Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Henri Richard explains why AMD failed to gain more marketshare

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 13, 2010 6:25:49 PM

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/01/12/intel-amd-execs-...

Intel: AMD Execs Cited Its Failings, Not Intel Tactics


Some highlights from the former AMD VP Henri Richard:

Intel cites, among other things, internal statements in 2004 by Henri Richard–then AMD’s top sales exec and now a senior executive with Freescale Semiconductor – that a person looking at the situation “with an objective set of eyes” would never buy AMD chips.

“I certainly would never buy AMD for a personal system if I wasn’t working here.”


Some of Richard’s other comments are redacted, but he goes on in the document to rail against AMD selling only microprocessor chips themselves, and not a “platform” of those products and accessory chip sets, as Intel does.

He described that AMD strategy as “pathetic,” for “exposing a partial story, particularly in the commercial segment, that is clearly inferior to Intel’s, if we want to be honest with ourselves.”

He added that AMD is saddled with a reputation that “we’re cheap, less reliable, lower quality consumer type product.”

The Intel document cites similar admissions from other AMD executives, some of which are also blacked out in the document. But one theme is AMD’s execution problems, including those that resulted when it landed Dell as a chip customer after years of failures–resulting in problems delivering chips to other customers.



=============================

But I guess it is just easier for the fanboys to blame Intel for everything and deny that AMD had many shortcomings that prevented them from getting the marketshare the fanboys thought they should have been able to do.

Now just as Henri Richard implored his co-workers to be honest with themselves, perhaps now a few AMD propagandists on this forum could try doing that too.
January 13, 2010 7:06:30 PM

It appears that the reason for AMD's failings is having this guy employed at all, let alone as a VP.

I mean, in 2004, who "would never buy AMD chips?" Really? Even people who prefer Intel can admit that Athlon 64 was fantastic (released in 2003, a VP had to have known they were great for some time before release).
January 13, 2010 7:39:41 PM

Chad Boga said:

2004 by Henri Richard–then AMD’s top sales exec


OH NOES: An apparently disgruntled sales executive expressed his opinion in internal documents of which we can see some of the non-redacted quotes!

I guess we'll all just have to believe everything that Intel has mentioned that he said.

Anybody that owns anything AMD should immediately abandon their hardware based the what this sales executive said. Because we know that all sales executives are irrefutable sources of knowledge. (And he apparently wasn't frustrated about anything such as not having a platform at that time... these type of people are never known to exaggerate things to make points they think are important.)

Actually if this is one of Intels main defenses in their court case... they are in a heap-o-trouble. EDIT: No wonder they paid AMD off to close the other court case.
January 13, 2010 7:48:52 PM

I don't trust the rants of a bitter ex-employee. There may be some pieces of truth to it but if I am given the choice to accept or reject entirely, then reject it I would.
Their problem in that era was not perceived quality. It was keeping their orders filled in a timely manner and if he was their top sales exec, he was probably to blame for promises made that couldn't be kept.
January 13, 2010 8:02:58 PM

The AMD marketing department is weak. I'm brazilian, and here, the stores sale 90% of intel and 10% of amd hardware. Even if it has celeron x phenom-2 x4, intel's marketing led to believe that his products are better than all others from amd.

Here, only the guys who work in IT knows that is not true.
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2010 8:09:50 PM

First, AMD had an outstanding product back in 2004 (I chose AMD over Intel all day long).

Second, it sounds to me based on the very limited amount of quotations here, that this guy was pointing to marketing problems as the issue. Intel had CPUs, and chipsets to go along with them, which in some aspects is both a production and marketing move. They were selling a "whole product" so to speak. So I can understand this guy's point of view I suppose.

Third, I think we have to keep in mind that the general computer using public does not understand, let alone care to know, the technical details that the average Tom's reader does. We buy Intel or AMD because of technical data that proves one to be better, faster, cheaper, more reliable, etc. However, John Q Public goes into Best Buy, or Gateway, or where ever and buys what's available.
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2010 8:10:36 PM

There are a couple of reasons why AMD failed to gain more marketshare and this is not one of them.

Here are some in no paticular order.

AMD did a terrible job marketing. Or just flat out didnt market at all to be honest.

It is said that AMD couldnt produce enough chips to gain market share. I do not agree with that myself though.

The entire Intel antitrust behavior.

