Maverick - Popular Response to the FTC Probe on Intel
Please read all of this.
Twice.
Paul
{========================================}
cmpweb-media0.web.cerf.net@^1310@.ee6bbbb
Intel Takes The Hot Seat
There are amazing parallels between
Microsoft's position in software and Intel's in
hardware, says CMPnet's Fred Langa: If it's
wrong for Microsoft to assimilate more and
more technologies into the OS, then why should
Intel be able to build whatever it wants into its
chip sets?
What's your take? Does Intel need taming or is
this another case of unwarranted government
intrusion into private business?
(17 previous messages)
William S. Wong - 10:55am Jun 4, 1998 PST (#18 of 29)
Guest User
I absolutely favor integration, which is the central idea of VLSI or
ULSI circuits. By integrating more components on a chip, you
reduce system complexity while increasing clock speeds.
Remember the old 80386 days when the math coprocessor is a
separate chip?
William Wong Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Stan Durst - 01:47pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#19 of 29)
Guest User
I can remember when less than 5% of the automobiles
manufactured in the US came with factory air. Back then there was
a significant cottage industry that installed after market air
conditioning in cars. Over time more and more cars were outfitted
with air at the factory and guess what, there's nobody left our there
making after market air conditioning for cars. Should the
government have stepped in and stopped the auto manufacturers
from installing air at the factory to prevent the elimination of the after
market industry, they didn't. I don't think the public would want to
forgo the cost savings nor the convenience we now enjoy, the same
thing applies to Intel and Microoft, leave thenm alone!!
Tom Shuman - 02:34pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#20 of 29)
Guest User
The sad part of both these cases is that some strong-arm or
allegedly strong-arm) business practices will likely cause delays in
the development of some really great hardware and software.
Anyone who has read ANY of the 1000s of trade magazines in the
last 10 years knows EXACTLY where both INTEL and MICROSOFT
"WANTED TO GO TODAY"... Messers Gates and Grove have been
quite open about the direction they wanted to take their respective
companies.
Want to leave Intel and Microsoft in the dust? Want to compete?
DEVELOP TRULY BETTER PRODUCTS and not just "CLONES"
of the original! Unless you're the lead DOG, the view is the same!
Rich Miller - 02:45pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#21 of 29)
Guest User
Perhaps we should stop all American innovation! I thought that
building things bigger and better was the American way but I guess
this isn't true anymore.
Intel is going for a low end chip to compete against others. Whats
wrong with that? As long as the public still has the choice to buy the
high end hardware, a motherboard and software to build the system
to there liking or a complete system of there choice whats the
problem.
Intel and Microsoft has done more to make hardware and software
compatable than any other leading force in the marketplace. Don't
you remember when it took hours or days to install a 300 baud
modem that cost $300.00 dollars and a database was $600.00?
Now you can buy a decent system for $1000.00 and an Office suite
for $300.00.
It doesn't look like competion is anywhere near dead to me.
Vince Orton - 03:03pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#22 of 29)
Guest User
Intel's plan of integrating multiple functions onto the processor has
been done already - by its competitors (we all knew that).
Intel could have done this years ago and crushed its competition
back then (we all knew that).
Intel is just responding to consumer demand (again). These
PC-on-a-chip systems have grown in market share, and Intel is just
responding to the market. Crime? I think not. Business? I think so.
Others have claimed that Intel has been pushing inferior technology
& processors through superior marketing. Half right (they do have
good marketing). Intel DOES make other, better processors. We
the market just keep on purchasing x86 chips. Intel (or any company
for that matter) would be stupid not to provide generations of x86
chips, and improve & diversify the x86 line. I'm sure Intel (like all
intellectual companies & professionals) would love to "switch" to
another, far superior, processor architecture.
Don't kid yourself. Intel is absolutely capable of creating far superior
processors. Heck, anyone who can make a CISC chip perform on
par with a RISC chip has got something in their noodle! Intel, like
many other companies, could make a screaming processor
architecture if allowed to start with a clean slate. But there is always
reality - would we buy it?
I'm not saying that the government shouldn't keep watching Intel. I'm
just not sure that this case has merit.
M. D. Johnson - 03:06pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#23 of 29)
Guest User
There are however real differences in the way Intel and Microsoft do
business. Intel is much less repressive.
