so Jobs gets screwed by IBM over game consoles, thus Apple-Intel ?

[George Macdonald]

Nah. Too important to the DoD. For now, anyway.

There has to be at least one domestic I suppose... not that *I* was
suggesting that Boeing will fail... just that according to your corporate
survival model they are doomed in the commercial market.

Now, George. Temper, temper. Your opinion, or mine, won't make the
slightest difference to AMD's fortunes, and this isn't, at least
ostensibly, a stock-pumping group.

It's not my "opinion" that IBM, HP and others are taking up AMD64 CPUs...
HP has also taken the Turion for a new notebook line. The Cray XD1 has
just won a shoot-out of massively parallel HPC systems. You should pay
attention: the ball is rolling. As for pumping stock... no, I am only
countering your dumping of AMD with facts... which you want to ignore.

If I enjoyed baiting you, it would be much too easy. I really don't
enjoy baiting you, so I'm sorry if my choice of words, or my mastery of
the facts, upsets you.

Just no need to spout lies as though they are accepted facts.

 

[Robert Myers]

It's not my "opinion" that IBM, HP and others are taking up AMD64 CPUs...
HP has also taken the Turion for a new notebook line. The Cray XD1 has
just won a shoot-out of massively parallel HPC systems. You should pay
attention: the ball is rolling. As for pumping stock... no, I am only
countering your dumping of AMD with facts... which you want to ignore.


Just no need to spout lies as though they are accepted facts.

If you're going to use imflammatory language, you should perhaps be a
little more careful.

"When the big guys decline AMD as a vendor, it means something."

"When the big guys decline AMD as a vendor" does not translate into
"The big guys have declined AMD as a vendor," as manifestly they have
not. It means exactly what it says: vendors make choices for reasons,
and not because of irrational bias. Only Dell has outright declined
AMD as a vendor for all its products. As discussed here, though, AMD
just isn't making much of an impact on the corporate desktop and
notebook market. The reasons were discussed here, this month, and they
have nothing to do with my prejudices about AMD or Intel. A
manufacturer selling into the corporate desktop and notebook market
gets to make a choice for each product, and each time they decline AMD
as a vendor for a product, it is for a reason.

If I wanted to play this the way you are playing it, I'd accuse you of
claiming that the big guys never decline AMD as a vendor, cite cases
where AMD has been declined as a vendor, and accuse you of posting
lies. I don't want to play that way, and I wish you would stop.

As to "the ball is rolling," I'm skeptical. AMD has pretty well played
its hand.

RM

 

[keith]

And you know how IBM manages its fabs and does process development? Puts
you one up on me....
;-)

And don't forget that there may be a large number of different parts
being made in those fabs all at the same time...

Not only a large number of different parts, but a large number of
different processes running concurrently.

 

[Del Cecchi]

Airbus has been crowing about out-selling Boeing and poaching their
orders
at the recent Paris airshow, with large orders of single aisle and even
double-aisle mid-range and of course they think they're going to make a
kill as the sole supplier of elephantine-sized long rangers. I have my
doubts myself and tend to think their elephant is going to turn out to
be
err, white.

But since it is a company owned by several countries, with no
stockholders to pacify, it makes no difference if the plane is
successful. They will cut the price until someone buys it.

del cecchi

 

[George Macdonald]

But since it is a company owned by several countries, with no
stockholders to pacify, it makes no difference if the plane is
successful. They will cut the price until someone buys it.

There are govt. holdings in there of course but its jointly owned by EADS
(which is a merger of three separate companies from France, Germany &
Spain) and BAE Systems. The partner companies are supposed to be
commercial corps. [nudge, nudge] and are partly publicly traded. It's my
understanding that the policy of the 4th Rei... oops, European Union, is to
further privatize.

As for price, that can of course depend on govt. subidies, which is at the
root of current WTO haggling. Then again, I'm not sure how many airports
currently "support" it nor how much work would be required on ground
support. I know I'd hate to be last off the 3rd or 4th arrival of one of
those things in the immigration/customs hall.

A little more on-topic, I'm still wondering how the AMD financial
arrangements were worked out with the EU... though I gather the former E.
Germany is apparently stll classifiable as a zone which needs economic
stimulation. After all, Intel did benefit hugely from Eire's similar
status.