AMD's chips where not cheap at the time. They where flat out expensive up until c2d came out.


Sadly to this day AMD still doesnt advertise. Even if AMD had the performance crown now like in 04 I still see them keeping the same market share until they advertise. People who are not tech savy just have no Idea who or WTF AMD is. People who walk into a store to buy a computer are most likely leaving with a Intel system simply because that is the name brand they know. People like most of us on the forums(Intel and AMD fanboys excluded) will buy which ever is better or a better value and so on. But we make up a very small amount of the market..

Bottom line. Intel is guilty as hell. But that is not the sole or even the main purpose for AMD not having market share IMHO. If there are adds on TV for them blankets with sleeves but zero adds for AMD that is a big problem. Truthfully I dont ever recall a single add fro AMD on tv. But there have been adds for products for spray on hair of all things.
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2010 8:16:14 PM

Dekasav said:
It appears that the reason for AMD's failings is having this guy employed at all, let alone as a VP.

I mean, in 2004, who "would never buy AMD chips?" Really? Even people who prefer Intel can admit that Athlon 64 was fantastic (released in 2003, a VP had to have known they were great for some time before release).


+1 on that...

I got so many AMD computers I won't go around listing them all but my point is the cpu is anything but unreliable or crap quality.

I am an I.T.
I play videogames like Company of Heroes, Fallout3, GTA4 with a Phenom9950 @ 2.73Ghz + GTX260
It runs everything FLAWLESSLY at 1920x1080

My point is that most users do not require an Intel I5 for regular use and AMD's have always been more cost effective... Always better performance per dollar...

Only a select few will spend a crazy amount for Crossfire/SLI configurations of 200$ cards to require anything better then a PhenomII...

Yes it performs much more impressive frame rates but... people who have the money to throw on a PC like that for games are a minority in the real world.


Hell... most people are "Idiots" (in the computer world) and get their overpriced Compaq from futureshop with some Q9300 CPU with 4 gigs ram, 500Gig drive and a 300W Cheapass PSU.


So if anything I blame a really crappy Sales VP.

Intel = High end Candy only required for Serious tasks...

Henri Richard is a failior as a Sales VP and as a loyal employee.

I think in the long run there will be more Compaq/Dell/Whatever AMD's and they well sell.... Hopefully Ill see some AMD Add's someday.
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2010 8:16:47 PM

someguy7 said:
There are a couple of reasons why AMD failed to gain more marketshare and this is not one of them.

Here are some in no paticular order.

AMD did a terrible job marketing. Or just flat out didnt market at all to be honest.

It is said that AMD couldnt produce enough chips to gain market share. I do not agree with that myself though.

The entire Intel antitrust behavior.

AMD's chips where not cheap at the time. They where flat out expensive up until c2d came out.


Sadly to this day AMD still doesnt advertise. Even if AMD had the performance crown now like in 04 I still see them keeping the same market share until they advertise. People who are not tech savy just have no Idea who or WTF AMD is. People who walk into a store to buy a computer are most likely leaving with a Intel system simply because that is the name brand they know. People like most of us on the forums(Intel and AMD fanboys excluded) will buy which ever is better or a better value and so on. But we make up a very small amount of the market..

Bottom line. Intel is guilty as hell. But that is not the sole or even the main purpose for AMD not having market share IMHO. If there are adds on TV for them blankets with sleeves but zero adds for AMD that is a big problem. Truthfully I dont ever recall a single add fro AMD on tv. But there have been adds for products for spray on hair of all things.


have to agree on that one. If AMD would advertise, they may get notice more by the general public.
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2010 8:50:36 PM

They do advertise.

Just intel advertises more.

Not to mention Intel as almost universal brand recognition.

AMD advertises now.

They support the Battlecast Primetime Command and Conquer show.
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2010 8:53:33 PM

amdfangirl said:
They do advertise.

Just intel advertises more.

Not to mention Intel as almost universal brand recognition.

AMD advertises now.

They support the Battlecast Primetime Command and Conquer show.


