AMD sues Intel (antitrust)

Robert I'm sure you'll find this one to your liking:

Did Intel Kill Opteron? - Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/technology/200...w_0629amd.html

Yousuf Khan

YKhan wrote:

Robert I'm sure you'll find this one to your liking:

Did Intel Kill Opteron? - Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/technology/200...w_0629amd.html


Does it matter whether I like something or not?

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. 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.

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

"Robert Myers" wrote in message
oups.com...
YKhan wrote:

Robert I'm sure you'll find this one to your liking:

Did Intel Kill Opteron? - Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/technology/200...w_0629amd.html


Does it matter whether I like something or not?

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. 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.

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

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.

del cecchi

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.

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.

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? :-)

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.marke****ch.com/news/stor...=mktw&dist=nbk

Yousuf Khan

Del Cecchi wrote:
"Robert Myers" wrote in message
oups.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?

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.

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.

RM

Carlos Moreno wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:

As to your being "seriously disturbed," your priorities are different
from mine. Here's something to be "seriously disturbed" about

http://allafrica.com/stories/200506270125.html

Something off-topic for this group. I have a variety of interests and
prioirities in what I want for me and for the world -- but we deal with
one thing at a time; when I come to this newsgroup, it is to discuss
things related to computers. I'm not trying to diminish the important
of this [what you pointed us to] or the many many many other crimes
against humanity and against individual human beings; I'm just saying
that this is not what we were talking about (and it would be impolite
to continue talking about it in this newsgroup)

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.

RM

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
--

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.marke****ch.com/news/stor...=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

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

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.