-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
why don't we hate rambus?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I know this has probably been said but I haven't seen it here so i'll throw it out there, while I have no hard numbers I am curious as to the actualy # of units of RDram and DDRram shipping. I could be wrong but I think part of the price disparity is due to the fact that DDR supplies haven't increased all that much while AMD board owners have, and while the origional ammount of DDR was sufficent to fit the demand-supply curve, it may now be overstressed (i.e. more demand thus greater prices) while the number of origionally shipping RDram units was large but demand was small, contributing to exorbanat prices (that and the new manufacturing and R&D costs), but both have gotten better and boards are now shipping with RDram bringing prices to acceptable levels. If we are arguing over morals and people base their arguments on price, they should understand the basic economics behind it not just, Rambus tried to rip us off, or Price = the best.
I have read the reports on the whole Rambus dealings and Intel courship and I was very displeased. I was also displeased to later find out that my last computer ran on the fabled i820 chipset (corrupted math coprocessor and expensive as hell memory for a measely 5% increase in mem bandy if that). However, being as I could not afford to replace the system I opted to keep it and bought more ram at what would be considered today exorbanant prices. However, I do not feel cheated and I do not feel slighted because I simply moved my ram over to my next system and finally saw the level of performance capable by a well engineered product. For everyone who will now attempt to slam me on latency issues fire away.
I also have to say that a corporation's ethics such as Rambus' may seem improper and indeed wrong, but unless you work in the senior levels of management for your company and know all of the workings of the pressures placed upon individuals from shareholders, accountants, and more importantly the CEO then you probably have a good idea of how immoral many companies can be when it comes to improving their own self interests.
Am I defending poor business practices? No, I am attempting to show that the individuals behind a corporation are what makes it moral or immoral, therefore the company should not be hated, despised, or shunned. Instead it should be pitied until such a time as they can find the correct people to make good on their business practices. Besides, bad business doesn't survive, Enron is an example, and if Rambus gets it's act together they have a chance to be a profitable and performance providing company, but if they can't then they won't last, and then what use is arguing over the morals because in the end everything will work itself out.
I have read the reports on the whole Rambus dealings and Intel courship and I was very displeased. I was also displeased to later find out that my last computer ran on the fabled i820 chipset (corrupted math coprocessor and expensive as hell memory for a measely 5% increase in mem bandy if that). However, being as I could not afford to replace the system I opted to keep it and bought more ram at what would be considered today exorbanant prices. However, I do not feel cheated and I do not feel slighted because I simply moved my ram over to my next system and finally saw the level of performance capable by a well engineered product. For everyone who will now attempt to slam me on latency issues fire away.
I also have to say that a corporation's ethics such as Rambus' may seem improper and indeed wrong, but unless you work in the senior levels of management for your company and know all of the workings of the pressures placed upon individuals from shareholders, accountants, and more importantly the CEO then you probably have a good idea of how immoral many companies can be when it comes to improving their own self interests.
Am I defending poor business practices? No, I am attempting to show that the individuals behind a corporation are what makes it moral or immoral, therefore the company should not be hated, despised, or shunned. Instead it should be pitied until such a time as they can find the correct people to make good on their business practices. Besides, bad business doesn't survive, Enron is an example, and if Rambus gets it's act together they have a chance to be a profitable and performance providing company, but if they can't then they won't last, and then what use is arguing over the morals because in the end everything will work itself out.
<< Like Amused said, it's simple. If the product is good, I'll buy it. If it's too expensive, I won't. >>
The pure "cold, hard business" line is valid only when it's not personal. Say that company who makes such a fine product was repsonsible for giving your mother cancer. Would you still heartily endorse such a product?
Not that Rambus should be associated with any such fiction but they have wronged quite a few people in the last several years. There is plenty of justification to say, "no Rambus inside!" IMO.
Amused
Elite Member
<<
<< Like Amused said, it's simple. If the product is good, I'll buy it. If it's too expensive, I won't. >>
The pure "cold, hard business" line is valid only when it's not personal. Say that company who makes such a fine product was repsonsible for giving your mother cancer. Would you still heartily endorse such a product?
Not that Rambus should be associated with any such fiction but they have wronged quite a few people in the last several years. There is plenty of justification to say, "no Rambus inside!" IMO. >>
They haven't wronged me. WTF should I care?
Sorry, but I'm a firm NON-believer in consumer activism. It's silly, and accomplishes nothing, but denying yourself the full market to choose from.
BTW, if a product gave a family member cancer, it wouldn't BE the best product for my money, now would it?
