4 ms·
I'm sorry, that's deeply revisionist history. Intel kept their dominance through illegal market practices [0], despite AMD's tech advantage at the time. Intel e
by necubi 8y ago
I'm sorry, that's deeply revisionist history. Intel kept their dominance through illegal market practices [0], despite AMD's tech advantage at the time. Intel eventually paid out >$1B, but by then the damage was done and it would take AMD almost 10 years to come back.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v....
- TomVDB 8y ago> I'm sorry, that's deeply revisionist history. Intel kept their dominance through illegal market practices [0], despite AMD's tech advantage at the time. While that may be true at the time, it doesn't negate the point that Intel knew internally, long before others, that technically superior solutions where coming. And, of course, that's exactly what happened.
- lovich 8y agoAre you skipping over the part about illegal business practices that have nothing to do with the technology?
- TomVDB 8y agoNot all. But illegal business practices only have impact on economics. They don't change the fact that Intel had a technologically superior solution in the pipeline that would eventually trump AMD's offerings. That would have resulted in Intel taking the economic crown anyway, irrespective of their illegal business practices.
- geezerjay 8y ago> But illegal business practices only have impact on economics. That's patently false. As OP stated, the biggest impact of Intel's illegal business practices was getting rid of any competition for over a decade in spite of having a technically inferior and underperforming product line.