Henri Richard explains why AMD failed to gain more marketshare

[BadTrip]

This paid review site BS needs to stop. Not one shred of evidence has been presented.

 

[randomizer]

Evidence has been presented, but it's too weak and therefore can be interpreted in too many different ways. The "correct" way depends on what you want it to be.

 

[BadTrip]

Ok let me edit that then.

Conclusive evidence has not been presented.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Read this
http://techreport.com/discussions/8547

and this
http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.shtml

This is old news

 

[randomizer]

Considering none of us know what software is compiled with ICC, saying that every benchmark that Intel wins is "crippled" is a big stretch.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Exactly, and when it was changed, and how things have changed from compiler usage from then til now etc.
At the time, I think AMD may have a lil something here, today? No. And I stress the word "may"

 

[Reynod]

This paid review site BS needs to stop. Not one shred of evidence has been presented.

There is plenty of evidence ...

Not that I would go plastering their names up here ... in a n00b forum.

Take my comment however you like ... I rarely link anything ... I do talk to real people though.

 

[jimmysmitty]

OK, first, look up the word monolpoly, since all this in basically what all this is about, and how you prevent companies from acting on them.
Now, for those that already know all this, just skip this post, for those that dont, cant, or cant discern the difference from proprietary, or being the low player within a monopoly etc, read on.
OK, working from the assumption of the greater good for maket, under a monopoly, an entity, whether its the EU or Korea or the US whatever, the law and laws there go after the greater player within a monopoly, not the other way around, and its not the workings of any part, OS etc being proprietary in and of itself, but how it reflects its use/demand or control over a market, regardless of it being proprietary or not. The concern is monopoly here, and THRU monopoly, then proprietary comes into play, so remember this, monopoly first, then proprietary, and of course, monopoly is where the law applies, and not thru proprietary uses of any part SW or OS.

OK, now, since Apple doesnt apply according the definition of a monopoly, then its proprietary SW, OS or HW and parts dont apply to the entities stated above , as well as others.
Since both M$ and Intel fall within the terms of a monopoly, then it behooves earler said entities EU et all etc to watch for any proprietary or monopolistic behaviors from M$ and Intel , and not AMD, Apple, Chrome etc.
So, this is the law, and at this point, I need not explain again further, cause if you dont get it by now, ignorance is not an excuse

Oh right... I forget. The little guy can slide not the big guy. We all set here and talk about fair competition and this and that yet we utilize something thats unfair: the bigger company getting punished for the same thing the lttle one does. I personally think if you go after one company, go after the others too. There is no reason one should take it while the other skips along its merry little way.

I still stand that the EU is just a bunch of money hungry idiots looking to fine every American based company that they can. I even hear Google is next. I guess Google being smart and using a back door search engine made them a monopoly. Or they did something to stiffle competition with even the giant evil MS who had been in the search engine business longer than Google.

If monopoly is the only place that anything applies, then its all just BS. You can't take any of it seriously. Thats like a cop giving a guy a ticket that has a Mustang but the VW Bug gets away with speeding faster than the Mustang was.

Yes, because AMD have been bringing prices down. I noticed you didn't mention the $99 Quad.

Yea....... no. Intel started pushing their prices down. And each time AMD had to drop theirs since their overall performance was not on par. Overall performance, not just gaming. AMD did not push their prices down out of the loves for its customers. It pushed their prices down due to necessity in order to have a decent price/performance ratio.

If intel priced its Core i7 920 at the same price as a equally clocked Phenom II X4, it would cream the Phenom II out of existence and you would all be crying foul that Intel is being anti-competative yadda yadda even though its more competative to price match.

But there would still be reason that Intels system would be mroe expensive this or that or something..... right?

If a person is attacked by another person and gets his arm broken by the actions of the first, it doesnt matter if the afflicted goes swimming with aligators na d gets his rear chewed off, the attacker stil broke the law, and the anount of damages would only apply, not the attacking charges with subsequent damages.