Daovonnaex
Golden Member
<< RAMBUSt is suck. >>
Just like Via, right?
Lord Evermore
Diamond Member
amused: rambus tried to force other memory makers to pay them royalties for illegally and unethically gained patents, which would have forced memory makers to raise prices and possibly caused some to go out of business, thereby damaging the market and affecting yours and my ability to make a choice in what we buy. This is not consumer activism, this is not wanting to endorse companies that use unethical and illegal tactics. (Note that I lost track of the final decisions, I'm not sure "illegal" is the correct term but it was certainly all struck down so that they can't claim any royalties from the memory patents on SDRAM.)
raze: I think that the management and people in the company ARE the company. Why should we not hate the company rambus just because it's run by people we hate? Without those people, there is no such company. I can't personally dislike each individual in the company yet still act like the company itself isn't in the wrong and is just being "used" by the evil management. I can't support the company and their products simply because the company is different from the individual managers that make the unethical decisions. To me they are one and the same. The company as a whole becomes unethical because the people that run it are making decisions for the company and ARE the company.
At the same time, I don't blame every person in the company for what management decides to do. Most of them are just people trying to get along in life, they like their jobs and are trying to do the best they can at it. So they do their work and management makes decisions that end up making the company as a whole a bad company, but that doesn't mean the individuals are bad and I don't hate them. I do hate the company though.
raze: I think that the management and people in the company ARE the company. Why should we not hate the company rambus just because it's run by people we hate? Without those people, there is no such company. I can't personally dislike each individual in the company yet still act like the company itself isn't in the wrong and is just being "used" by the evil management. I can't support the company and their products simply because the company is different from the individual managers that make the unethical decisions. To me they are one and the same. The company as a whole becomes unethical because the people that run it are making decisions for the company and ARE the company.
At the same time, I don't blame every person in the company for what management decides to do. Most of them are just people trying to get along in life, they like their jobs and are trying to do the best they can at it. So they do their work and management makes decisions that end up making the company as a whole a bad company, but that doesn't mean the individuals are bad and I don't hate them. I do hate the company though.
Amused
Elite Member
<< amused: rambus tried to force other memory makers to pay them royalties for illegally and unethically gained patents, which would have forced memory makers to raise prices and possibly caused some to go out of business, thereby damaging the market and affecting yours and my ability to make a choice in what we buy. This is not consumer activism, this is not wanting to endorse companies that use unethical and illegal tactics. (Note that I lost track of the final decisions, I'm not sure "illegal" is the correct term but it was certainly all struck down so that they can't claim any royalties from the memory patents on SDRAM.) >>
So? Do you have any evidence that this caused any real harm? Did Rambus actually hold patents on technology used by other companies? If they DID hold the patents, why shouldn't they claim royalties?
I'm sorry, but the whole "hate Rambus" thing just doesn't wash with me. They've done nothing to harm me. Besides, I've seen many companies simply steal patented technology and sell it. 3Com's blatant rip off of Xircom's designs come to mind. In a patent dispute, I'm not going to immediately hate a company, because it tries to protect it's interests.
Lord Evermore
Diamond Member
They got patents on things AFTER having submitted them as part of the JEDEC standard without informing the JEDEC committee that they were applying for patents on the technology. They weren't protecting anything, they blatantly attempted to get something made part of a standard as if it were free and then claim that everyone had to pay them for it. A judge struck that down and determined that Rambus acted illegally and that nobody had to pay any royalties for the patents that were made part of the JEDEC standard.
It didn't hurt the memory business ONLY because the judge deemed that the companies didn't have to pay royalties. That does not mitigate the fact that Rambus was trying to make money by not doing any work, at the expense of other companies and consumers. If JEDEC had known about the patents, the technology either wouldn't have been used, or would have been incorporated and others would pay royalties, and I'd have been FINE with it then. But Rambus tried to get the money by lying and then springing patents on them.
It didn't hurt the memory business ONLY because the judge deemed that the companies didn't have to pay royalties. That does not mitigate the fact that Rambus was trying to make money by not doing any work, at the expense of other companies and consumers. If JEDEC had known about the patents, the technology either wouldn't have been used, or would have been incorporated and others would pay royalties, and I'd have been FINE with it then. But Rambus tried to get the money by lying and then springing patents on them.
Degenerate
Platinum Member
<< The technology itself isn't anything special: high latencies, extreme module thermal dissipation >>
Latency will be lower than DDR when comparing the PC 2700 and PC 1066 or PC 1200.