Haven't seen any advertisements on tv's. (at least here in ohio that is)
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2010 8:55:33 PM

Well I have... once. A Dell commercial. *shudder*

Battlecast Primetime is a niche show for hardcore Command and Conquer fans which is hosted online.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2010 10:00:25 PM

In other news, Pat Gelsinger told me that intel kick baby seals for fun instead of bowling.
January 13, 2010 10:45:50 PM

OK, the list
1 2004, who had the best processor then?
2The Intel document cites similar admissions from other AMD executives, some of which are also blacked out in the document. But one theme is AMD’s execution problems, including those that resulted when it landed Dell as a chip customer after years of failures–resulting in problems delivering chips to other customers.
Gee, wonder exactly what took them so long to land Dell?
3 The FTCs account of Paul Otellinis future for AMD, wanting them to be percieved as cheap, from the back of shanghai street deals , maybe PO is Henri Richard?
4 No, Henri Richard was a hockey player, and did quite well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Richard
http://www.hhof.com/legendsofhockey/html/spot_oneononep...

5 And who claimed Intel had the best lawyers? CMoooooonnnn Maaaannnn
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2010 10:48:19 PM

AMD decided to sell off one of its Fabs when Athlon X2s were at the height of demand, causing shortages and upsetting many smaller firms. Some of the executives also made the decision to delay the transition to 65nm because they wanted to keep selling their high in demand 90nm parts, which threw off the schedule for the original Phenom and is one of the reasons AMD is in the position it is today.

Make no mistake that Intel's anti competitive actions have greatly hurt AMD. Still, AMD didn't do itself any favors by shooting itself in the foot. I still feel they are only now recovering from the mistakes of the 90nm Athlon X2 days.
January 13, 2010 10:59:12 PM

No, they arent looking back, as those people are gone, much like whats happening to Intel now, and sooner or later, theyll recognize that PO has to go.
If we actually knew all the decision making, of which somehow Intel is privy to, or is hinting at, you take a job, if youre not happy, leave,
What AMD did have was the best chip in those days, where was Henri Richard then? Dissing it, if true?
If Intel has a huge marketshare, why hasnt it grown to almost exclusivity under PO? Especaially add in the "rbates" and these so called AMD failures/decisions.
Now, you do the math, which one adds up the best? I think 3 international entities already dd, and found Intel guilty, with more in the wings.
January 13, 2010 11:26:16 PM

Yea, in the channel, meanwhile they couldnt sell 1 to Dell wonder why, if they could get 1000$ from enthusiasts?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 13, 2010 11:41:56 PM

Dell were only selling cheap trash back then clearly. Now it's expensive trash. :D 
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 12:42:48 AM

amdfangirl said:
They do advertise.

Just intel advertises more.

Not to mention Intel as almost universal brand recognition.

AMD advertises now.

They support the Battlecast Primetime Command and Conquer show.



So now you consider them running ads by putting a advertisement on some online show about a video game(least I think that is video game)? AMD fails miserably at marketing. I take that back. They do not even market at all.

I do recall AMD on tv now. One of them channels like QVC had a tech hr and they where selling a AMD based system on it.

I want to be in charge of marketing for AMD. Be a nice job to have. Paid vacation 24/7 365 days a year for a decade.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 1:41:41 AM

Quote:
Intel cites, among other things, internal statements in 2004 by Henri Richard–then AMD’s top sales exec
Quote:
The Intel document cites similar admissions from other AMD executives
Quote:
an AMD spokesman, declined comment on the remarks cited by Intel


C'mon, seriously, some blog without citing real resources claims that Intel possesses a document where an AMD exec talks trash about the company he worked for.

Puh-leez! And here I thought that this was going to real news.

Pardon me while I take this with a pound of salt...
January 14, 2010 2:40:47 AM

It's a good thing Richards is no longer the vp of AMD, I wouldn't want someone around that had no faith in the company and failed to showcase the advantages of the Athlon 64 when it was clearly better than the P4's.
January 14, 2010 3:12:56 AM

chunkymonster said:
Quote:
Intel cites, among other things, internal statements in 2004 by Henri Richard–then AMD’s top sales exec
Quote:
The Intel document cites similar admissions from other AMD executives
Quote:
an AMD spokesman, declined comment on the remarks cited by Intel


C'mon, seriously, some blog without citing real resources claims that Intel possesses a document where an AMD exec talks trash about the company he worked for.

Puh-leez! And here I thought that this was going to real news.

Pardon me while I take this with a pound of salt...



I didn't know the Wall Street Journal was Just some blog?
a c 213 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
January 14, 2010 3:36:42 AM

It must be said that when the comments were made, this was no disgruntled ex-employee. The quotes are from internal documents where the guy was trying to whip the company into a different tactical approach.

