showing that AMD was being obstructive during the evidence discovery phase?

Whether or not Intel filed counter-suit against AMD for whatever reason is a totally moot point given the fact that Intel offered AMD the $1.25 Billion settlement. Whatever actions Intel took or may have taken went away when they indirectly admitted guilt by paying AMD off to drop the lawsuits. And, sorry, but if it one or two countries that found Intel guilty, then your point might be valid, but given that FOUR countries found them guilty, a court trial would and should only affirm the facts already determined by the trade commissions of those four countries.

As they say, "Once just happens, twice is coincidence, and three times is a pattern." Given that four countries found Intel guilty, we are beyond having established a pattern of behavior and on onto indisputable fact!

 

[sonoran]

And, given that this is not civil or private litigation, the chances of Intel getting "their day in court" in the classical sense is probably never going to happen. Like it or not, whatever the FTC finds come this September is what will be legally binding.

As I understand it, the the FTC doesn't get the luxury of being judge and jury like the EU Commission. The FTC has to prove their cases in court.

 

[chunkymonster]

As I understand it, the the FTC doesn't get the luxury of being judge and jury like the EU Commission. The FTC has to prove their cases in court.

Comprehend much? That was stated that way to discern the fact that this is not civil or private litigation in nature but about anti-competitive business practices.

 

[roofus]

i am amazed that this actually got an article on TH as well considering this comes off as a bitter rant from an ex-employee that was probably a failure at his job at the time.

 

[sighQ2]

Nice attempted troll thread. I don't hear anything else from OP. Come to think of it, I never hear anything from him - mainly because I don't even read his stuff.

And yes, if this is spintel's greatest defence................ well. I doubt that; but this is more like marketing spin.

I also appreciate the defense of the great Henri Richard of the Montreal Canadiens. #16. the socalled "Pocket Rocket" and brother of the "Rocket" Maurice Richard. #9. back in the days of 5 consecutive Stanley Cups, when it was like a rock concert to see Les Habitants play the game like no one else could.

Thanx to all who made this a much better read than I expected. It was quite informative for me since I largely disappeared from computerland shortly after this period - or sometime like that. Some interesting details here.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

As I understand it, the the FTC doesn't get the luxury of being judge and jury like the EU Commission. The FTC has to prove their cases in court.

Actually to an ALJ from what I've read. Of course either side can appeal the ALJ's decision to a Federal circuit court, then a Court of Appeals and finally to the Supreme Court.

 

[sighQ2]

It still amazes me that some people just don't, or won't, quite get it.

spintel actually paid $1,250,000,000.

that's 1,250 MILLIONs.

that's a lot of Millions.

NOW - please ask yourself - why would they do that AND give away the royalties fees and bla bla the rest of the deal. spintel also got some benefits in the deal.

So all that is done - gone - water under the bridge.

The FTC is about the government of the USA taking care of the people it represents. How can that be a problem for some people? It's their job.

IF spintel is clean - then so be it - no problem. At least we know that the gov has the interests of the people in the right place. Right up front, where it belongs. Do the people need protection? Is there a problem that needs to be addressed?

And as for precedents - they occurred in other countries. Some evidence revealed may be of interest. The gov has it's own work to do; and a lot to consider, it seems. Sweeping it all away is not an option. The implications seem pretty serious. More will be revealed.

 

[notty22]

This guy has proven out to be a genius. He was 100% correct about his predictions.
He probably looked at AMD's own roadmap back then, looked at Intel's, with their upcoming dual cores and new the writing was on the wall. He was probably privy to the tlb bug. Sorry but that was not a little workaround problem. You had to disable the l3 cache completely to avoid it. This guaranteed not one business could buy this product and put it in a enterprise server unless AMD gave it to them and paid them the electricity to run the thing. ! Back then AMD sat on its hiny charging 1000 dollars for a single core processor Athlon 64 FX-57 at one point. Talk about foolhardy greediness.