4 ms·

Too little, too late. After years of ruthlessly milking us I just hope they loose a big market share and become equals with AMD. The consumers can only benefi

Too little, too late. After years of ruthlessly milking us I just hope they loose a big market share and become equals with AMD. The consumers can only benefit from that.

fizixer 7y ago
Oh this is a tried-and-true strategy that both nVidia and Intel follow again and again. And it works like a charm. Think of market share as a fragile glass or ceramic cup sitting right at the edge of the table. You're usually oblivious cz it hasn't fallen (or you're busy with other stuff). Then you notice it has tipped over and is now in free fall. If you have very good reflexes, as a big market share company, you catch it mid-air (you lower the prices to the point where it prevents the drop from breaking anything). If you succeed, now you have the cup in your hand; it didn't hit the floor, and it didn't shatter. Great. Now you slowly raise that cup back to the tabletop level (you raise the prices back to the same level in a few years) and place it at the table. Done. - AMD revenue is between $5-10b, - nVidia, between $10-20b - Intel, over $50b. Intel and nVidia can eat AMD alive anytime they want. Invidually or together. Once, or many times.
- frostburg 7y ago
  One of several of Intel's issues is that they can't do this to TSMC.
  - astrodust 7y ago
    It's amazing that one of the best moves AMD ever made was ditching their own fab and throwing in with TSMC and others instead. Intel's still going it on their own and struggling.
- aneutron 7y ago
  > Intel and nVidia can eat AMD alive anytime they want. Invidually or together. Once, or many times. Except they can't. 1) Since I'm assuming you're talking about CPUs, nVidia can't make x86-64 processors. Only AMD and Intel can. Literally. They can't use that ISA. Maybe they can take them in the GPU market, but again, they probably still can't. 2) Intel looks like they can, and they do in fact have the funds to do it. But that's just not how it works. AMD has decoupled their tapping and design long ago. Intel still hasn't. The speed at which Intel can innovate is becoming very limited. So while they might catch up, and follow suit, it looks like Intel can't "eat" AMD at this point in time. At least not product wise. Maybe in 5 or 10 years, if AMD starts slacking off again.
  - cwyers 7y ago
    I think what parent means is that Intel can do it to AMD over x86 chips and nVidia can do it over GPUs, where they have a lead in several market segments.
1e-9 7y ago
I whole-heartedly welcome AMD's new offerings and have completely switched to buying servers with AMD CPUs, but I have to disagree with the characterization of "ruthless milking" by intel. There was no instituted monopoly here. Others were free to compete, but they failed. Intel's high prices motivated AMD to create something better and now they have. If anything, the high pricing was a screwup on intel's part and good for the consumer. Intel could have better protected their lead by charging less (but not as less as now) to discourage competition. I'm glad they didn't, even though it cost me for the last few years. Now that there is a valid competitor again, maybe we will see better conformance to Moore's Law. Edit: To clarify, I will not argue that intel has a clean record of competitiveness. My point is that they didn't "ruthlessly milk" the consumer with high prices. Instead, they stuck a knife in their own back by charging excessively high prices without sufficiently innovating. This created an opportunity for AMD and motivated them to create something better.
- pixl97 7y ago
  >There was no instituted monopoly here You're talking about the Intel that was used for monopoly practices, right?
- charleslmunger 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v....
- the_duke 7y ago
  > Others were free to compete, but they failed. Intel engaged in a lot of anti-competitive practices, lost a civil lawsuit over it and was fined 1bn by the EU. [1] They almost killed AMD in the process. Every company this size with a quasi-monopoly (in a certain segment) will squeeze the market and try to buy or push out competition any way they can get away with. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Litigation_and_regulatory_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Litigation_and_regulator...
- msbarnett 7y ago
  > Others were free to compete, but they failed. This is...not accurate. Extensive cross-licensing agreements between AMD and Intel formed over the years are the only thing that permit AMD to compete. New competitors are effectively locked out of the x86-64 market entirely at this point. There is a decided lack of freedom to compete in this market at the moment. Intel has also been found to have illegally engaged in anticompetitive measures on a number of occasions in order to lock AMD out of competing in many market segments.