There's no denying that the overwhelming "Joe Public", man on the street mindset is that Intel makes the best products and AMD makes the good value products......"Back in the day" (not mine, my dad's), they'd be Cadillac and Chevy.

AMD / ATI seems reluctant to pounce when they got the edge. Look at the Verizon / AT &T commercial war going on pouring lots of add dollars to gain mindshare of who got the best what. ATI is sitting on the performance crown and the company isn't cranking up the ad revenue yelling at the top of their lungs "Hey, we're on top". If I was the VP of marketing at ATI, I'd be throwing ad dollars left and right while nViida is not in a position to answer. What are they saving it for ? March....what's the ad gonna say then ? "Hey, we're not as fast, but we're a better value". That's the image this guy is complaining about.

If it were me I'd be making commercials with ATI execs throwing up the No. 1 sign and saying, "hey we won this round, I'm going to Disneyland !"

AMD surely has been screwed by Intel's marketing tactics just as all MS competitors were screwed in the same manner. When DR DOS was a competitor, MS went to a new pricing structure.....$29.95 for DOS and Windows ..... $44.95 for Windows alone. Intel pulled similar tactics and it's god to see them finally nailed for it but I think they'd be in a lot better position if the AMD's marketing department grew a set of cahoneys.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 3:48:37 AM

Quote:
There's no denying that the overwhelming "Joe Public", man on the street mindset is that Intel makes the best products and AMD makes the good value products......"Back in the day" (not mine, my dad's), they'd be Cadillac and Chevy.


Joe Public does not know that. They do not know anything about AMD at all. They don't know anything really about Intel either. What they do know is the Intel name due to marketing(tv commercials).
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 14, 2010 4:03:45 AM

Dekasav said:
It appears that the reason for AMD's failings is having this guy employed at all, let alone as a VP.

I mean, in 2004, who "would never buy AMD chips?" Really? Even people who prefer Intel can admit that Athlon 64 was fantastic (released in 2003, a VP had to have known they were great for some time before release).


It wasn't the CPUs themselves he meant, more the fact that at the time in 2004 AMD didn't have a platform to sell.

At that time AMD had to rely on VIA, SIS, nVidia and ATI for chipsets. The VIA and SIS ones sucked as they wouldn't even properly recognize a CPU. A friend of mine had a VIA chipset, bought a Athlon 3200+ and it clocked it at 700MHz. The best stable we could get with the BIOS was as a 2700+.

nVidia was ok and ATI was really good but still AMD had no platform like they do now. They had no chipsets and no GPUs/IGPs to sell to the OEMs and to thus sell to businesses. Businesses prefer a platform approach because it ends up cheaper in the bulk and thats how places like Wal Mart can under cut everyone in everything. They buy it all in bulk.

AMD at the time for the whole alleged whatever towards Intel did not have the execution they do today. The AMD we see today is not the AMD of 2000-2006. Thank God too or they would have put themselves out of business.

And yess they did have supply issues. I found an article about their snubbing the little OEMs to push more on Dell just as I said all along was an issue. If you can't meet the demand, they will go to the next bidder.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 4:21:02 AM

someguy7 said:
So now you consider them running ads by putting a advertisement on some online show about a video game(least I think that is video game)? AMD fails miserably at marketing. I take that back. They do not even market at all.

I do recall AMD on tv now. One of them channels like QVC had a tech hr and they where selling a AMD based system on it.

I want to be in charge of marketing for AMD. Be a nice job to have. Paid vacation 24/7 365 days a year for a decade.


Hey!

Command and Conquer is an awesome game.

Look, I was trying to prove the point that AMD does in fact advertise.

Please don't be mean to me or I'll cry.
January 14, 2010 4:23:00 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
And who claimed Intel had the best lawyers? CMoooooonnnn Maaaannnn
Did you notice in that original FTC filing that the accused gets...wait for it...a whopping 2 weeks to respond to all the allegations? Fail to respond and you're assumed to be admitting guilt.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 14, 2010 4:26:54 AM

sonoran said:
Did you notice in that original FTC filing that the accused gets...wait for it...a whopping 2 weeks to respond to all the allegations? Fail to respond and you're assumed to be admitting guilt.