 

[George Macdonald]

If you're going to use imflammatory language, you should perhaps be a
little more careful.

Oh cut the feigned indignation - doesn't ring true. If you don't want your
toe stubbed quit posting provocative misinfo.

"When the big guys decline AMD as a vendor, it means something."

"When the big guys decline AMD as a vendor" does not translate into
"The big guys have declined AMD as a vendor," as manifestly they have
not. It means exactly what it says: vendors make choices for reasons,
and not because of irrational bias. Only Dell has outright declined
AMD as a vendor for all its products. As discussed here, though, AMD
just isn't making much of an impact on the corporate desktop and
notebook market.

We've been over that already in excruciating detail and yet you still
insist on harping on it. You've even admitted that you are not interested
in AMD and don't pay much attention to it so how can you pretend to have an
authoritative opinion? The fact is that the success stories *are* taking
place, the swing has taken place which allows AMD into the high ASP range;
even Supermicro is selling mbrds for Opteron now, albeit quietly...
apparently because their customers *asked* for it. If you talk to Dell and
insist, they will supply an AMD-based system - this is well known. We'll
see if this success can be sustained and extended.

The reasons were discussed here, this month, and they
have nothing to do with my prejudices about AMD or Intel. A
manufacturer selling into the corporate desktop and notebook market
gets to make a choice for each product, and each time they decline AMD
as a vendor for a product, it is for a reason.

If I wanted to play this the way you are playing it, I'd accuse you of
claiming that the big guys never decline AMD as a vendor, cite cases
where AMD has been declined as a vendor, and accuse you of posting
lies. I don't want to play that way, and I wish you would stop.

But I have never said that "never". Your statement of "when the big......"
is a clear suggestion that AMD being declined by multiple vendors is an
established fact, when the opposite is plainly the case.

As to "the ball is rolling," I'm skeptical. AMD has pretty well played
its hand.

"There you go again".:-[]

 

[Robert Myers]

But I have never said that "never". Your statement of "when the big......"
is a clear suggestion that AMD being declined by multiple vendors is an
established fact, when the opposite is plainly the case.

You can stick with your interpretation of what I wrote if that's what
you want, but it's that interpretation that's necessary to justify
continuing the argument. Vendors do choose to put Intel chips into
products more often than they choose to put AMD chips into products.
That's an established fact. It's happening, and it's going to continue
to happen for all kinds of reasons. When HP put Opteron chips into its
workstations and declined to use Itanium, they were declining Intel as
a vendor. Does that make you feel better?

RM

 

[YKhan]

But since it is a company owned by several countries, with no
stockholders to pacify, it makes no difference if the plane is
successful. They will cut the price until someone buys it.

That's basically how Boeing does it too. Nobody actually pays list
price on these things.

Yousuf Khan

 

[chrisv]

Maybe you should show that to all the AMDtrolls who insist that AMD is a
much more worthy partner for Apple.

"Travelinman" is a MacTroll and should be ignored.

 

[George Macdonald]

That's an established fact.

That is your opinion.

 

[Flint]

Oh cut the feigned indignation - doesn't ring true. If you don't want your
toe stubbed quit posting provocative misinfo.

And their response wasn't permanently etched in stone either. Yhey left
the door to reconsider them down the road, which itself reads more like
a veiled warning to Intel.


Funny, that's *exactly* where they've seen their largest marketshare
increases in the past 12 months. The last figures I've seen show
AMD gaining aproximately 4% in the past 12-18 months. AMD's *gain* in
that period exceeds Apples total market share. Jobs choice of Intel
(while not a dumb move) was still motivated by ego however.

We've been over that already in excruciating detail and yet you still
insist on harping on it.

<snip>

His "When the big guys decline AMD as a vendor, it means something."
overlooks the fact that the 'big guys' were looking at AMD in the first
place, and there is a *reason* for that... like some vendors are growing
tired of dealing with Intel? Dell didn't take a good long look at AMD
for *no* reason. Their passing on Intel isn't etched in stone either,
and can only be interpreted as they may simply don't feel AMD isn't
quite ready to be a singular strategic supply partner, that's all.

There's no question as to AMD's Athlon64 being a technically superior
processor in most respects however. There's no reason some vendors can
use either or both, aside from contractual issues.