What I find interesting is, Dems in this country claim they arent for big bidness, but yet their actions as it pertains to the FTC etc supports big bidness, and does lil for the lil guy, where its the opposite in the eyes of the Reps, where, theyre more concerned about the consumer.
I attribute this as to the often seen good cop bad cop we see in politics, where its easy to deal with, since both sides are covered, and as is often seen, the "strongest" is said position, as, its seen the Reps as being strong concerning bidness, gets the favorable position, or that of protecting the lil guy. Happens all the time.
Much like talking to horrible leaders, where the Reps bring bombs, or unfavorable at home, not good away for the perps, and the Dens bring words, favorable at home, and good away from home, regarding the perps. Just a lil edmacation for some folks

Ok.... but if the guy with the broken arm jumps into swim with the alligators, which mind you is much worse than some guy breaking your arm, thats their fault. If intel took say 5% of AMDs actual market share they should have gotten and then AMD went crazy and just sold their CPUs for cost of production and made no profits, is that Intels fault still? or is it AMDs for being idiots?

AMD had a lot of problems. While K8 was a great CPU, AMD was still pretty immature in comparison to Intel in terms of running a business, marketing and FABs. So if the little guy has a better product but is inexperienced in marketing and running a business and also has less employees to do that service/product, in the end they will not do as well.

Out of honesty, i am through going over the same BS again.

Son in the end:

The EU is a bunch of idiots who only go after one companya nd are completely unfair

AMD, while hindered by Intel, also shot its own foot off which didn't help at all. < This is all we have been saying. That AMD didn't help themselves and that not everything is Intels fault in the end.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Agreed, but to say its all exclusive to it being AMDs decisions, which may or may not have been driven by what took place in the marketplace, or even its decisions which later turned bad, was uneffected by Intels actions completely. We will never know, the judges will never know, both Intel and AMD wont either, but some understanding can be made, and total denial of any of this having no effect on AMD, whether by decisions, or by profit/growth or timing of released product is partly attributable by Intels actions.
The judge doesnt care less about AMDs actions, other than to see what damages were done in total, whereby, using these words, this approach concedes Intels guilt, and theyre only trying to soften the blow

 

[jimmysmitty]

Agreed, but to say its all exclusive to it being AMDs decisions, which may or may not have been driven by what took place in the marketplace, or even its decisions which later turned bad, was uneffected by Intels actions completely. We will never know, the judges will never know, both Intel and AMD wont either, but some understanding can be made, and total denial of any of this having no effect on AMD, whether by decisions, or by profit/growth or timing of released product is partly attributable by Intels actions.
The judge doesnt care less about AMDs actions, other than to see what damages were done in total, whereby, using these words, this approach concedes Intels guilt, and theyre only trying to soften the blow

Well they better care about AMDs actions. If it could be proven that even without Intels exclusive dealing with Dell would have only resulted in anothe 3-5% market share increase for AMD up until Core 2s release then that would show that AMDs actions didn't help them.

As I said, if anything its a combo deal, they cannot wholly blame it on Intel.

Just like the compiler that is not even used as much as people think. they try to use that to dismiss every benchmark, even ones Intel is winning by a huge margin.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

If a person is attacked by another person and gets his arm broken by the actions of the first, it doesnt matter if the afflicted goes swimming with aligators na d gets his rear chewed off, the attacker stil broke the law, and the anount of damages would only apply, not the attacking charges with subsequent damages.

If Intel can show that AMD also engaged in anticompetitive behaviour, against its own interests, by being inept & unable to take advantage of its superior design at the time, the ALJ should take that into account as well. If s/he doesn't it would be cause for appeal by Intel.

Anyway, my understanding is that information like yields is one of the most highly guarded secrets and AMD or GF may not want to have to divulge that. If I were on Intel's legal team, that would be the first item I'd subpoena, to show that yes AMD was indeed capacity constrained at the time.

 

[Guest]

If AMD were capacity constrained why would intel have bothered paying billions to Dell and then paying off AMD to the tune of $1.25 billion?

I mean come on, it was only a few weeks ago you can't have forgotten it already surely? 😗 Intel are so confident in their legal position that they just write of $1.25 billion? Imo they were hoping that would get the FTC off their case but it didn't.

