Hi Carl,
You certainly have some interesting things to say. My main concern, though, is Intel. While they don't have the degree of architectural control of, say, MSFT, they are a very powerful force nonetheless.
It seems very obvious to me that INTC wants RDRAM to be the standard of the future. Whether this is because RDRAM takes better advantage of faster processors (seeding demand for faster processors is INTC's #1 strategic priority), or because AMD's lack of support puts it in an awkward position in a RDRAM world, I don't know. At any rate, INTC seems to be pushing the standard rather aggressively. And while INTC does appear to be hedging their bet, the primary bet (the bet so large that it must be hedged) is on RDRAM. No?
Clearly, the MM's have it in for RMBS and/or RDRAM for a variety of reasons, but they don't really pull the strings in the long run. If the microprocessor and chipset design companies want them to sell dogsh*t on a chip, they'll start buying alpo. On that we probably agree.
Of course, most of the microprocessor and chipset design companies don't support RDRAM; only one does. That company just happens to be Intel.
Do you know of any examples of Intel trying to push a standard that other chipset designers didn't support, and failing? That's not a rhetorical or sarcastic question; I'd really be interested in an answer. Feel free to substitute any hardware company with similar levels of architectural control, market share and overall power (although I can't think of many that would fit the bill--maybe IBM wrt mainframes, or EMC). |