The reasons were discussed here, this month, and they
have nothing to do with my prejudices about AMD or Intel. A
manufacturer selling into the corporate desktop and notebook market
gets to make a choice for each product, and each time they decline AMD
as a vendor for a product, it is for a reason.

If I wanted to play this the way you are playing it, I'd accuse you of
claiming that the big guys never decline AMD as a vendor, cite cases
where AMD has been declined as a vendor, and accuse you of posting
lies. I don't want to play that way, and I wish you would stop.

But I have never said that "never". Your statement of "when the big......"
is a clear suggestion that AMD being declined by multiple vendors is an
established fact, when the opposite is plainly the case.

As to "the ball is rolling," I'm skeptical. AMD has pretty well played
its hand.

"There you go again".:-[]

 

[Mike Smith]

That is your opinion.

If it's just his opinion, then where are all the AMD-equipped PCs?
Don't sales figures alone make it a clearly established *fact* that more
vendors choose Intel than AMD?

 

[George Macdonald]

If it's just his opinion, then where are all the AMD-equipped PCs?
Don't sales figures alone make it a clearly established *fact* that more
vendors choose Intel than AMD?

Fair enough - that there are more Intel-based CPUs being used/sold is not
in doubt... not that that exactly translates to more vendors. RM has a way
of wording things to provoke controversy - it's his way. He's in permanent
mourning over the Itanium he bought and seems to want to blame it on AMD
instead of where the true blame lies - funny that!.

In fact on re-reading his post what I, in my haste, really meant to
highlight as his opinion was sentence following the one above:

It's happening, and it's going to continue to happen for all kinds of reasons.

He doesn't have any tangible reasons... because there are none.

 

[Robert Myers]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:30:01 -0400, Mike Smith


He doesn't have any tangible reasons... because there are none.

Here's a reason:

For 2004, Intel earned $7.5 billion and AMD earned $91 million.

I'd not bet my future on AMD against Intel for anything.

RM

 

[James Arveson]

Here's a reason:

For 2004, Intel earned $7.5 billion and AMD earned $91 million.

I'd not bet my future on AMD against Intel for anything.

But if you are a typical Mac advocate, that would be a reason to use AMD,
not Intel :^)

James

 

[George Macdonald]

Here's a reason:

For 2004, Intel earned $7.5 billion and AMD earned $91 million.

I'd not bet my future on AMD against Intel for anything.

The status quo is no guarantee of anything. For 2004 the only thing Intel
has been good at is quasi-legal/illegal marketing chicanery - make no
mistake: they have been soiled by this shameful behavior; they have most of
their eggs in one basket, i.e. Dell and AMD has a piece of the high ASP
market where it matters most. Those are the tangibles. Your insistence
that AMD must fail is just perverse - they don't need to put Intel out of
business to be successful; they don't even need 50% of the market.

 

[James Arveson]

The status quo is no guarantee of anything. For 2004 the only thing Intel
has been good at is quasi-legal/illegal marketing chicanery - make no
mistake: they have been soiled by this shameful behavior; they have most of
their eggs in one basket, i.e. Dell and AMD has a piece of the high ASP
market where it matters most.

The high ASP market is in the server/enterprise niche. Intel has taken at
least as much of that market asthe PC business - probably more. I don't know
what you are referring to when you say that Dell has the "high ASP market".
They aren't in the microprocessor business. The sell PCs - and "high ASP" is
not a term usually applied in that market. As to AMD, they will have to do
better than they are. They are barely profitable.

Those are the tangibles. Your insistence
that AMD must fail is just perverse - they don't need to put Intel out of
business to be successful; they don't even need 50% of the market.

No. But it appears that 20% won't sustain them. They aren't generating
enough profits to keep them competitive in the long run. And it really AMD
that has put all of their eggs into one basket. They just spun off their
unprofitable flash memory business.

James

 

[George Macdonald]

The high ASP market is in the server/enterprise niche. Intel has taken at
least as much of that market asthe PC business - probably more. I don't know
what you are referring to when you say that Dell has the "high ASP market".
They aren't in the microprocessor business. The sell PCs - and "high ASP" is
not a term usually applied in that market. As to AMD, they will have to do
better than they are. They are barely profitable.

Workstation is also high ASP and AMD is making serious in roads there --
something which they had problems doing until recently -- as well as in
server. Microsoft is using AMD64 internally and for the MSN server farm -
that has to count for something to all Windows Server buyers.

