4 ms·

I really really hope not. Considering what Intel is willing to do in software to sabotage AMD performance, [0][1] I shudder to think what they'll do in hardware

I really really hope not. Considering what Intel is willing to do in software to sabotage AMD performance, [0][1] I shudder to think what they'll do in hardware. [0] https://ol.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/ik9lw1/updated_intel_mkl_removes_workaround_allowing/ https://ol.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/ik9lw1/updated_int... [1] https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49 https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49 ^ For those interested in the storied history of Intel hurting AMD

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
swalsh 5y ago
Regulation of anti-competitive behavior seems to have been extremely relaxed lately. Amazon's marketplace and Amazon Retail seem at odds with each other, yet they're allowed to coexest, and everyone is fully aware of the anti-competitive behavior. Intel's chip business needs to be seperated from their foundry business, and the 2 can't be allowed to comingle with each other.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  What incentive does the US government have to split up highly lucrative, domestic businesses?
  - kaashif 5y ago
    The incentive should be that a competitive free market is better for prosperity in the long term. If anti-competitive practices are allowed, the losers are the consumers, whose interests the government are supposed to represent. Obviously it doesn't work that way in practice.
    - buu700 5y ago
      From another point of view, looking at the government as an institution rather than through its role as an advocate of the people, you could also make the case that the government should oppose any massive consolidation of wealth/power as a threat to its own power. FAANG companies each individually have higher annual revenue than most countries' GDPs. In the absence of government intervention, there wouldn't be much to stop them from turning into British East India Companies and establishing banana republics, raising private armies, etc. In an extreme scenario, some kind of corporate Genghis Khan could hypothetically consolidate the S&P 500 into a single megacorp if the DOJ allowed it to happen, and that company's revenue would be about half the US GDP (making it the third largest "economy" in the world). It would effectively be a hostile state right in our own backyard. Would we even have the ability to enforce taxation if they said no? What would stop them from wielding that incredible wealth to effectively buy a majority stake in government?
  - toast0 5y ago
    If we're just thinking incentives, why have one highly lucrative, domestic business, when you could have several? A lot of the anti-trust breakups result in several good businesses and maybe some competition/consumer benefits too.
WithinReason 5y ago
Although GP was joking, if AMD was a customer of Intel there's no way Intel would sabotage that relationship and make other customers lose trust in them.
- EGreg 5y ago
  Sure that’s NEVER happened before ! Also, large organizations always coordinate their strategy perfectly consistently.
  - _jal 5y ago
    Sure, it can happen, and something like it probably has. The point is that doing it and being caught out would be something approaching corporate suicide, and sane leadership would not risk it. This places it in the bucket of 'unlikely, high impact' risks for potential clients. They'd want to design process and contractual language to try to make such perfidy apparent and not bet the farm, but I doubt it would be a deal breaker. I would think IP concerns would dominate in such an arrangement.
    - nosianu 5y ago
      > would be something approaching corporate suicide No it would not. Just like in any other case where a corporation had to pay a huge fine - they do it, or it even gets lowered significantly, and then move on. The executives who were responsible retired long ago and the motto of shareholders and management always is "look to the future and don't bother me with old problems". You make quite an assertion based on what - the opposite has already happened many times. Risk that has to be paid for much later often is worth it, especially when it's going to happen to a new team. Not that the risk for a CEO is worth worrying about (for them) even if they were to get caught, the term "golden parachute" exists for reasons.
alecco 5y ago
Anything like that would be killing this new Foundry business they are betting their future on. No way.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

swalsh 5y ago

Regulation of anti-competitive behavior seems to have been extremely relaxed lately. Amazon's marketplace and Amazon Retail seem at odds with each other, yet they're allowed to coexest, and everyone is fully aware of the anti-competitive behavior. Intel's chip business needs to be seperated from their foundry business, and the 2 can't be allowed to comingle with each other.

smoldesu 5y ago
What incentive does the US government have to split up highly lucrative, domestic businesses?
- kaashif 5y ago
  The incentive should be that a competitive free market is better for prosperity in the long term. If anti-competitive practices are allowed, the losers are the consumers, whose interests the government are supposed to represent. Obviously it doesn't work that way in practice.
  - buu700 5y ago
    From another point of view, looking at the government as an institution rather than through its role as an advocate of the people, you could also make the case that the government should oppose any massive consolidation of wealth/power as a threat to its own power. FAANG companies each individually have higher annual revenue than most countries' GDPs. In the absence of government intervention, there wouldn't be much to stop them from turning into British East India Companies and establishing banana republics, raising private armies, etc. In an extreme scenario, some kind of corporate Genghis Khan could hypothetically consolidate the S&P 500 into a single megacorp if the DOJ allowed it to happen, and that company's revenue would be about half the US GDP (making it the third largest "economy" in the world). It would effectively be a hostile state right in our own backyard. Would we even have the ability to enforce taxation if they said no? What would stop them from wielding that incredible wealth to effectively buy a majority stake in government?
- toast0 5y ago
  If we're just thinking incentives, why have one highly lucrative, domestic business, when you could have several? A lot of the anti-trust breakups result in several good businesses and maybe some competition/consumer benefits too.

WithinReason 5y ago

Although GP was joking, if AMD was a customer of Intel there's no way Intel would sabotage that relationship and make other customers lose trust in them.

EGreg 5y ago
Sure that’s NEVER happened before ! Also, large organizations always coordinate their strategy perfectly consistently.
- _jal 5y ago
  Sure, it can happen, and something like it probably has. The point is that doing it and being caught out would be something approaching corporate suicide, and sane leadership would not risk it. This places it in the bucket of 'unlikely, high impact' risks for potential clients. They'd want to design process and contractual language to try to make such perfidy apparent and not bet the farm, but I doubt it would be a deal breaker. I would think IP concerns would dominate in such an arrangement.
  - nosianu 5y ago
    > would be something approaching corporate suicide No it would not. Just like in any other case where a corporation had to pay a huge fine - they do it, or it even gets lowered significantly, and then move on. The executives who were responsible retired long ago and the motto of shareholders and management always is "look to the future and don't bother me with old problems". You make quite an assertion based on what - the opposite has already happened many times. Risk that has to be paid for much later often is worth it, especially when it's going to happen to a new team. Not that the risk for a CEO is worth worrying about (for them) even if they were to get caught, the term "golden parachute" exists for reasons.

alecco 5y ago

Anything like that would be killing this new Foundry business they are betting their future on. No way.