"I am probably not explaining myself clearly. People have a general sense of fair play, and even though they may root for the underdog, they respect the winner, if the victory is deserved, and achieved by playing fair.
Crushing AMD
"The latest episode of underhanded tactics of Intel (I guess some slimeballs at Intel just can't help themselves) takes away from the achievement of Intel engineers, and what is left is not admiration of good products, but resentment of sleazeball Intel management."
I don't know which decisions you're thinking of as "sleazeball" or "unfair." More on why "sleazeball" and "unfair" are mostly useless terms in a bit. But first, some guesses as to what you might be thinking of (feel free to add more):
* Intel and Rambus. This was a decision which turned out to be a bad one, it looks. So? This was not "sleazeball." In fact, AMD benefitted from this misstep by Intel.
* Delays in some chips. Delays happen. So? Nothing sleazeball or "unfair" about a delay...it has happened much more often with AMD lately.
* chipsets and server chips...I'm not versed in this as many of you are, so I'll say little. Again, delays and screwups happen. And sometimes other companies even get burned. The give and take of competition in this fast-changing world.
* Itanium. Don't like it, then don't use it.
* Low prices cutting AMD's ability to make a profit? AMD started the price war, let's not forget ("we will be priced 25% below Intel"--which they pretty much _had_ to be to get any business a few years ago).
AMD can't make money in today's climate? Boo-hoo. Not Intel's problem or responsibility to ensure profits for AMD (in fact, to do so would no doubt violate the Sherman and Clayton Acts).
* P4? Don't like it? Don't use it. Where's the problem?
I see an Intel that is rolling out new products, expanding 300 mm production more rapidly than many of us expected, shrinking geometries, and basically expanding its lead.
As for "sleazeball" and "unfair," companies have no responsibility to make things nice for other companies. Schumpeter called it the "creative destructionism of capitalism." Niceness is not valid, and anyone who claims here it does is naive, a simp-wimp wuss-ninny.
"Crush"? A great program, circa 1979-82, designed to crush the competition. We buckled down and kicked ass. A lot of companies folded during this period. So?
Crushing one's competitors is how business works.
--Tim May |