The FTC is a lot like the FCC. While the FCC censors you and tells you whats good and bad, the FTC tells companies the smae thing. Its their way or the highway. But wow. 2 weeks. Thats not normal for a large case like this. Civil cases, yes but corporate? Not that short.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 10:08:41 AM

So Intel are claiming that someone in AMD didn't like AMD processors? Next we'll see AMD claim that Moore said he doesn't like transistors or something.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 11:01:50 AM

kg4icg said:
I didn't know the Wall Street Journal was Just some blog?
Are you serious? You don't see the irony about a blog, in the WSJ or not, that claims Intel possesses a document where a former employee talks trash about the company they used to work for?

While I agree the WSJ is not a blog, that supposed jumble of conjecture and hearsay posing as legitimate news is a blog. The fact that the blog is in WSJ does not lend it any more credibility than any other editorial or opinion piece that appears in any other newspaper.

I call FUD and BS on this supposed document...

EDIT - Given the post directly below this from fazers_on_stun I rescind the above FUD and BS statement and admit that I did not fully read the .pdf containing Intel's response.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 12:20:46 PM

chunkymonster said:
Are you serious? You don't see the irony about a blog, in the WSJ or not, that claims Intel possesses a document where a former employee talks trash about the company they used to work for?

While I agree the WSJ is not a blog, that supposed jumble of conjecture and hearsay posing as legitimate news is a blog. The fact that the blog is in WSJ does not lend it any more credibility than any other editorial or opinion piece that appears in any other newspaper.

I call FUD and BS on this supposed document...


This document is part of Intel's official response filed with the FTC:

Quote:
In a recent response to longstanding antitrust accusations from chipmaking rival Advanced Micro Devices, Intel included in a Federal Trade Commission filing a quote from one of AMD's own executives critical of AMD chips.
...
Intel got the internal AMD communication through the discovery process, Mulloy said. "Over time, more and more [of] this kind of information will be available in the case," he said Wednesday.


I doubt even evil Intel :p  would file some "FUD and BS" as part of their official response to the FTC lawsuit, esp. since they can trace this to AMD's own internal documents, of which we are just beginning to find out about apparently...
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 12:27:53 PM

BTW, concerning the Dell deal, there's evidence pointing to the fact that AMD screwed over its other longtime OEM customers in pursuing this deal with Dell, since yes indeed they were capacity-constrained due to having just one fab online at the time. IIRC even Dell got upset with AMD over the short supply after the deal was done...

Anyway, for the fanbois arguing that no court trial is needed since Intel is already 'convicted' in 4 countries (even though the FTC case hasn't gone before the administrative law judge yet), this just goes to show that not all the facts are known yet. Didn't Intel file a countersuit in the now-dismissed-due-to-settlement AMD lawsuit, showing that AMD was being obstructive during the evidence discovery phase?
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 12:45:47 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
This document is part of Intel's official response filed with the FTC:
While I rescind the FUD and BS statement about the document, I still believe that Intel using the statements of former employees to build their case and justify their position is lame.

Seriously, as a defensive measure and as a means for Intel to justify their position, citing quotes of a former AMD employee is pretty weak...it's like Intel is saying, "Hey, AMD's claims about our unfair and anti-competitive practices are a moot point because one of their former employees even says that their (AMD's) products suck and can't compete with us (Intel).

It still amazes that even after four countries found Intel guilty of anti-competitive practices, billions of dollars in fines, and the voluntary $1.25B Intel pay-off to AMD folks are still willing to give Intel the benefit of the doubt and defend their actions. It just seems to me that if anyone viewed the entire situation objectively, no matter what excuses or justification Intel offered, anything Intel had to say would be taken with a grain of salt and, at this stage in the game, would first be viewed as the antagonist instead of the victim.
January 14, 2010 1:04:25 PM

Yeah chunky, let's just assume companies are guilty when it suits our desires. Why offer them a day in court? Hey - maybe we can just nationalize like Chavez does? That'll be even better. Mean old companies, trying to sell as much of their product as they can. How dare they!? We'll show them!
January 14, 2010 2:08:09 PM

I think the Bug that was reported in the original Phenom CPU didn't do AMD any favours for their reputation. I remember the articles about how the fix hurt performance and that's considering the original Phenom wasn't that good anyway. It didn't matter that it sucked because it was a 'True Quad' :lol: 

At least AMD have upped their game now and the Phenom 2 is a decent choice for the value market.
January 14, 2010 2:11:32 PM

speedbird, the rebate debacle and time era that brought the FTC suit predate the Phenom shortcomings.
January 14, 2010 2:12:40 PM

roofus said:
speedbird, the rebate debacle and time era that brought the FTC suit predate the Phenom shortcomings.


