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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale J. who wrote (34775)	7/18/1998 7:27:00 PM
From: Steve Porter	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572711

Dale J. MOT's first loss to Intel was due to the fact that Mot's product was almost ready and Intel's was. Neither product was specifically designed for IBM. Therefore I would have to say that Intel was in the right place at the right time and therefore lucky (since there was no planning, you can't call it skill). MOT's second loss was due to the fact that they partnered with IBM and Apple. Niether of whom could do anything right. In addition they took the wrong approach. A purchase of AMD would signal a whole new kind of attack. And this one may just suceed. Steve

To: Dale J. who wrote (34775)	7/18/1998 11:42:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572711

Dale, <But was it bad luck, or was it Intel's aggressive execution?> I was a deceptive marketing. The 8086 part was clearly inferior to Mot's part. However Intel launched a campaign to publish 50 articles in the trade press. They published a catalog of data sheets for parts that did not exist, just to create an impression of strong "leader". They also developed a set of special benchmarks designed to show that Intel can outperform MOT's VLSI package. True, later "Intel delivers" those part, but the quality of these designs are still dragging down the whole PC industry, with all these weird byte-indexed protocols and read side effects. Motorola was more honest and lost. Actually, they were too busy by orders from automotive industry and did not respond enthusiasticly enough for IBM requests. For Intel that was a golden opportunity with no demand for inferior 80xx. Intel is following this deceptive strategy until today. They advertise in advance but deliver bugs. Do you think that all these "publications" in CMP net (by Lisa DiCarlo, M.Canelones, etc.) about 700MHz "future" processors appear without direct Intel's hand? Not. The worse the situations is, the more publications we will see. And P.E will be excited to inform us about them as soon as possible.