 

[Guest]

Also don't forget that it is INTEL who are up in the dock here, not AMD. Intel can't go around demanding corporate secrets out of AMD to prove some invalid point that simply doesn't matter.

The FTC are investigating Intels anti-competitive behaviour, not AMD's hypothetical capacity constraints.

 

[Chad Boga]

If AMD were capacity constrained why would intel have bothered paying billions to Dell and then paying off AMD to the tune of $1.25 billion?

I suspect because getting into Dell earlier on when AMD was the performance leader would have done wonders to improve AMD's brand image in the long run.

I mean come on, it was only a few weeks ago you can't have forgotten it already surely? 😗 Intel are so confident in their legal position that they just write of $1.25 billion?

The USA is a society where McDonalds gets sued for millions for making Hot Coffee, hot.

It was a prudent move to ensure another crazy outcome like that didn't hurt Intel shareholders.

And what did AMD have to lose? They were playing a game of chicken with a rusted clapped out jalopy vs Intel's Rolls Royce.

But hey, give credit to AMD for being able to get so many people to not focus on AMD's own failings and assume that AMD not being successful had nothing to do with AMD, it was all big bad Intel.

 

[Chad Boga]

Also don't forget that it is INTEL who are up in the dock here, not AMD. Intel can't go around demanding corporate secrets out of AMD to prove some invalid point that simply doesn't matter.

The FTC are investigating Intels anti-competitive behaviour, not AMD's hypothetical capacity constraints.

Jenny,
I am glad you are an expert on Anti-trust issues, from which Law Faculty did you graduate?

Unfortunately for you, Intel will get their day in court where they can defend themselves by examining the evidence against them, confront their accusers, subpoena evidence and be judged by an impartial judge.

I know this isn't what you are use to seeing, but it is something you will have to come to accept.

 

[Guest]

But hey, give credit to AMD for being able to get so many people to not focus on AMD's own failings and assume that AMD not being successful had nothing to do with AMD, it was all big bad Intel.

No really I think the three previous losses in Korea, Japan and the EU, combined with two current complaints and the $1.25bn payoff is pretty clear evidence of intel's guilt.

But sure, keep believing it's all part of an AMD masterplan - planting evidence at Dell back in 2004 while they had a huge tech lead, forcing Otellini to admit to Dell in emails that they were years behind in tech etc.

That's quite a well executed plan, I gotta say you must be incredibly impressed by AMD if you actually believe that. 😀

 

[Chad Boga]

No really I think the three previous losses in Korea, Japan and the EU, combined with two current complaints and the $1.25bn payoff is pretty clear evidence of intel's guilt.

Korea and Japan found Intel guilty of something so trivial that it was the equivalent of getting busted for Jay Walking.

It is true that the EU's findings were of a more serious nature, but then they also wanted to extract extra taxation from a successful American company, thus Nellie Kroes comment about Intel being the sponsors of the European taxpayer.

But sure, keep believing it's all part of an AMD masterplan - planting evidence at Dell etc while they had a huge tech lead, forcing Otellini to admit to Dell in emails that they were years behind in tech etc.

What evidence was "planted" at Dell?

That's quite a well executed plan, I gotta say you must be incredibly impressed by AMD if you actually believe that.

We live in a world where a lot of people can't distinguish between equal opportunity and equality of outcome, this is what gives AMD the opportunity to try and benefit from their own failings.

But anyway, just what do you think is on the cards for Intel and AMD respectively as a result of the FTC looking at Intel?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

OK, so if AMD was capacity constrained at one point in time, what about all the other times?
And actually, this isnt even permisable when it comes to not allowing AMD into sales, period, and Intels lawyers, if theyre fool enough to think that, all I can say is CMONNNNNNNNNNNN MAAAYYANN.
Again, this is akin to destroying a 100 yr old mans car. Sure he cant drive, but the one who destroyed the car still broke the law.
If things had been different, whats to say they wouldnt have borrowed for a new fab?
No one knows how things would have played out if Intel hadnt done what they did, and its that, not AMDs actions one ways or anothers, that the judge will be looking at, not AMDs capacities.
I mean, really, what are you guys thinking?

 

[fazers_on_stun]

If AMD were capacity constrained why would intel have bothered paying billions to Dell and then paying off AMD to the tune of $1.25 billion?

I mean come on, it was only a few weeks ago you can't have forgotten it already surely? 😗 Intel are so confident in their legal position that they just write of $1.25 billion? Imo they were hoping that would get the FTC off their case but it didn't.

I didn't say Intel was innocent (or guilty - after all, there hasn't been a court trial yet and we don't have all the evidence either). But those 'billions' to Dell were volume discounts, which is typical in a lot of industries. For example, all car manufacturers have volume incentives to their dealerships so that the more the dealer sells, the higher the kickback from the manufacturer. Lets 'em get away with making a profit even if the dealer sells at the 'invoice' price.

As for the settlement, I also suspect we will never know all the reasons behind it. However if the FTC case does make it to trial, I'd bet that we'll find out whether AMD was indeed capacity constrained at the time. I have heard this off and on for the last 2-3 years, prior to the settlement, and to paraphrase one of your quotes, where there's smoke there's a flaming AMD fanbois 😀.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Also don't forget that it is INTEL who are up in the dock here, not AMD. Intel can't go around demanding corporate secrets out of AMD to prove some invalid point that simply doesn't matter.

The FTC are investigating Intels anti-competitive behaviour, not AMD's hypothetical capacity constraints.

Actually yes Intel can subpoena AMD and make them cough up the relevant documents, as a hostile witness. Of course AMD could defy the subpoena and then the judge would pack the entire company, as well as most of its fanbois, off to jail to reconsider their errant ways .

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Its not mthat easy. Those requests arent just handed over, and relevence plays a big part, and if Intel can tie AMDs lack of capacity into Intel "rebating" OEMs to lock AMD out of the main mindset market, I say go for it lol

This all looks good in the press, to those who are Intels fanbois etc, but have no part or parcel to Intels activities.

"I paid him money"

"Whyd you pay him him money"


"Tired of all this fighting"

"Why didnt you allow him to buy the food?"


"He looked full at the time"

"And?"

"he couldnt have eaten it anyways."


Even a grocery store would have been sued, found guilty, and punished, regardless how "full" the guy was

 

[fazers_on_stun]

OK, so if AMD was capacity constrained at one point in time, what about all the other times?

What other times are we talking about, or more importantly, are relevant to the FTC case??

Again, this is akin to destroying a 100 yr old mans car. Sure he cant drive, but the one who destroyed the car still broke the law.

And so the judge fines the one who destroyed it, the value of the car, and zero punitive damages for the loss of usage of same, since as you said, the old fart couldn't drive anyway .

If things had been different, whats to say they wouldnt have borrowed for a new fab?
No one knows how things would have played out if Intel hadnt done what they did, and its that, not AMDs actions one ways or anothers, that the judge will be looking at, not AMDs capacities.
I mean, really, what are you guys thinking?

I'm thinking this case won't get too far, esp. because the judge will be looking at all the facts, not just some cherry-picked ones. This will be remarkably similar to an actual court trial, ya know, with both sides entitled to present evidence and question their accusers. And we might just get to find out why AMD didn't want to borrow for a new fab back in 2004, to boot...

Since Intel can afford to hier a top-tier legal team, whereas the FTC will be using gov't lawyers who couldn't get a regular day job , my betting is on the "if'n the glove don't fit, ya gotta acquit!" team! 😗

 

[sonoran]

Read this
http://techreport.com/discussions/8547

and this
http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.shtml

This is old news

Intel has less than 10% of the x86 compiler market. Are you now arguing that they're a monopoly in that software market?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

You do know when this all started dont you?

 

[Chad Boga]

Intel has less than 10% of the x86 compiler market. Are you now arguing that they're a monopoly in that software market?

Sonoran, I don't doubt your figures at all, but because I would like to inform others on different sites, do you know of a link that breaks down the compiler percentages between MSVC, GCC, ICC and whatever else is out there?