I know, but I was making a point about the Phenom.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 2:22:12 PM

The TLB bug was really not that much of an issue. Many were able to work their way around it with a bios update or TLB patch. The people that did get annoyed were the ones that did not do proper reaserch.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 2:37:42 PM

chunkymonster said:
While I rescind the FUD and BS statement about the document, I still believe that Intel using the statements of former employees to build their case and justify their position is lame.

Seriously, as a defensive measure and as a means for Intel to justify their position, citing quotes of a former AMD employee is pretty weak...it's like Intel is saying, "Hey, AMD's claims about our unfair and anti-competitive practices are a moot point because one of their former employees even says that their (AMD's) products suck and can't compete with us (Intel).


I should point out that the quote from Henri Richards was from when he was still the VP of marketing at AMD, not after he left. However I would also bet that, as another poster opined, Intel probably took it out of context :p .

Quote:
It still amazes that even after four countries found Intel guilty of anti-competitive practices, billions of dollars in fines, and the voluntary $1.25B Intel pay-off to AMD folks are still willing to give Intel the benefit of the doubt and defend their actions. It just seems to me that if anyone viewed the entire situation objectively, no matter what excuses or justification Intel offered, anything Intel had to say would be taken with a grain of salt and, at this stage in the game, would first be viewed as the antagonist instead of the victim


But all we are arguing is that Intel was not found guilty in any court of law, which is important because a gov't agency like the FTC or the EC doesn't play by the same set of legal rules as does a court (i.e., legally admissible evidence, not hearsay, plus the requirement for full disclosure of the material facts by all parties including AMD, legal precedent, etc). If and when Intel gets its day in court and a court does find them guilty, I'll shut my big trap on the issue :sol:  ...
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 5:31:13 PM

sonoran said:
Yeah chunky, let's just assume companies are guilty when it suits our desires. Why offer them a day in court? Hey - maybe we can just nationalize like Chavez does? That'll be even better. Mean old companies, trying to sell as much of their product as they can. How dare they!? We'll show them!


Nationalize like Chavez? WTF? Don't be a sensationalist!

I'm all for giving Intel defending themselves to the FTC. Heck, I wholly support it. But once again, it is very difficult to ignore and dispute the fact that four countries have found Intel guilty of anti-competitive practices, they have been fined billions of dollars as a result of those findings, and Intel voluntarily offered AMD $1.25 Billion to make the lawsuits go away. As they say, "If it looks like $hit, smells like $hit, and tastes like $hit...it must be $hit!"

Again, at this stage in the game, when considering any evidence offered by Intel to justify their actions or dispute any anti-competitive business practices, the source must be taken into consideration.

Now, if you really want to get sensationalist, I will gladly kick it up a notch! Intel citing an AMD exec as defense for their actions is like letting a pedophile prove that he doesn't molest children by leaving him alone with a 3 year old!

a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 5:44:51 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
But all we are arguing is that Intel was not found guilty in any court of law, which is important because a gov't agency like the FTC or the EC doesn't play by the same set of legal rules as does a court (i.e., legally admissible evidence, not hearsay, plus the requirement for full disclosure of the material facts by all parties including AMD, legal precedent, etc). If and when Intel gets its day in court and a court does find them guilty, I'll shut my big trap on the issue :sol:  ...
Again, four countries, billions in fines, and a pay off to AMD to make the lawsuits go away...I support Intel getting a chance to defend themselves and state their case to the FTC, but regardless of that, it is impossible for all but the most faithful of fanboys to deny that Intel screwed the pooch and is effectively guilty in at least four countries of anti-competitive business practices. And, when/if the FTC or State of NY finds Intel guilty it should not be a surprise to anyone.

