Ok, now how does this relate to telling ServerWorks to "go screw"?
The fact is that Intel is no better than the rest (remember the
TX?). Intel has made more mistakes than the law should allow!
Fortunately, for their employees, they have tons of cash and can
afford to piss off their customers. If you think that situation
can last...
It doesn't relate to Serverworks at all; we were discussing the broad
chipset market and strategy, AFAICT. Fortunately for everyone, the
law has nothing to do with it, and the situation will either correct
itself or they will crash and burn. We'll just have to see how it
lasts.
Chipsets are *NOT* a "very profitable form of dumb". It's simply
*DUMB* to produce what others can do easily and won't contribute to
the bottom line. Sell the antique line-space to the competition!
BTW, chipsets, like graphics widgets, aren't so much the users of
garbage processes anymore. These things are getting as
sophisticated as the processors.
Again, I didn't mention "garbage processes"; these are the same
processes that were producing the last few generation's cutting edge
chips. They're just not on the edge any more. Typically, older
equipment gets updated and re-used to maximize capital life and
minimize disruptive upgrades to the fabs. This allows them to
implement their strategies of producing less demanding technologies at
reduced costs. Certainly the chipsets are sophisticated, but the
latest processors are further ahead, IME.
Really, it boils down to a strategic decision - rely on outside
manufacturers or do it yourself; each has their associated costs and
benefits. I've already been over the logic there, as I see it. You
obviously don't agree; we'll see if the strategy flops in the future.
BTW, I don't have much familiarity with server chipsets; are they as
low margin as mass-market chipsets? I'm sure the volume is far lower,
but if margins are higher, it changes the dynamics of the strategy.
On a side (but related) topic, Intel's never made money to speak of on
flash, yet they persist in it as a strategic direction. One side
effect of their cash flow is that they can invest in low-profit
segments if it fits into their long-term plans or enables their CPU
sales.
That was predicted *here*, if you care to read the archives.
Absolute arrogance is a guarantee of disaster, sooner or later.
Fortunately the RMBS debacle was sooner.
I don't need to read the archives, I was here, and in agreement. I
agree with you on this as well - corporate arrogance is very risky.
It was a stumble that would have killed many smaller companies.
Certainly it's clear. The PHB's thought process is the only thing
that's murky. ...cut off your dick because the wife has a
headache?
Sorry, I'm having a hard time mapping this to chipset strategy.
I wish you well. Keep thinking sweet thoughts. Your leaders are
driving you off a cliff, me thinks.
Well, they're still cutting the paychecks, and that's a Good Thing,
for me at least. If they collapse, I'll retire or find something else
to do, but I don't believe it will happen too soon. Time will tell.
In any case, it's not like a religious commitment or anything; they're
just a corporate employer.
<shrug> I never had any problems with Via chipsets (at least no
more than others). I do know enough to get appropriate drivers.
I've always preferred SiS though. Now with nVidia in the market
there are *many* alternatives to the Intel stuff.
Alternatives are a good thing. I don't have first-hand experience
with Via in recent years, but they seem to be the one everyone
complains about.
If Intel thinks they can take the PC "private" again, they should
remember the RMBS fiasco. ...and Itanic! (though I"m certain they
still believe).
Again, time will tell.
So you're contradicting yourself?
I don't think so. Typically, there are 3 generations of fabs running
high volume at any given time, and that's true today. Lower-end,
lower-margin products (including older CPUs) run on the older lines,
and the high-speed, high-margin stuff runs on the latest fabs. I'm
sure AMD runs in a similar fashion, though they have fewer fab lines,
so probably have less spread between the ends. I'm not real familiar
with their capacity or their fab designs, but I'm sure they don't shut
down their older capacity when new fabs come online.
So you admit that it makes good business sense to make widgets on
*expensive* tools that could be used for more *profitable*
products? Further, it makes good business sense to force a good
business partner out of your market, into the competition's, even
when you don't have a pot to piss in?
