I started this thread because I'd like to weigh in and respond, but the mods are correct that we should take it to a new thread...
Stated so far...
Nemesis
I think I will completely disagree with this notion. Rector brought a law suite against Intel . Thats what opened up the OEM market to Rector ++++ the fact that K8 was that good. The trueth is AMD didn't have the resources to supply the oems When this law suite is over I believe the courts will come to same conclusion . Intel will be able to prove this with recent developments.
Intel's rebates may have been based on certain conditions . But in the end Intel will beable to prove AMD simply did not have the capicity to supply the OEMS with guartenteed deliveries. It is that simple. Why do so many places sell either Coke or Pepsi but not both . Now that is very very odd. It is also ilegal by AMDs standards
Viditor
Then we shall have to agree to disagree...
Though I will add that most all of the OEM contracts were in place well before the lawsuit (Sun, HP, and IBM all had OEM contracts before the lawsuit).
As for capacity,
1. Fab 30 had a capacity of 5500 WSPW (Wafer Starts Per Week)
2. Even the largest K7 on .18u was only 129mm2
3. On a 200mm wafer, that's just over 200 candidate dice per wafer or 1.1 Million candidate chips/week
4. If we assume even an 80% yield (and most reports at the time wer well over that after ramping), that's 880000 chips/week or 45.76 Million chips/year.
5. I believe that the world market sales in those days was close to 120-130 Million chips/year, so they had the capacity to deliver 35% with Fab 30 alone. (though the actual amount was higher as the average die size was MUCH smaller)
Also, remember that Intel has voluntarily shut down the rebate program (though they can volunteer to start it again) since the lawsuit, so whatever has happened since that time carries far less weight.
I personally think that Intel doesn't have a hope in Hell of actually winning the lawsuit (especially after they lost or destroyed the e-mail evidence they were ordered to retain by the courts)...the only 2 scenarios that make sense to me are
1. Intel settles at the last moment, thereby sealing a lot of the records that will be displayed in court and avoiding a very high potential award
2. Intel tries to appeal for as many years as they can in hopes that AMD will settle out of frustration at a later date.
My bias is towards option 1 as it seems to me to make the most sense for Intel and will most likely be the far cheaper option. JMHO
Coldpower27
Well in Coke and Pepsi's case I believe they have very comparable marketshare so yeah exclusivity in some situations isn't anti-competitive because the impact isn't threatening when both are of comparable marketshare.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/bus...0527_COKE_GRAPHIC.html
Nemesis 1
I see your point but its also removing my right to get the drink i want at the food place i preferr.
What happened To Digital equipment . Didn't IBM squezee them out of the market.
I suppose that the IBM pc using intel x86 squezed them out. Why isn't ms a monopoly by law . Shouldn't it be broken up like AT&T was.
To many differant standards going on here . Its USA for crying out load.
How do we know mike dell didn't approach intel and say if we sell Intel exclusively and we get a cut on cpu cost we can under sell everone in the market.
I don't see why Dell and Intel couldn't agree to such a deal . After all its Dells choice . Did dell ever sell AMD cpu's till recently?
I just don't see what the problem is.
Perfect example is Apple Intel now . Intel exclusive for Apple it was Apples choice and apple is grabing market share now with intel.
apple is also getting 1st products from intel is that illegal ? Dell is know longer intels cpu's first to market vender . when c2d first appeared it was apple that got first shipments from intel . if i was pc maker i would go exclusive intel in the hopes of getting first products ahead of dell hp. first to market is no small deal. so i think amd is just cring like a baby .
coldpower27
Really? You don't really have a right to buy whatever drink you want at a restaurant, you have a right to buy whatever they carry. There is a no one pointing a gun to your head and saying you must go to that restaurant. If you want that drink badly enough, you will simply go to another restaurant. They are also potentially losing some customers due to the reduction in choices, so it's not all advantages for a restaurant to only carry 1 drink.
In Apples case it's fine that particular vendor has a small enough marketshare that exclusivity with one manufacturer isn't going to cause enough damage worth caring about.
Since now that Dell is both AMD/Intel as well as most other Major OEM such as Gateway and HP, AMD has most of the largescale OEM carrying it's products, so it's up to AMD getting out good products now.
With Intel and AMD, it can be classified as critical damage if Dell doesn't carry AMD because they have significant OEM marketshare, simply because Intel's marketshare is at about a 4:1 ratio with AMD's give or take and not a 1:1.