And, given that this is not civil or private litigation, the chances of Intel getting "their day in court" in the classical sense is probably never going to happen. Like it or not, whatever the FTC finds come this September is what will be legally binding.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 5:57:29 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Anyway, for the fanbois arguing that no court trial is needed since Intel is already 'convicted' in 4 countries (even though the FTC case hasn't gone before the administrative law judge yet), this just goes to show that not all the facts are known yet. Didn't Intel file a countersuit in the now-dismissed-due-to-settlement AMD lawsuit, showing that AMD was being obstructive during the evidence discovery phase?
Whether or not Intel filed counter-suit against AMD for whatever reason is a totally moot point given the fact that Intel offered AMD the $1.25 Billion settlement. Whatever actions Intel took or may have taken went away when they indirectly admitted guilt by paying AMD off to drop the lawsuits. And, sorry, but if it one or two countries that found Intel guilty, then your point might be valid, but given that FOUR countries found them guilty, a court trial would and should only affirm the facts already determined by the trade commissions of those four countries.

As they say, "Once just happens, twice is coincidence, and three times is a pattern." Given that four countries found Intel guilty, we are beyond having established a pattern of behavior and on onto indisputable fact!
January 14, 2010 5:58:41 PM

chunkymonster said:
And, given that this is not civil or private litigation, the chances of Intel getting "their day in court" in the classical sense is probably never going to happen. Like it or not, whatever the FTC finds come this September is what will be legally binding.
As I understand it, the the FTC doesn't get the luxury of being judge and jury like the EU Commission. The FTC has to prove their cases in court.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 6:05:47 PM

sonoran said:
As I understand it, the the FTC doesn't get the luxury of being judge and jury like the EU Commission. The FTC has to prove their cases in court.

Comprehend much? That was stated that way to discern the fact that this is not civil or private litigation in nature but about anti-competitive business practices.
January 14, 2010 6:14:37 PM

i am amazed that this actually got an article on TH as well considering this comes off as a bitter rant from an ex-employee that was probably a failure at his job at the time.
January 14, 2010 6:29:13 PM

Nice attempted troll thread. I don't hear anything else from OP. Come to think of it, I never hear anything from him - mainly because I don't even read his stuff.

And yes, if this is spintel's greatest defence................ well. I doubt that; but this is more like marketing spin.

I also appreciate the defense of the great Henri Richard of the Montreal Canadiens. #16. the socalled "Pocket Rocket" and brother of the "Rocket" Maurice Richard. #9. back in the days of 5 consecutive Stanley Cups, when it was like a rock concert to see Les Habitants play the game like no one else could.

Thanx to all who made this a much better read than I expected. It was quite informative for me since I largely disappeared from computerland shortly after this period - or sometime like that. Some interesting details here.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 6:33:53 PM

sonoran said:
As I understand it, the the FTC doesn't get the luxury of being judge and jury like the EU Commission. The FTC has to prove their cases in court.


Actually to an ALJ from what I've read. Of course either side can appeal the ALJ's decision to a Federal circuit court, then a Court of Appeals and finally to the Supreme Court.
January 14, 2010 6:50:23 PM

It still amazes me that some people just don't, or won't, quite get it.

spintel actually paid $1,250,000,000.

that's 1,250 MILLIONs.

that's a lot of Millions.

NOW - please ask yourself - why would they do that AND give away the royalties fees and bla bla the rest of the deal. spintel also got some benefits in the deal.

So all that is done - gone - water under the bridge.

The FTC is about the government of the USA taking care of the people it represents. How can that be a problem for some people? It's their job.

IF spintel is clean - then so be it - no problem. At least we know that the gov has the interests of the people in the right place. Right up front, where it belongs. Do the people need protection? Is there a problem that needs to be addressed?

And as for precedents - they occurred in other countries. Some evidence revealed may be of interest. The gov has it's own work to do; and a lot to consider, it seems. Sweeping it all away is not an option. The implications seem pretty serious. More will be revealed.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 7:20:47 PM

This guy has proven out to be a genius. He was 100% correct about his predictions.
He probably looked at AMD's own roadmap back then, looked at Intel's, with their upcoming dual cores and new the writing was on the wall. He was probably privy to the tlb bug. Sorry but that was not a little workaround problem. You had to disable the l3 cache completely to avoid it. This guaranteed not one business could buy this product and put it in a enterprise server unless AMD gave it to them and paid them the electricity to run the thing. ! Back then AMD sat on its hiny charging 1000 dollars for a single core processor Athlon 64 FX-57 at one point. Talk about foolhardy greediness.
    • 1 / 17
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!