[plug] AMD sues Intel

[Dion]

simon wrote:

>The main difference as I see it is the markets in which they compete.
>
>Software is relatively complex stuff where you have opportunity to
>differentiate yourself from your competitors through superior features,
>quality etc. Once you gain a customer base, you can 'lock them in' through
>proprietary file formats/protocols which makes it difficult for them to leave.
>  
>
Lock in still happens, ever tried to put an Athlon into your Pentium 
motherboard??  Worse still, have your tried to put a Pentium IV into a 
Pentium III board??

Superior features: sse 1/2/3 mmx, 64 bit, shallow pipeline - lower power 
/ quieter cooling, deep pipeline - higher power / not so quiet cooling.

Superior features in a chip are harder to see, but based on the 80/20 
rule, how much better does competing software need to be to get looked 
at by the less educated.

>Making a piece of software is hard, and drawn out.
>  
>
Making a piece of silicon into a microprocessor is much harder. 
Compatibility with all x86 software for example. MS only has to be sure 
their new products work for their software base (and not all of that 
anymore) and preferably break the other software base.

>Silicon, on the other hand, is silicon. The difference for the end user
>between running an AMD chip or an Intel chip is zero. Both brands of chips run
>the same code (more or less). Generally the differences in specifications
>between brands is negligible to the end user. They can only really compete on
>price, and through superior marketing/distribution channels. Generally it is
>very difficult for them to differentiate themselves from their competition
>based solely on the silicon.
>  
>
What is the difference to the end user between Firefox or Thunderbird on 
Linux / Windows? Even OpenOffice and MSOffice, while subtly different 
behave the same and have largely the same interface. The file format 
variations are more about vendor lock in than features -- 
anticompetitive practices. Not facets of software or software making per se.

>So they do what they have to do - force large companies into buying their
>chips through devious means. Perform underhanded deals, undoubtedly kickbacks
>galore, take potential customers on junkets to Asia, etc etc etc.
>  
>
Indeed, and that is exactly why both MS and intel have been taken to 
court.  For unethical practices tending toward the anticompetitive.

>If I were an Intel shareholder, Id want them to be doing exactly that. If some
>upstart billionaire with a fabrication plant found an patented something
>tomorrow that allowed them to outperform intel/AMD on price/performance, and
>large customers *werent* locked in somehow, say goodbye to both companies.
>
And if I were a shareholder I'd want them to compete aggressively 
without moving into unethical practices.  Bad press tends to travel 
further and linger longer than the positive kind.

Vendor lock in to "lock out" competition might be desirable, but large 
customer groups have a large investment, and consequently a lot of 
inertia.  Just having the first contract / buy is often enough for them 
to stay on convenience provided performance is reasonable. (Sun? Oracle?)

Secondly as an educated consumer / shareholder, I'd want those upstart 
billionaires to turn up quite regularly, to stop my company from resting 
on its laurels and motivate them to be continually looking to improve. 
And to avoid a stagnant industry like the automotive industry.

-- 
"Never ascribe to malice that which may adequately be explained by incompetence." - Napoleon Bonaparte