It constantly amazes me how some people could regard one company as "evil" and another as "good". As if they're not all run by the same kind of greedy board of directors. You think if AMD had 75% of the CPU market that they'll still be selling their processors for as cheap as they could? Remember back when the first 1GHz Athlon was released and how much it cost? RDRAM is a patented technology run by one company who happened to have gotten in Intel's favor and felt they could afford to try to expand through the courts. Big deal, it's business, not exactly the most moral field of industry in the world. Thinking that one company is somehow "moral" and the other is not is just diluded and smells of zealoutry.
Amused
Elite Member
<< They got patents on things AFTER having submitted them as part of the JEDEC standard without informing the JEDEC committee that they were applying for patents on the technology. They weren't protecting anything, they blatantly attempted to get something made part of a standard as if it were free and then claim that everyone had to pay them for it. A judge struck that down and determined that Rambus acted illegally and that nobody had to pay any royalties for the patents that were made part of the JEDEC standard.
It didn't hurt the memory business ONLY because the judge deemed that the companies didn't have to pay royalties. That does not mitigate the fact that Rambus was trying to make money by not doing any work, at the expense of other companies and consumers. If JEDEC had known about the patents, the technology either wouldn't have been used, or would have been incorporated and others would pay royalties, and I'd have been FINE with it then. But Rambus tried to get the money by lying and then springing patents on them. >>
Did Rambus develop the technology in question?
"It constantly amazes me how some people could regard one company as "evil" and another as "good". As if they're not all run by the same kind of greedy board of directors. You think if AMD had 75% of the CPU market that they'll still be selling their processors for as cheap as they could? Remember back when the first 1GHz Athlon was released and how much it cost? RDRAM is a patented technology run by one company who happened to have gotten in Intel's favor and felt they could afford to try to expand through the courts. Big deal, it's business, not exactly the most moral field of industry in the world. Thinking that one company is somehow "moral" and the other is not is just diluded and smells of zealoutry."
You would love _The Tragedy of Great Power Politics_ by John Mearshimer. He argues that all states are exactly the same: they want security and they'll wage offensive wars to get them.
Here I paraphrase Winston Churchill: [AMD] is the worst possible [company], except for all the others. Sure they're bad, but to say that all companies are going to try to corner their market by half-legal means--or to say that any tech company would try to corner the dram market by claiming it had patents to JEDEC open standards strikes me as absolute BS. There are some people who have a better moral standard (as measured by the degree it helps the human condition) than others, and there are some companies that have better moral standards than others. The real question is which is responsible for more wrong: government or industries.
This has diverged somewhat from the original line of inquiry, so . . .
Competition is good. Rambus tried to squelch competition.
AMD, by comparison, has not tried to squelch competition, and whenever they make a profit they have pretty good profit sharing amongst its employees.
Intel isn't bad, per say, but they've engaged in some shady business practices, e.g. buying into memory companies to help the Rambus cause along.
Microsoft. Is bad.
Maybe this is the natural result of being on top--that a company tries to one-up its up and coming competition--but I don't think this is necessarily the case. cf IBM, Coke, Motorola, nvidia.
Nvidia offers a particularly compelling example. With the one exception of the (awful) memo about how to turn people away from the kyro II, they've been more or less fine upstanding citizens. You can use a Radeon on an nforce, for instance. They've yielded contracts to Dell without doing stuff like dumping.
You would love _The Tragedy of Great Power Politics_ by John Mearshimer. He argues that all states are exactly the same: they want security and they'll wage offensive wars to get them.
Here I paraphrase Winston Churchill: [AMD] is the worst possible [company], except for all the others. Sure they're bad, but to say that all companies are going to try to corner their market by half-legal means--or to say that any tech company would try to corner the dram market by claiming it had patents to JEDEC open standards strikes me as absolute BS. There are some people who have a better moral standard (as measured by the degree it helps the human condition) than others, and there are some companies that have better moral standards than others. The real question is which is responsible for more wrong: government or industries.
This has diverged somewhat from the original line of inquiry, so . . .
Competition is good. Rambus tried to squelch competition.
AMD, by comparison, has not tried to squelch competition, and whenever they make a profit they have pretty good profit sharing amongst its employees.
Intel isn't bad, per say, but they've engaged in some shady business practices, e.g. buying into memory companies to help the Rambus cause along.
Microsoft. Is bad.
Maybe this is the natural result of being on top--that a company tries to one-up its up and coming competition--but I don't think this is necessarily the case. cf IBM, Coke, Motorola, nvidia.
Nvidia offers a particularly compelling example. With the one exception of the (awful) memo about how to turn people away from the kyro II, they've been more or less fine upstanding citizens. You can use a Radeon on an nforce, for instance. They've yielded contracts to Dell without doing stuff like dumping.
