Intel vs Nvidia, ION is "overkill"?, isn't my job to make that choice?

[joe4324]

I just read this:

"NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun is griping today about how Intel sells its three-chip Atom platform for $25, but charges $45 if you unbundle it and just buy the processor alone. When Pineview comes out, Intel will still probably charge $45 for a standalone Atom, while dropping the price of the two-chip platform even further."

There are several articles out there, about this topic.

WTF!

/rant on

Intel isn't content enough to own the ATOM (which I love) and sell a bazzillion of them, they want to decide for me what level of graphics acceleration I need to pair with it? Its one thing not to discount ATOM only cpus vs the 2 or 3 chip complete intel solution, its another thing to charge "twice" as much for the freedom to deviate from the intel model of what computers should be. That clearly shows little sign of actually giving or caring to give me something I want.

I don't even understand it the economics here. They know they have the netbook market by the balls, Thats a great place to be but why squeeze mine when you are making the same or better profit from shipping only cpus vs full solutions. This is some of the most heavy handed tactics I have ever seen and it greatly affects my choices and my freedoms... Grrrrrr.... And to think I was really leaning towards a INTEL solution for my upcoming desktop upgrade. Maybe I will pay a little more for a little less and hope that my $7 will help AMD be .000000000001% faster to the market with competition for ATOM.

We can slice up the 'netbook' market segment any way we want, but fact remains faster and better will always continue to occupy a smaller and smaller package and become cheaper in time. Well I guess its not supposed to happen quite so fast. We gotta squeeze even more profit from our fabs before we retool. ahh... that must be it...

I had a 10" eeepc with the n270 for almost a year, you know what it was *really* a 'net' book. I loved it though, but if it had just a little bit more... It would have been perfect for me. The resolution being its weakest aspect. Intel also seems to think they know what resolution I should be using and happy with in a small form factor mobile computer.

After much deliberation I picked up a ION infused HP mini311 for $399, I added 2gbs of ram to it to give me a total of 3gbs. ($440 total now) gave it 4gbs of ready boost and holy crap, I actually have a 'real' computer now. ION essentially allowed me to keep a small(ish) form factor and it does everything I need to do. The 1366x768 resolution is fantastic. Its better than my old 15.6" acer. Despite bad reviews its a overall better screen than the acer too.

Its crazy, I spent months looking for a replacement to my old acer aspire 15.6". I have very specific needs (as much flexibility I can in the smallest package possible. Oh and it needs to be CHEAP. I looked at the CULV's and almost all of them started around $500, had similar battery life to the hp mini311 (I get about a straight 4.75-5hours when not overclocking) but WORSE graphics performance all around with the GMA 4500HD and typically were a inch larger and accordingly heavier.

It seemed obvious to me, I don't really mind that the ATOM is slower overall compared to CULV, fact is I have a smaller computer that weights 3lbs, battery lasts nearly 5 hours and I can avg 25fps in fallout 3, (yes fallout 3!) All the CULV's with-in a $100 of this price can't do that not even close. I would love to have a CULV intead of atom in here. But I just couldn't find it for the price. I'm not going to pay more for less.

Sure, in 6-12 months, I can get a CULV, maybe with ION2, or some other better graphics chip for under $500, but now I have this smaller system, for less money that is lighter and plays games/multi-media better than any CULV commonly available. And I can have it RIGHT NOW. Actually I've had it for 2 months.

If intel really wants the extra $7.25 or whatever the actual margin is out of me for a CULV over ATOM next year then give me more in a smaller package and keep the price down, or Nivida and whomever else will get my money next time or I will just simply not buy anything at all.

It really bothers to think that this mini 311 I agonized over whether I should buy it could have been $30.00 cheaper (making it a complete no brainer) and that the only reason why is because intel thinks it knows what I want more than I do, wait even worse then that, they want to punish me for having the desire to have the better system for my needs?

Thats beyond anti competitive, thats anti consumer

Grrrrr....

/rant off



sorry....

 

[DaveSimmons]

After MS "cut off the oxygen" from Netscape and won the first round of the browser wars by abusing their monopoly power, they let IE rot for years until Opera and Firefox started competing seriously.