At any rate AMD doesn't have any more excuses with major OEM now as they all carry AMD, as well, besides Apple that has so little marketshare that they aren't worth mentioning.
Microsoft is a monopoly are you talking about the Operating System sector right?, Well there are some alternatives now, like Mac OS for x86 and Linux, so I wouldn't complete agree.
Though I do agree that AMD loves to use the anti-competitive flag a little too often
Nemesis 1
So your saying that its allright for apple because of small but rapidly growing market share to be exclusive to Intel . So when penryn is released and Apple gets the first shipped processors that its OK . But what if Apples market share keeps growing at present rate when will it not be alright? With VM it is possiable for Apple to grow by intel exclusitivity. Just like Intel grew Dell because of its exclusivtivity. Dell was first to recieve Intel new products . This isn't a small matter.
If I owned HP and I decided to go Intel exclusive. Your saying that is wrong. Iwill never understand that kind of thinking not as an American.
Its my company so I can put in the box what ever I want.
If Intel gave me a better deal because I was exclusive your saying thats wrong . I say its OK and very smart. When AMD had the performance lead that could hurt my sales. But isn't it really my choice. Intel wouldn't care if Dell went exclusive AMD I doubt intel would care. But Dell would go bankrupt without Intel . Thats A fact
Stoneburner
Huh? As an american you do what the gubmint says!
IN all seriousness, there are reasons for such regulations so falling back on simplistic libertarian notions isn't helpful here. It's a point alot of people misunderstand about AMD fanboys, alot of them arent' fanboys they just want some competition
coldpower27
Apple, isn't big enough to be a threat yet in the x86 world, when they actually become a threat, I doubt it will ever occur, since they cater to the more wealthy of the market. Your situation is only hypothetical, we will deal with that when we come to it.
Like I said already, with something as large HP/Dell, it is enough to cause significant damage. This is not acceptable to AMD's continued existence. Not so for the moment with Apple.
Not so when your actions, will cause the destruction of a company that was preventing a monopoly. AMD was first introduced as a second source so that if the super unlikely event Intel died we would have second source for x86 processors, AMD's continued existence, is of paramount importance. If what Intel does endangers that, that is not acceptable
Nemesis 1
So because you believe apple is highend use only or high $$$. You believe that they have limited market penatration. OK thats fine. But avoiding the hypothetical based on that is just dancing around the question I asked
It is unacceptable to who? AMD! Surely their is NO law saying they have to use AMD products
So you are saying that if Intel came out with a product so good and so cheap that Intel by law couldn't produce it . Come on!
I really laughed at this viditor. Who were the E-Mails sent to and who sent these E-Mails? Shouldn't they have these e-mails also? Why say Intel lost destroyed these e-mails if you place a burden on Intel for losing said e-mails shouldn't you place said burden on sender reciever also? They should have copies of these e-mails
Stoneburner
Nemesis, destruction of evidence can give rise to an inference under rules of evidence (at least in california) It's not a question of what side has it
Viditor
Ummm...I'm surprised you haven't heard about this. The e-mails were from Intel's top executives and there were over 1000 missing!
The whole point is that you can't get copies from the recipient if you don't know who it was.
And besides, the recipients weren't under court order to preserve them!
Original Story
Nemesis 1
I have heard of it . Do you have a link about which e-mails are missing. If their is no record how do we know there missing. Are these e-mails before the court order or after the court order.
If they know theres 1000 missing e-mails than someone has copies of said e-mails or they wouldn't know about them .
We really have to wait on this one to find trueth.
Why aren't you and others upset about the already settled case were amd reverse engineered intel cpu's and basicly stoled x-86 . I know IBM connection here . Doesn't change the fact amd stole intels tech and used it as its own
coldpower27
I don't "believe" Apple is high end, they are a high end vendor, Apple's cheapest IMAC is 1199 USD/1299 CND and 1099USD/1249 CND for MacBooks. I don't answer questions that have no relevance to what is current occurring, they are a waste of my time. As long as Apples continues with the style they have shown so far, they aren't going to continue to sustain their growth, as the upper mainstream to enthusiast just doesn't command that much marketshare.
If the decision is made without outside competitor influence then it is fine, if however the larger company is using it's influence due to sheer size, then no it's is not permissible.