<< Intel isn't bad, per say, but they've engaged in some shady business practices, e.g. buying into memory companies to help the Rambus cause along. >>
This is a shady business practice? You are planning to release a whole lot of product that you want to be successful. Someone you are relying on to produce something you need to make your product successful is starting to get cold feet, so you say "I'll invest all this money in your business, if you are willing to produce the product that I need to be a success in the volumes that I need." That's "shady"? How?
Another example, my father is a winemaker (seriously). He wants to make a custom label for a specific customer that uses gold ink. He approaches his label making partner and says, "I will need to order 100,000 of these special gold-metallic labels and you are the only one that I know who makes gold labels.". The business owners says that gold ink is expensive, and his equipment will need to be upgraded, and he's got enough business already. So my father says "I will lend you the cash you need to increase your business, if you will make these labels." This is not shady - it's a business deal. You help me and I'll help you.
I'm just curious as to how AMD became such a moral company all of the sudden. I don't have any problems with them, in fact I have a Thunderbird in my main system. I just can't conceive of such a large company getting to where they are now without some form of immoral business practices. I think most large companies do things that most people would deem wrong.
Lord Evermore
Diamond Member
<< Did Rambus develop the technology in question? >>
I presume that Rambus did develop the particular items that were in question. However just because they developed it, does that make it okay for them to submit it to be considered as part of an OPEN standard, free of royalties, without mentioning any patents or future royalties, and then later on spring it on everyone that they had patents and now want payment, now that the standard is what everyone uses? The point is that they acted unethically, not that they shouldn't have been allowed to make money on their ideas. Because of the WAY that they tried to make money on it, they lost all chance of doing so.
Amused
Elite Member
<<
<< Did Rambus develop the technology in question? >>
I presume that Rambus did develop the particular items that were in question. However just because they developed it, does that make it okay for them to submit it to be considered as part of an OPEN standard, free of royalties, without mentioning any patents or future royalties, and then later on spring it on everyone that they had patents and now want payment, now that the standard is what everyone uses? The point is that they acted unethically, not that they shouldn't have been allowed to make money on their ideas. Because of the WAY that they tried to make money on it, they lost all chance of doing so. >>
If it's their technology, and they own the patents, they are within their rights to at least seek compensation. When did it become evil to make a profit in the US, or to claim your intellectual property?
Maybe they fumbled, but it was still their ball. All I see is that they were late in claiming royalties, but they were not wrong.
<< Sorry, but I'm a firm NON-believer in consumer activism. It's silly, and accomplishes nothing, but denying yourself the full market to choose from. >>
That line just doesn't work. Up in Toronto, kids started boycotting McDonald's because they used Styrofoam packaging (a long time ago). Guess what? They switched to paper.
We still have the god damned Big Mac, eh?
Lord Evermore
Diamond Member
<< All I see is that they were late in claiming royalties, but they were not wrong. >>
They were wrong. They unethically HID the fact that they were gaining patents on the technology, submitted it to be incorporated into the JEDEC standard without mentioning the patents with the understanding that it's an OPEN standard with no royalties, and then years later attempted to extort royalties for the use of the technology, once it was entrenched so that there was no chance people could simply stop using it.
<< If it's their technology, and they own the patents, they are within their rights to at least seek compensation. When did it become evil to make a profit in the US, or to claim your intellectual property? >>
The whole point is that the IP does not belong to them, it's public, royality free, way before Rambus claimning for them (refer to sdram, they want royality on even that).
Rambus tried to twist thing around, so that it seens they invented the technology.
Amused
Elite Member
<<
<< If it's their technology, and they own the patents, they are within their rights to at least seek compensation. When did it become evil to make a profit in the US, or to claim your intellectual property? >>
The whole point is that the IP does not belong to them, it's public, royality free, way before Rambus claimning for them (refer to sdram, they want royality on even that).
Rambus tried to twist thing around, so that it seens they invented the technology. >>
If they've gained the patents, they own the technology. As Lord has confessed, they DID legally own the patents. His complaint is their waiting until it was widely used before claiming royalties.
The Beatles wrote some songs. Yet Micheal Jackson claims the royalties because he gained the copyrights. Now, the question is: can someone WAIT until a product is widely used to claim royalties on patents they own? I say, as long as a patent is owned, the intellectual property rights remain. Obviously, a court has disagreed.
Still, it's all in the past, and the issue has not changed that RDRAM is the best solution at the time for the P4, therefore, I will use it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
