AMD: 'The dog didn't eat Otellini's homework'
Moore's Red Herring
AMD finds it amusing that on a day when the EU dropped a record €1.06 billion fine on Intel, Intel is still calling the shots.
"Obviously, we've done more than a few interviews today, and most of the interviews that we've done have involved us responding to what [Intel CEO] Paul Otellini had to say," AMD spokesman John Taylor tells The Reg. "So, a nine-year investigation and the European Commission releases it conclusions after looking at a mountain of compelling evidence, and every question we're being asking are those Paul Otellini would have us be asked. We're having some fun with that."
But AMD's willing to answer those questions nonetheless.
Otellini argues that whatever the EU says, consumers have in no way been harmed by Intel. "It's hard to imagine how consumers were harmed in an industry which has lowered the cost of computing by a factor of 100 during the term of this case," he told reporters this morning via conference call.
But AMD wonders if prices could have dropped even further. "The thing to focus on is where prices and innovation could have been if there had been a free and open market," AMD's VP of platform marketing Pat Moorhead says. "Nobody says there's a limit to the amount of innovation out there or a limit to the amount that market prices can fall...
"Our prices are about 30 to 50 per cent lower than Intel on a processor-by-processor basis. Who's to say if there were free markets that Intel's prices wouldn't be lower?"
Moorhead calls Otellini's comments "expected behavior from a three-time convicted monopolist," referring not only to the EU's decision but also to previous anti-competitive rulings in Japan and Korea.
Asked about the mystery documents that supposedly absolve Intel of any wrongdoing, Moorhead accused Otellini of resorting to the-dog-ate-my-homework tactics. "This was a nine year investigation," Moorhead says. "After nine years, it's hard to claim that the dog ate your homework."
In a blog post, AMD's Nigel Dessau claims that behind closed doors, Intel was whispering that if the EU cracked down on its business practices, prices would go up. Otellini steered clear of such suggestions this morning, saying "prices will continue to go down. Quality goes up. Performance goes up. There's nothing in this ruling that reverses Moore's Law." But as AMD sees it, Moore's Law is a red herring.
"If it's truly a competitive market, Intel's prices come down. That's the most likely scenario," Moorhead says. ®
Moore was wrong over and over again.
Not only was his original prediction wrong, but his subsequent "tweaking" was also wrong.
He took Turings [genius] ideas (from the 50s) made it look like he thought of it and tried to predict the growth numerically, he was wrong originally and then wrong again when he tried to retrospectively change what he originally said (I'm a great at predicting last weeks lottery numbers once I look them up).
Actually he did mention cost in his original quote "The number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost" does that make you one more idiot misquoting and misinterpreting it?
Moores law is a big white elephant as nobody really knows what it is (including Moore).
If you had bothered to read anything relating to this situation, you wouldn't have posted such a foolish opinion.
Intel forced OEMs to: not stock AMD products, put out products late, or hide/limit their AMD products. All of which is illegal.
As for the A64s, are you joking?
While AMD was putting out a superior product (the A64), Intel still held 80% of the market. Yes, that sounds like an AMD monopoly!
Nobody is disputing that you can price whatever you want for your products (see Intel and i7!), but you can't blackmail/bribe your way to a monopoly.
AMD's using lower prices as a smoke screen IMO. AMD can't make money on processor prices with as low as they are now. What makes them think that they would make MORE money if they got LESS money for each chip?
Doesn't make sense.
If Intel hadn't attempted to retain their monopoly illegally, perhaps AMD would be making money instead of losing it.
Moore's Law Does Mean Prices Fall
If the number of transistors on a chip double every 18 months or so and the cost of producing a chip does not double, the cost per transistor drops. In a competitive market, the other guy can use this to drop his price per chip so you have to drop yours, unless you have a monopoly. Intel made sure they retained their monopoly, illegally.
Moore's Law permitted going to larger wafers and multi-core chips. More transistors per mm^2 increases the incentive to put more on a chip/wafer. It does lower costs/prices per chip.
Did anyone else notice that when AMD temporarily created a monopoly in AMD64 chips that the prices for their top processors were a bit high? That was a legitimate monopoly. They innovated. Intel innovates but also bribes folks to retain monopoly. There's the rub. If Intel's products were better than AMDs Intel would not have had to do that. No one would want to sell AMD chips.