Nope that is not what I am saying at all. The thing is Intel won't do that, as they know having AMD around on critical life support, is a better situation, compared to the alternative which is no AMD at all
lopri
AMD's ability of supplying enough chips only matters when Intel is involved in the equation. Without a threat from Intel, an OEM could sell both AMD/Intel CPU equipped systems per market needs (for example, Pentium M for laptops and A64 X2 for desktops). What OEMs feared was that Intel would completely cut off the chip supply on every front. Only in that situation AMD's capacity (and their inferior mobile chips) would become an issue, because then an OEM will have to rely on AMD for its complete line-ups.
I had (and have) no intention to join the argument in this thread but I wanted to comment on this common misunderstanding. 'AMD didn't have enough capacity to supply chips' can make sense only when considering a certain effect that Intel could have on an OEM.
golem
If AMD's ability to supply an adequate number of chips for an OEM's needs is based on Intel's sales policies, then I don't see how Nemesis 1's original comment is wrong
coldpower27
I will try to explain what I think lopri is getting at, AMD's ability to supply only comes into effect only if the OEM becomes AMD exclusive which can't occur due to AMD's small size.
The problem is that it becomes a situation of choose Intel only and do business well, or choose to have both and Intel withdraws because it doesn't like you carrying the competitor's product. This latter choice can't be made by the OEM, because it would basically send them to oblivion, if they were completely reliant on AMD. So basically OEM's have to choose to Intel, there isn't a choice.
This is obviously a bad thing for AMD, as it doesn't matter how great it's product is, if it can't sell to that vendor, because of the competition.
This wouldn't be a problem in a Pepsi vs Coke environment where both companies are of comparable marketshare, as either one has enough capacity that a vendor can choose one and not go bankrupt because of it. Not so in the AMD/Intel competition
bryanW1995
also, as lopri mentioned, amd was/is inferior in mobile chipsets, so even the most die-hard A64 junkie company would want to be able to use intel for those. Intel's forcing other companies to not do business with amd was an abuse of monopoly-like power
golem
I don't know then, but from what you and coldpower27 say, then Intel is not allowed to choose who they sell to or to give priority to larger or more loyal customers or else they are accused of abusing monopoly power
bryanW1995
we don't make the laws in the US, congress does. ask them why it is illegal to abuse monopoly powers
golem
Are you sure that's the correct definition of abuse of monopoly power, or just what AMD wants it to be? It still seems ridiculous to me that once you reach a certain market share, you lose the ability to decide who you do business with (as long as the the reason is legitimate and legal).
Stated so far...
Nemesis
I think I will completely disagree with this notion. Rector brought a law suite against Intel . Thats what opened up the OEM market to Rector ++++ the fact that K8 was that good. The trueth is AMD didn't have the resources to supply the oems When this law suite is over I believe the courts will come to same conclusion . Intel will be able to prove this with recent developments.
Intel's rebates may have been based on certain conditions . But in the end Intel will beable to prove AMD simply did not have the capicity to supply the OEMS with guartenteed deliveries. It is that simple. Why do so many places sell either Coke or Pepsi but not both . Now that is very very odd. It is also ilegal by AMDs standards
Viditor
Then we shall have to agree to disagree...
Though I will add that most all of the OEM contracts were in place well before the lawsuit (Sun, HP, and IBM all had OEM contracts before the lawsuit).
As for capacity,
1. Fab 30 had a capacity of 5500 WSPW (Wafer Starts Per Week)
2. Even the largest K7 on .18u was only 129mm2
3. On a 200mm wafer, that's just over 200 candidate dice per wafer or 1.1 Million candidate chips/week
4. If we assume even an 80% yield (and most reports at the time wer well over that after ramping), that's 880000 chips/week or 45.76 Million chips/year.
5. I believe that the world market sales in those days was close to 120-130 Million chips/year, so they had the capacity to deliver 35% with Fab 30 alone. (though the actual amount was higher as the average die size was MUCH smaller)
Also, remember that Intel has voluntarily shut down the rebate program (though they can volunteer to start it again) since the lawsuit, so whatever has happened since that time carries far less weight.
I personally think that Intel doesn't have a hope in Hell of actually winning the lawsuit (especially after they lost or destroyed the e-mail evidence they were ordered to retain by the courts)...the only 2 scenarios that make sense to me are
1. Intel settles at the last moment, thereby sealing a lot of the records that will be displayed in court and avoiding a very high potential award
2. Intel tries to appeal for as many years as they can in hopes that AMD will settle out of frustration at a later date.
My bias is towards option 1 as it seems to me to make the most sense for Intel and will most likely be the far cheaper option. JMHO
Coldpower27
Well in Coke and Pepsi's case I believe they have very comparable marketshare so yeah exclusivity in some situations isn't anti-competitive because the impact isn't threatening when both are of comparable marketshare.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/bus...0527_COKE_GRAPHIC.html
Nemesis 1
I see your point but its also removing my right to get the drink i want at the food place i preferr.
