Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mas_ who wrote (261888)	10/14/2009 6:59:01 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 275872

NVidia's entry into the CPU Wars to (finally) show up in January. It's targeting Intel's Atom platform, hoping to take advantage of Intel's weakness in all things graphic. ...The Beam will sport a Tegra 650 SoC running Windows CE and will run from 5 to 10 hours on a fancy 3-cell battery that slides down, props up the keyboard and reveals the interface ports on the back of the device, which include HDMI, by the way. It will have an integrated GeForce GPU to accelerate HD decode (720p) and Adobe Flash's 10.1 support for Nvidia graphics acceleration might just make life a bit easier for users streaming HD video on-line (let's also not forget Silverlight Mobile - although not as widely used as Flash - which also makes use of GPU acceleration under WinCE). This should make short work of Atom-based netbooks in most scenarios, because Atom has neither the CPU nor GPU horsepower to tap. There's more at: semiaccurate.com

To: mas_ who wrote (261888)	10/14/2009 11:50:40 AM
From: jackthetab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re:"You want to trade in these countries you have to abide by their laws and the way they conduct business and the way they settle these legal matters." Agreed. Companies doing business abroad need to incorporate how the local laws apply in the countries they operate. It is literally the cost of doing business there. When Intel operates the way they do, they run the risk that their operations will be perceived as illegal and non-compliant. AMD runs the same risk. A lack of perceived illegality does not equate to actual illegal behavior. However, once the legal process is set in motion, you are subject to the rules and regulations of that local entity. So what does this mean? Well at my company, which is a fortune 100, we make sure we avoid situations that could be perceived as illegal or questionable. For instance, even though some of our collegues have moved on to our competitors, we avoid talking with them, not to be unfriendly, but to avoid the perception of price fixing or other illegal activity predicated on collusion. Not only does this help to avoid any illegal behavior to the extent possible, it helps prevent the perception of illegal behavior which is extremely expensive to prove. We simply believe it isn't worth it, so we just don't do it. So, in Intel's risk strategy, they did or should have recognized the potential of their actions being seen as non-compliant regardless of actual non-compliance. As a result, they gambled operating in a manner that could have been seen as non-compliant and then took the risk that if prosecuted they wouldn't be able to do much about it (i.e. present a case, respond, crosse examine, etc.). I may be one of the few AMD supporters that doesn't want Intel destroyed. I think they do a lot of good pushing AMD and themselves to innovate to the general good of society. I just want both parties to operate on a level playing field. However, I think what Intel did was a gamble at best, and reckless at worst. I don't think they needed to do what they did, illegal or not, in order to compete with AMD. However, for those who think AMD is hell bent on destroying Intel, consider Intel did the same to their own detriment regardless of whether their actions were illegal or not. I, like Elmer, am eager for a full blown court case to decide the outcome. I just believe the ruling will not be favorable for Intel, but not as damaging as AMD and its supporters are hoping.