Hi! (I still lurk and read this thread regularly... very good thread.)
Sun, your analysis on 3dfx if not dead on is at a minimum objective and unbiased. And your finally getting my passion for the set-top <VBG>!
> Since ATI has made a partnership with GIC for set top boxes, 3dfx
> should approach SFA (GIC's main competition) for a similar deal.
Absolutely, and this should have happened long ago. The fact that it is still an issue, is even more disappointing as digital TV and the internet convergence is happening. If SFA is not interested, than others such as Liberty Media or ACTV (symbol IATV) should be approached, as that is another avenue towards an "Entertainment Platform."
Your concept of working with SNE is valid, but they should be approached not just for a console, but a set top or a combination.
> Since INTC absolutely sucks in their graphics efforts and failed
> miserably with their i740, 3dfx should lend them a hand. The idea
> being that (a) Intel will produce...
Since it is now obvious the emperor has not clothes (INTC in graphics), an Intel partnership would make sense. Everyone here is aware that the i740 was mostly purchased technology. Finally we can attack all those that said Intel would put companies such as 3dfx out of business. Didn't happen. But the reason Intel went into the area, i.e. to drive demand for more powerful processors, still exists. If Intel was willing to spend money to purchase the technology, they should be hungry for a partnership.
3dfx's burgeoning motherboard presence would only seem to make the deal more attractive to Intel. So in this way, I am not as disappointed as some on this board via Tier 1 OEM wins. 3dfx is now making inroads into this area, where once they had limited exposure at best. But this is going to take time, and Tier 1 OEMs such as DELL now appear to be testing the ability of 3dfx to deliver product in a consistent manner before fully committing to large scale deliveries. Sounds like solid business sense to me, and an area where ATI has been a proven supplier. I view this quarter as 3dfx's chance to prove their ability as a supplier, and if successful the door to the large primary design wins should be open. Therefore, although Nvidia may be able to compete or even surpass on technology, they are now losing a key opportunity in the OEM space. So, again I agree with your assessment "Without superb technology, it is hard to win mindshare in the high-tech industry. True, the best technology does not make you a winner. But every time the best tech has failed, it's been either because it was not good enough to justify the extra costs. Or because the management majorly screwed up the execution..." and would emphasize that execution is most important at this time.
> One thing that I tried to emphasize, was the need for the
> technology to be scalable and open. The scalable part means that
> you can remain in the sweet spot of
Perhaps this should be tied into Patrick's discussion of OpenGL,
DX and Glide in response to you re: Entertainment Platform. Patrick wrote
"re: Entertainment Platform
This will never happen until 3dfx creates a set-top/gameboy/console of their own. Until then they are just another video card. As a matter of fact, I think 3dfx may be stretching too far to support 3 platforms (OpenGL, DX, Glide). Given that OpenGL can support proprietary extensions it really doesn't make that much sense that 3dfx continue to develop Glide at all. The only real advantage is that Glide is faster and easier to use. In the past it was much faster and much easier. The differences now are becoming minimal, and if 3dfx is having to delay products because they are concerned with reverse Glide compatibility we have a big problem."
And the path now seems to be one that is a combination of your thoughts and Patrick's IMO. Glide may very well at this point be a hindrance to partnering in set-tops or consoles, as it is clearly proprietary and not open. Unfortunately one could argue that one of the strengths of Microsoft is that they have forced an open nature to DX. Although much as they have caused conformance to standards in OS, it has been as much their shear market presence that one might argue that it is not truly open. But, if the ability to obtain a standard is the end goal of an "Open" approach, the end is the same. 3dfx now appears to be in the same position as Apple pushing their MacOS (analogy 3dfx pushing Glide) while Microsoft is supporting Windows (analogy DX). OpenGL seems to be maintaining momentum in the gaming community, and why shouldn't we be talking about 3dfx wrapping Glide extensions into this "Open" standard??? The fear of giving away a technology lead to competitors such as Nvidia, clearly is a hindrance to such "open" thinking. But the advantages of such an approach are the strong ingrained support for OpenGL in desktop Graphics programming (3D CAD), which by the way, already use geometry acceleration. That 3dfx is struggling with delivering full OpenGL compliance and Glide simultaneously has an effect on sales. Personally, I bought a Rage Fury instead of a V3 because CAD programs I use demand full OpenGL compliance. But neither do they work with DX.
The opportunity of next generation geometry acceleration opening a broader market for 3dfx cards, seems to be that such extensions to Glide be compatible with any existing capabilities of OpenGL and place extensions only where OpenGL does not address new technology.
Given that Glide was used because it is faster than OpenGL, as Patrick says, then it seems likely that geometry acceleration will decrease the speed difference for the legacy functionality that does not involve extensions to Glide (and therefore could also be extensions to OpenGL).
Maybe some of you who know more of the technical details can punch holes in Patrick and my concerns via Glide as proprietary. The fact that we know OpenGL wrappers to Glide are possible, and that 3dfx is still fighting such means they have not yet chosen the "Open" path.
Present day examples have now demonstrated that proprietary standards may lose to "Open" standards, even with better technology, and that the time to switch may be when market share cannot further grow by staying closed. Passing on the opportunity means failure to become the standard for the market and can have severe negative consequences.
Such consequences, hypothetically, could be that if DX becomes a standard for set-tops there may come a time when no one will care about support for Glide. Microsoft is still trying to force its self into the standard of set-tops via recent agreements with AT&T through the MediaOne deal. So, the OS for set-tops is still uncertain as Sun, IBM, others fight for control. Microsoft is in the unique position if their OS wins, say some future version of Windows CE, they may also at the same time dictate the graphics interface to be DX. Somehow, the chances of it being Glide seem very small. That being the case, if the enemy of my enemy is my friend, wrapping Glide into OpenGL may well be a viable alternative. Since OpenGL is just starting to make inroads into JAVA, all the better as a set-top alternative. If geometry acceleration leads to extensions to Glide that don't make it into OpenGL, or worse yet that competitors such as Nvidia make their geometry accelerations part of OpenGL or DX instead of 3dfx, it's time to start worrying.
Just my thoughts,
Waldeen
(FWIW Currently I have no position long or short.) |