Too little, too late. After years of ruthlessly milking us I just hope they loose a big market share and become equals with AMD. The consumers can only benefit from that.

fizixer 7y ago

Oh this is a tried-and-true strategy that both nVidia and Intel follow again and again. And it works like a charm. Think of market share as a fragile glass or ceramic cup sitting right at the edge of the table. You're usually oblivious cz it hasn't fallen (or you're busy with other stuff). Then you notice it has tipped over and is now in free fall. If you have very good reflexes, as a big market share company, you catch it mid-air (you lower the prices to the point where it prevents the drop from breaking anything). If you succeed, now you have the cup in your hand; it didn't hit the floor, and it didn't shatter. Great. Now you slowly raise that cup back to the tabletop level (you raise the prices back to the same level in a few years) and place it at the table. Done. - AMD revenue is between $5-10b, - nVidia, between $10-20b - Intel, over $50b. Intel and nVidia can eat AMD alive anytime they want. Invidually or together. Once, or many times.

frostburg 7y ago
One of several of Intel's issues is that they can't do this to TSMC.
- astrodust 7y ago
  It's amazing that one of the best moves AMD ever made was ditching their own fab and throwing in with TSMC and others instead. Intel's still going it on their own and struggling.
aneutron 7y ago
> Intel and nVidia can eat AMD alive anytime they want. Invidually or together. Once, or many times. Except they can't. 1) Since I'm assuming you're talking about CPUs, nVidia can't make x86-64 processors. Only AMD and Intel can. Literally. They can't use that ISA. Maybe they can take them in the GPU market, but again, they probably still can't. 2) Intel looks like they can, and they do in fact have the funds to do it. But that's just not how it works. AMD has decoupled their tapping and design long ago. Intel still hasn't. The speed at which Intel can innovate is becoming very limited. So while they might catch up, and follow suit, it looks like Intel can't "eat" AMD at this point in time. At least not product wise. Maybe in 5 or 10 years, if AMD starts slacking off again.
- cwyers 7y ago
  I think what parent means is that Intel can do it to AMD over x86 chips and nVidia can do it over GPUs, where they have a lead in several market segments.

1e-9 7y ago

I whole-heartedly welcome AMD's new offerings and have completely switched to buying servers with AMD CPUs, but I have to disagree with the characterization of "ruthless milking" by intel. There was no instituted monopoly here. Others were free to compete, but they failed. Intel's high prices motivated AMD to create something better and now they have. If anything, the high pricing was a screwup on intel's part and good for the consumer. Intel could have better protected their lead by charging less (but not as less as now) to discourage competition. I'm glad they didn't, even though it cost me for the last few years. Now that there is a valid competitor again, maybe we will see better conformance to Moore's Law. Edit: To clarify, I will not argue that intel has a clean record of competitiveness. My point is that they didn't "ruthlessly milk" the consumer with high prices. Instead, they stuck a knife in their own back by charging excessively high prices without sufficiently innovating. This created an opportunity for AMD and motivated them to create something better.

pixl97 7y ago
>There was no instituted monopoly here You're talking about the Intel that was used for monopoly practices, right?
charleslmunger 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v._Intel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v....
the_duke 7y ago
> Others were free to compete, but they failed. Intel engaged in a lot of anti-competitive practices, lost a civil lawsuit over it and was fined 1bn by the EU. [1] They almost killed AMD in the process. Every company this size with a quasi-monopoly (in a certain segment) will squeeze the market and try to buy or push out competition any way they can get away with. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Litigation_and_regulatory_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Litigation_and_regulator...
msbarnett 7y ago
> Others were free to compete, but they failed. This is...not accurate. Extensive cross-licensing agreements between AMD and Intel formed over the years are the only thing that permit AMD to compete. New competitors are effectively locked out of the x86-64 market entirely at this point. There is a decided lack of freedom to compete in this market at the moment. Intel has also been found to have illegally engaged in anticompetitive measures on a number of occasions in order to lock AMD out of competing in many market segments.