What happened To Digital equipment . Didn't IBM squezee them out of the market.
I suppose that the IBM pc using intel x86 squezed them out. Why isn't ms a monopoly by law . Shouldn't it be broken up like AT&T was.
To many differant standards going on here . Its USA for crying out load.
How do we know mike dell didn't approach intel and say if we sell Intel exclusively and we get a cut on cpu cost we can under sell everone in the market.
I don't see why Dell and Intel couldn't agree to such a deal . After all its Dells choice . Did dell ever sell AMD cpu's till recently?
I just don't see what the problem is.
Perfect example is Apple Intel now . Intel exclusive for Apple it was Apples choice and apple is grabing market share now with intel.
apple is also getting 1st products from intel is that illegal ? Dell is know longer intels cpu's first to market vender . when c2d first appeared it was apple that got first shipments from intel . if i was pc maker i would go exclusive intel in the hopes of getting first products ahead of dell hp. first to market is no small deal. so i think amd is just cring like a baby .
coldpower27
Really? You don't really have a right to buy whatever drink you want at a restaurant, you have a right to buy whatever they carry. There is a no one pointing a gun to your head and saying you must go to that restaurant. If you want that drink badly enough, you will simply go to another restaurant. They are also potentially losing some customers due to the reduction in choices, so it's not all advantages for a restaurant to only carry 1 drink.
In Apples case it's fine that particular vendor has a small enough marketshare that exclusivity with one manufacturer isn't going to cause enough damage worth caring about.
Since now that Dell is both AMD/Intel as well as most other Major OEM such as Gateway and HP, AMD has most of the largescale OEM carrying it's products, so it's up to AMD getting out good products now.
With Intel and AMD, it can be classified as critical damage if Dell doesn't carry AMD because they have significant OEM marketshare, simply because Intel's marketshare is at about a 4:1 ratio with AMD's give or take and not a 1:1.
At any rate AMD doesn't have any more excuses with major OEM now as they all carry AMD, as well, besides Apple that has so little marketshare that they aren't worth mentioning.
Microsoft is a monopoly are you talking about the Operating System sector right?, Well there are some alternatives now, like Mac OS for x86 and Linux, so I wouldn't complete agree.
Though I do agree that AMD loves to use the anti-competitive flag a little too often
Nemesis 1
So your saying that its allright for apple because of small but rapidly growing market share to be exclusive to Intel . So when penryn is released and Apple gets the first shipped processors that its OK . But what if Apples market share keeps growing at present rate when will it not be alright? With VM it is possiable for Apple to grow by intel exclusitivity. Just like Intel grew Dell because of its exclusivtivity. Dell was first to recieve Intel new products . This isn't a small matter.
If I owned HP and I decided to go Intel exclusive. Your saying that is wrong. Iwill never understand that kind of thinking not as an American.
Its my company so I can put in the box what ever I want.
If Intel gave me a better deal because I was exclusive your saying thats wrong . I say its OK and very smart. When AMD had the performance lead that could hurt my sales. But isn't it really my choice. Intel wouldn't care if Dell went exclusive AMD I doubt intel would care. But Dell would go bankrupt without Intel . Thats A fact
Stoneburner
Huh? As an american you do what the gubmint says!
IN all seriousness, there are reasons for such regulations so falling back on simplistic libertarian notions isn't helpful here. It's a point alot of people misunderstand about AMD fanboys, alot of them arent' fanboys they just want some competition
coldpower27
Apple, isn't big enough to be a threat yet in the x86 world, when they actually become a threat, I doubt it will ever occur, since they cater to the more wealthy of the market. Your situation is only hypothetical, we will deal with that when we come to it.
Like I said already, with something as large HP/Dell, it is enough to cause significant damage. This is not acceptable to AMD's continued existence. Not so for the moment with Apple.
Not so when your actions, will cause the destruction of a company that was preventing a monopoly. AMD was first introduced as a second source so that if the super unlikely event Intel died we would have second source for x86 processors, AMD's continued existence, is of paramount importance. If what Intel does endangers that, that is not acceptable
Nemesis 1
So because you believe apple is highend use only or high $$$. You believe that they have limited market penatration. OK thats fine. But avoiding the hypothetical based on that is just dancing around the question I asked
It is unacceptable to who? AMD! Surely their is NO law saying they have to use AMD products
So you are saying that if Intel came out with a product so good and so cheap that Intel by law couldn't produce it . Come on!