Although MS paid astorturfers to endlessly repeat their "freedom to innovate" mantra, they kicked IE aside and went chasing after new markets to dominate.

The moral? Big monopolies usually don't care about you, or making more than incremental and profit-enhancing improvements in products where they're successfully crushed the competition.

Expect intel to keep up this behavior unless the FTC stops them or AMD offers a compelling alternative to the Atom.

 

[joe4324]

After MS "cut off the oxygen" from Netscape and won the first round of the browser wars by abusing their monopoly power, they let IE rot for years until Opera and Firefox started competing seriously.

Although MS paid astorturfers to endlessly repeat their "freedom to innovate" mantra, they kicked IE aside and went chasing after new markets to dominate.

The moral? Big monopolies usually don't care about you, or making more than incremental and profit-enhancing improvements in products where they're successfully crushed the competition.

Expect intel to keep up this behavior unless the FTC stops them or AMD offers a compelling alternative to the Atom.

Yep, you are exactly right. I just wish there was a meaningful way to say "hey, this is not cool!" They can drag there @ss as much as they want for all I care someone else will eventually fill the gap, but its the forcibly constricting the market to take more of my money without working for it that I don't like.

 

[corkyg]

Sometimes the business planners need long term bookings/orders, and not just individual item profit. Because of that, and the commitment to a quantity contract (that results from bundling) they can afford to lower the bundle cost. Sales and bookings/orders are planned ahead and whether or not those numbers are met has a direct impact on the company's stock price.

Quantity buys usually always result in lower unit prices. The name of the game is to take as much of our money as possible. That is what really drives growth and hiring.

 

[Decembermouse]

Nice rant

get it out man, get it out. I know how you feel!

 

[her209]

I just read this:

"NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun is griping today about how Intel sells its three-chip Atom platform for $25, but charges $45 if you unbundle it and just buy the processor alone."

Couldn't you buy it and "unbundle" it after-the-fact?

 

[joe4324]

Couldn't you buy it and "unbundle" it after-the-fact?

Yeah of course, or just leave the stuff you wanted disabled, BUT the point is buying the chip by itself instead of the whole chipset solution costs almost double. As stupid as it sounds you'd be better off buying a complete ATOM platform from INTEL, and throwing the gpu and 945chipset into the TRASH just to get the processer by itself. Of course doing that would probably get you sued.

Basically it boils down to this, because you (or me) would prefer to use Nvidias GPU instead of INTEL's, They will make you pay $45 for it, instead of $25 and ship half the silicon in the process. This translates into pretty big price bumps that you and I have to pay.

I'm guessing that if INTEL did not charge almost double for half as much product, ION based netbooks would be $20-50 cheaper than they are right now. And if that happened hardly anyone would buy anything else (since the price would be getting close to the same) But since intel is already making the same profit (should be better since they are not shipping two other chips) I almost don't understand why they care. Why don't they just not make as many chipsets save the money and stuff it into the bank?

My only guess is because they don't want us to start expecting ION level graphics performance from such a small and cheap processor/platform. Oh the horror, they might actually have to work harder on R&D next year. (well wouldn't that be funded in silicon savings and less fab time?)

I really don't get it, the only guess I have is that they have products already spec'ed out for the next 5 years, and its a slow and crappy curve of barely better than what we have now to maximize long term profits. the ION is giving the ATOM platform GPU capabilities 4 generations ahead of what intel *wants* to produce and they don't want to work as hard in the future.

oh I'm getting pissed again!

 

[pukemon]

I still wonder why Nvidia doesn't build a chipset that works with the VIA Nano...

 

[corkyg]

R&D comes out of the bottom line (unless you have a government contract.) Not making excuses, but the job of any business is to maximize profit and stay in business over the long haul. That is reality.

 

[Schadenfreude]

It sounds as if Nvidia's next platform, ION2, will in fact support VIA Nano (as well as CULV) . . ..

 

[IlllI]

I still wonder why Nvidia doesn't build a chipset that works with the VIA Nano...

you mean like this? http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/20/nivida-ion-platform-to-support-via-nano-processors-this-year/