Recent results in massively parallel HPC are looking good too -- another
high ASP item -- with lots of custom racks and the Cray XD1 recently won a
shoot-out.

Rephrase:

[...one basket, i.e. Dell... and AMD has a piece...]

better for you?

BTW you don't seriously think Dell makes its profits from selling $299. PCs
- their Enterprise Division is a *very* big player in server *and*
networking. Michael Dell was voted Network World's "Network Man of the
Year" for 2003 & 2004 by their readers - made no sense to me but there ya
go.

AMD's processor business *is* healthy & profitable - their huge losses from
Spansion dragged them into the red recently... something which they are
trying to correct by dumping their interest.

I'd suggest you get your facts together before arguing.

No. But it appears that 20% won't sustain them. They aren't generating
enough profits to keep them competitive in the long run. And it really AMD
that has put all of their eggs into one basket. They just spun off their
unprofitable flash memory business.

See above - they are doing quite well in processors, though I am concerned
that Geode may turn out to be a loser eventually too. Traditionally their
20% was at the low(ish) ASP end - that is changing. Obviously more is
better but IMO if they get 20% across the entire ASP range -- in fact
weighted towards the high end as they are at the moment -- I don't see why
that won't sustain them... especially if they can curb Intel's marketing
chicanery, as is the case in Japan.

 

[Lefty Bigfoot]

BTW you don't seriously think Dell makes its profits from selling $299. PCs
- their Enterprise Division is a *very* big player in server *and*
networking. Michael Dell was voted Network World's "Network Man of the
Year" for 2003 & 2004 by their readers - made no sense to me but there ya
go.

A reward for selling some of the crappiest network switches in
the world (PowerConnect)?

AMD's processor business *is* healthy & profitable - their huge losses from
Spansion [sic] dragged them into the red recently... something which they are
trying to correct by dumping their interest.

They can dump their interest in my bank account if that will
help them.

 

[James Arveson]

Workstation is also high ASP and AMD is making serious in roads there --
something which they had problems doing until recently -- as well as in
server. Microsoft is using AMD64 internally and for the MSN server farm -

that has to count for something to all Windows Server buyers.

First you identify Dell as a high ASP competitor of Intel and now you are
recommending MS as a role model for purchasers of servers :^)

Recent results in massively parallel HPC are looking good too -- another
high ASP item -- with lots of custom racks and the Cray XD1 recently won a
shoot-out.

And the top 500 supercomputers?? How many were Xeon? AMD? Power?

Rephrase:

[...one basket, i.e. Dell... and AMD has a piece...]

better for you?
OK.

BTW you don't seriously think Dell makes its profits from selling $299. PCs
- their Enterprise Division is a *very* big player in server *and*
networking. Michael Dell was voted Network World's "Network Man of the
Year" for 2003 & 2004 by their readers - made no sense to me but there ya
go.

AMD's processor business *is* healthy & profitable - their huge losses from
Spansion dragged them into the red recently... something which they are
trying to correct by dumping their interest.

That may be true. Let's take a look at their quarterly now that they have
eliminated the failing flash business (that they lost to a competitor).

I'd suggest you get your facts together before arguing.


See above - they are doing quite well in processors, though I am concerned
that Geode may turn out to be a loser eventually too.

However, they are evolving into a one-product company.

Traditionally their
20% was at the low(ish) ASP end - that is changing. Obviously more is
better but IMO if they get 20% across the entire ASP range -- in fact
weighted towards the high end as they are at the moment -- I don't see why
that won't sustain them... especially if they can curb Intel's marketing
chicanery, as is the case in Japan.

You may well be right about the server market. However, AMD badly needs
manufacturing capability to take advantage of any opportunities for growth.
That is the basic issue I was referring to. If Intel needs added capacity,
somebody reaches into their back pocket, pulls out $3B and builds a factory
in qne year. AMD can't respond that way. My guess is that within this year
Intel will meet or exceed any real and perceived advantages that AMD64 now
has. At that point their manufacturing advantages will dominate.

That is why Jobs went with Intel, rather than AMD. He may have seen IBM to
be technologically dominate at one time. He changed his mind. He could
change it again (more easily). But there is nothing known today that would
argue that Intel is not the right choice for Apple.

James