If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 -- |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Amd-Intel | cathy | General | 1 | June 27th 05 01:44 PM |
Gigabyte GA-8IDML with mobile CPU? | Cuzman | Overclocking | 1 | December 8th 04 08:20 PM |
Intel vs. AMD: Best bang for buck, at the moment | Dave C. | Homebuilt PC's | 40 | September 27th 04 07:19 AM |
Intel: The chipset is the product | Grumble | General | 70 | June 13th 04 07:28 AM |
Intel: The chipset is the product | Robert Myers | Intel | 67 | June 12th 04 07:28 PM |