Eucke Warren - 03:30pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#24 of 29)
Guest User
Yeah, that's what we need...The government teaching the private
sector how to compete. I believe that, very clearly, the Justice
Department does NOT understand technology. That was clear in
Butch Reno's recent comments. We could see about the
establishment of an ITU type committee to oversee the development
of new technologies and for the publishing of standards. We all
know how quickly V.90, USB, Firewire got to market recently.
I love the innovation of Microsoft and Intel and I think that this is a lot
like the "Follow my Leader" scene from Blue Thunder. If AMD or
Cyrix or some other upstart wants to take the lead then they need to
make those type of efforts. Who, in the tech trade hasn't struggled
with a INTEL chipset motherboard only to find that VIA or OPTi or
someone else has a better answer.
Innovation does not result in a perfected product. You want perfect?
Then buy equipment that is a generation old and has had the kinks
worked out it. You want performance and cutting edge? Then,
expect the bugs. If the government were regulating the PC industry I
would by writing this on a KAYPRO, looking forward to the advent of
the 486 in 2012.
Chuck Donaldson - 04:10pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#25 of 29)
Guest User
Those of us in the technical field need to stop thinking of this issue
as a "technical" issue. This is an issue of Principle. What is the
proper function of government in a free enterprise system? Short
and sweet: to protect all of us from thief, fraud, and
coercion-physical coercion. It is not to make the market "fair", to
give the other guy "an even chance," to "open up the playing field."
Anti-Trust is not to protect the consumer, it is to punish the best, to
destroy if possible, those who succeed beyond some envious
congressman's grasp. Anti-Trust has nothing to do with justice, and
everything to do with politcal envy. Once the Iron Wedge was
pushed into business then every successful business was under the
microscope. After Microsoft then Intel, then CISCO/Lucent? Look
around, who is the most successful in some market? If they are too
successful they're next. Find and read, "Ten Thousand
Commandments," and then get the government to separate
government and economics just like we do government and religion.
They do not mix.
Fred Langa - 04:31pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#26 of 29)
a question...
Is it me, or is Intel getting cut more slack from the participants here
than Microsoft did in last week's discussion? 8-)
Ron Exner - 08:18pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#27 of 29)
Guest User
If Justice has it's way we will return to the bad old days of DOS.
Remember?
It was a time when every program and piece of software installed
had it's own printer, video and other drivers. Is it back to future?
Should we shelve standarized 'voice recognition' hooks as part of
the OS? Should we avoid MMX extensions? I think not.
Neil Lesser - 08:25pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#28 of 29)
Guest User
Microsoft and Intel deserve the nation's support for their brilliant
innovation over the past decade.
Is our government going to succeed in dictating to Microsoft and
Intel what they can and can't integrate into their products? I don't
think so.
When the bureaucrats and legal people begin to fully grasp the
implications of what they're asking for, they'll back off. They will
realize that the job Microsoft and Intel have to do is best left to them.
The complexity of the issues will be more than their minds can
comprehend. We must hope they have the integrity to realize their
error and back away from trying to master technology without the
training to do this.
We've gotten to this point by supporting the level of integration we
take for granted today. That's progress and we Americans are not
going to have our DOJ put roadblocks to ease of use, reliability, and
other improvements we're just beginning to realize.
Let's be patient, sit back and watch our DOJ embrace the
"tar-baby" technology!! Hope they don't waste too much time and
tax-payer's money learning this lesson.
Avik Dey - 09:11pm Jun 4, 1998 PST (#29 of 29)
Guest User
Birds of a feather flock together. One keeps on making pricier and
faster processor the other keeps on making pricier and slower
applications.
If Intel & Microsoft are not stopped now the consumer will continue
to be deprived of innovative technology because no innovation can
survive in the face of billion dollar competition. Either the competitor
will be bought out or get crushed under a barrage of freebies.
Remember every time a competitor goes down that means the
price goes up a notch.
We all keep hearing this response to Intel's integration of more
functions on its processor, "Let the competition go out there and
build a better product and not a Intel clone and the market will be
there for them to." Sure they can do that, but does that guarantee a
market for their products? Who is going to be the mouse that ties
the bell around the cat's neck? Not the mouse that already depend
on Intel to survive in the business, quickest way to loose all advance
information from Intel I would say and I don't think there are too many
companies that have the guts to take that chance. So, now's the
time for the government to do it. |