I really laughed at this viditor. Who were the E-Mails sent to and who sent these E-Mails? Shouldn't they have these e-mails also? Why say Intel lost destroyed these e-mails if you place a burden on Intel for losing said e-mails shouldn't you place said burden on sender reciever also? They should have copies of these e-mails
Stoneburner
Nemesis, destruction of evidence can give rise to an inference under rules of evidence (at least in california) It's not a question of what side has it
Viditor
Ummm...I'm surprised you haven't heard about this. The e-mails were from Intel's top executives and there were over 1000 missing!
The whole point is that you can't get copies from the recipient if you don't know who it was.
And besides, the recipients weren't under court order to preserve them!
Original Story
Nemesis 1
I have heard of it . Do you have a link about which e-mails are missing. If their is no record how do we know there missing. Are these e-mails before the court order or after the court order.
If they know theres 1000 missing e-mails than someone has copies of said e-mails or they wouldn't know about them .
We really have to wait on this one to find trueth.
Why aren't you and others upset about the already settled case were amd reverse engineered intel cpu's and basicly stoled x-86 . I know IBM connection here . Doesn't change the fact amd stole intels tech and used it as its own
coldpower27
I don't "believe" Apple is high end, they are a high end vendor, Apple's cheapest IMAC is 1199 USD/1299 CND and 1099USD/1249 CND for MacBooks. I don't answer questions that have no relevance to what is current occurring, they are a waste of my time. As long as Apples continues with the style they have shown so far, they aren't going to continue to sustain their growth, as the upper mainstream to enthusiast just doesn't command that much marketshare.
If the decision is made without outside competitor influence then it is fine, if however the larger company is using it's influence due to sheer size, then no it's is not permissible.
Nope that is not what I am saying at all. The thing is Intel won't do that, as they know having AMD around on critical life support, is a better situation, compared to the alternative which is no AMD at all
lopri
AMD's ability of supplying enough chips only matters when Intel is involved in the equation. Without a threat from Intel, an OEM could sell both AMD/Intel CPU equipped systems per market needs (for example, Pentium M for laptops and A64 X2 for desktops). What OEMs feared was that Intel would completely cut off the chip supply on every front. Only in that situation AMD's capacity (and their inferior mobile chips) would become an issue, because then an OEM will have to rely on AMD for its complete line-ups.
I had (and have) no intention to join the argument in this thread but I wanted to comment on this common misunderstanding. 'AMD didn't have enough capacity to supply chips' can make sense only when considering a certain effect that Intel could have on an OEM.
golem
If AMD's ability to supply an adequate number of chips for an OEM's needs is based on Intel's sales policies, then I don't see how Nemesis 1's original comment is wrong
coldpower27
I will try to explain what I think lopri is getting at, AMD's ability to supply only comes into effect only if the OEM becomes AMD exclusive which can't occur due to AMD's small size.
The problem is that it becomes a situation of choose Intel only and do business well, or choose to have both and Intel withdraws because it doesn't like you carrying the competitor's product. This latter choice can't be made by the OEM, because it would basically send them to oblivion, if they were completely reliant on AMD. So basically OEM's have to choose to Intel, there isn't a choice.
This is obviously a bad thing for AMD, as it doesn't matter how great it's product is, if it can't sell to that vendor, because of the competition.
This wouldn't be a problem in a Pepsi vs Coke environment where both companies are of comparable marketshare, as either one has enough capacity that a vendor can choose one and not go bankrupt because of it. Not so in the AMD/Intel competition
bryanW1995
also, as lopri mentioned, amd was/is inferior in mobile chipsets, so even the most die-hard A64 junkie company would want to be able to use intel for those. Intel's forcing other companies to not do business with amd was an abuse of monopoly-like power
golem
I don't know then, but from what you and coldpower27 say, then Intel is not allowed to choose who they sell to or to give priority to larger or more loyal customers or else they are accused of abusing monopoly power
bryanW1995
we don't make the laws in the US, congress does. ask them why it is illegal to abuse monopoly powers
golem
Are you sure that's the correct definition of abuse of monopoly power, or just what AMD wants it to be? It still seems ridiculous to me that once you reach a certain market share, you lose the ability to decide who you do business with (as long as the the reason is legitimate and legal).
Facebook
Twitter