That decision has certainly been made. Wafer fab starts and product
mix are pretty flexible over the medium term. Demand for products vs.
potential margins vs. fab capability vs. die costs are all weighed to
determine how many wafers to start on what lines. Yes, you could make
more CPUs on the lines that make flash and chipsets, but this would
only make sense if you were unable to make enough on the other lines.
Of course, many of the older fabs are incapable of making the latest
CPUs, but will turn out flash and chipsets quite nicely, with very
good yields, since the performance was fine-tuned while they were
making high-margin CPUs under intense scrutiny.
I'm not a policy guy, but I'd have to assume that the most sacred cow
is the top few tiers of CPU; if demand can't be met, other areas will
be re-prioritized to meet it, since that's where the cash flow is.
I've seen this happen in the past.
Throw in the strategic decisions and contractual commitments for the
widgets, and it's only a difficult decision if you're short of fab
capacity. IME, Intel plans pretty hard to avoid such situations.
Again, choosing to make low-margin products to enable high-margin
products just a cost of doing business.
You Intel folks are strange.
All 80K of us, eh? I used to work at AMD. Did I only get strange
when I changed jobs? Will I become normal again if I quit? Does it
help that I have AMD CPUs as well as Intel?
Of course think as you do. Your paycheck comes from *INTEL*.
Sheesh!
I do have an ulterior motive, but it's pretty dependent on
cost-effectiveness and functionality. I don't have any Intel network
gear, nor do I buy cell phones based on whether or not they have Intel
flash in them (despite the fact that I manufacture flash). Working
for a company (any company) doesn't remove the capacity for
independent thought.
What motive do you think M$ has? Think hard.
You're the one that suggested another motive. I believe it's as I
stated. I'm not sure what Microsoft has to do with chipset marketing
motives.
The *fact* is that Intel has tried to artificially segment and
restrict the market many times. Fortunately, their track record is
worse than M$'.
They certainly have, and will continue to try in the future, I'm sure.
This doesn't change the fact that their chipset strategies seem to
have worked well for them historically. Whether it will bite them in
the future, as you suggest, remains to be seen.
I don't think *you* have any influence. You're simply guided by the
"party-line". I started questioning party-line many years ago,
whin it didn't pass the laugh-test. You should learn the same
trick, but please do keep quiet at work. Independent thinkers
aren't wanted in such organizations. ;-)
You've made a lot of assumptions about me, based on a post about
chipset history. What's my stance on HT, on frequency vs. model
numbers, on Itanium, and other "party-line" issues? It may come as a
surprise to you, but Intel does no mass employee indoctrination on
what kind of chips or designs are superior. Most people who work here
haven't got a clue about the details of CPUs and chipsets, IME.
No, in fact I know *one* who isn't. He's there because he's treated
quite well, and takes advantage of the situation. According to my
friend (his dad) he's not a happy-camper either. No, I just think
you've put the corporate blinkers on.
I'm unsure how you've come to this conclusion, and why you think my
situation is any different from your friend's son. I'm not spouting
pro-Intel sentiment here, just posting my analysis on chipset
marketing strategies (which I still believe are correct).
You're the emotional one! Please explain Intel's action against
ServerWorks in any rational language! They're pissed at BroadCom,
evidently so are going to saw off their own privates to make a
statement. Well, they tried the same thing with Itanic, and that's
worked just *soo* well.
As I've said, I have no expertise in server chipsets or their
marketing strategies. I don't believe I've defended Intel's strategy
in this area (since I rarely venture opinions on things I don't know
about). I simply posted my own perception of Intel's broader chipset
strategy (which is what started the thread), since no one else had
touched on that point. You then accused me of agendas based on my
email address. I fail to see any emotional points in my posts, but
feel free to point them out for me.
You seem to be doing a good job trying.
Heh! You don't seriously believe that my post on a rather obvious
aspect of historic chipset strategy is somehow advancing the purposes
of the megacorp Intel, do you?
(hint: do you know what a signature separator is?)
Any suggestions on spelling or grammar while you're at it?
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer