Intel cowers in the face of AMD legal strategy

[Guest]

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

George Macdonald wrote:
> On 25 Aug 2005 16:30:36 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >George Macdonald wrote:
> >> On 25 Aug 2005 05:54:44 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >
> >> >Intel is gearing up for a fight over the consumer electronics space.
> >> >Both VIIV and the Apple deal are a part of that, and I'm sure we
> >> >haven't been told the real story.
> >>
> >> Yep, Intel can't seem to leave the consumer space alone; despite having to
> >> abandon the LCoS boondoggle they are determined to make a mark. As a
> >> component supplier, it doesn't seem to fit IMO - kinda like Valeo or Delphi
> >> trying to make a name for themselves in the auto market. With few
> >> exceptions, such as video screen technology, the buyer doesn't care about
> >> the details inside the box.
> >>
> >
> >I'm not so sure it's Intel being determined to make a mark as much as
> >Intel realizing it has to make a stand. I can envision all kinds of
> >futures, and while I can't envision one in which any of the major
> >players (IBM, Intel, Microsoft) goes out of business, I can easily
> >imagine somebody taking a *very* big hit. I'm pretty good, usually, at
> >explaining the obvious, but Bill Gates outdid even what I might have
> >come up with to explain to Intel just how vulnerable it is--and
> >Microsoft has a game box, too, and Intel doesn't make the processor.
>
> How can Intel make a "stand" in a market where it has no current
> presence?...

That's one way of looking at the marketplace, but not one that I would
have chosen. PC's already have a significant presence in home
entertainment, and Intel is betting that presence will grow.

I don't know how Dell has been doing with large screen TV's, but I
don't know of anything that Dell doesn't seem to be able to sell, and
I'm sure that Intel is counting on Michael to figure out how to move
whatever it is they're going to try to sell.

> not to mention with devices where it has little or no
> experience or expertise - again talk about hubris.

Apple.

> Besides, the consumer
> appliance space is a dumb move IMO - that space is littered with the
> corpses of blue-chip U.S. corps from the 60s & 70s. How many times has
> Motorola come to the brink because it can't leave it alone?

Intel really has no choice. Somebody is going to lose.

RM

 

[Guest]

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

On 25 Aug 2005 16:30:36 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>> On 25 Aug 2005 05:54:44 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >George Macdonald wrote:
>> >> On 24 Aug 2005 05:13:18 -0700, "Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >That's all very well, but the problem wasn't that IBM couldn't sell
>> >> >chips to Apple for servers, the problem was that they couldn't sell
>> >> >chips for mobile operation, a market in which Intel has been doing very
>> >> >nicely.
>> >>
>> >> That is/was a very obvious crock... The articles I looked at claimed that
>> >> Jobs was pining for a 3+GHz notebook chip, which Intel didn't/doesn't have,
>> >> any more than IBM. In fact IBM's current (at the time) notebook chips were
>> >> very closely matched to Intel's P-Ms at ~1.8GHz.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Obvious? Point me to the slam dunk study that led you to that
>> >conclusion, please.
>>
>> It's common knowledge - look at product literature. GEEZ!
>>
>
>It's not common knowledge to me, and I wouldn't have a clue as to what
>product literature you are so blithely directing me to examine.

Back when the Apple "announcement" was made, the story was that Jobs
criticism of IBM was the lack of a faster notebook CPU... along the lines
that their Moto/Freescale (as per Yousuf's correction) notebook CPUs were
only 1.8GHz and Intel had faster - there *was* mention of 3+Ghz. The point
is that Intel did not have and still doesnt have substantially faster -- OK
they have 2GHz P-Ms but 200Mhz is nothing to fret about and there are
damned few of them in currently available Intel-based notebooks; the 3+Ghz
notebook CPU excuse was a crock.

>> >
>> >Intel is gearing up for a fight over the consumer electronics space.
>> >Both VIIV and the Apple deal are a part of that, and I'm sure we
>> >haven't been told the real story.
>>
>> Yep, Intel can't seem to leave the consumer space alone; despite having to
>> abandon the LCoS boondoggle they are determined to make a mark. As a
>> component supplier, it doesn't seem to fit IMO - kinda like Valeo or Delphi
>> trying to make a name for themselves in the auto market. With few
>> exceptions, such as video screen technology, the buyer doesn't care about
>> the details inside the box.
>>
>
>I'm not so sure it's Intel being determined to make a mark as much as
>Intel realizing it has to make a stand. I can envision all kinds of
>futures, and while I can't envision one in which any of the major
>players (IBM, Intel, Microsoft) goes out of business, I can easily
>imagine somebody taking a *very* big hit. I'm pretty good, usually, at
>explaining the obvious, but Bill Gates outdid even what I might have
>come up with to explain to Intel just how vulnerable it is--and
>Microsoft has a game box, too, and Intel doesn't make the processor.

How can Intel make a "stand" in a market where it has no current
presence?... not to mention with devices where it has little or no
experience or expertise - again talk about hubris. Besides, the consumer
appliance space is a dumb move IMO - that space is littered with the
corpses of blue-chip U.S. corps from the 60s & 70s. How many times has
Motorola come to the brink because it can't leave it alone?

>> >Cray may survive, or not. SGI may survive, or not. *Somebody* will be
>> >making high-performance clusters with Intel chips, and IBM will be
>> >building what it calls supercomputers whether it makes money doing it
>> >or not. The future is racks of no-name hardware with Intel Inside
>> >stickers. If there is anything fancy, it will be a switch.
>>
>> In the MP space, yes there will be tight clusters of x86 and AMD64 is a
>> strong candidate for the foreseeable future there - sorry to prick your
>> balloon but that's what's happening.
>>
>
>Of course there will be people using AMD64. The evidence, though, is
>that Intel will dominate that market just like it dominates all other
>segments of x86.

Your evidence... gathered from who knows where? The point is that AMD is
gaining a substantial portion which they didn't previously have and the
momentum is gathering - nobody needs 100%, except for Intel and again,
their hubris. Even software companies which wouldn't have dared mention
anything but Intel as a platform are now according at least equal weight to
AMD64.

>> >The future wouldn't have to be so unexciting. Japan is apparently
>> >willing to spend money on something more interesting. If somebody put
>> >the money on the table, IBM could build somthing really interesting,
>> >too, but it wouldn't be using x86.
>>
>> Japan will eventually run out of money/enthusiasm there I feel - merchant
>> chips is the future because that's what "people" can afford.
>>
>
>Every shred of experience so far says so.

How many of those things can the Japanese build at huge losses and with
enormous govt. subsidies?

>> >In the meantime, the only safe bet is Intel.
>>
>> Put away the Intel slogan ticker machine.:-[]
>>
>Only my opinion. You really shouldn't get so exercised over someone
>having an opinion that's different from yours.

Ditto.

--
Rgds, George Macdonald