Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Introducing "No-Moore's Law"

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 07:34:23 03/02/03

Go up one level in this thread


On March 02, 2003 at 02:02:39, Jeremiah Penery wrote:

>On March 01, 2003 at 20:23:24, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>I consider Intel a "name brand".  I consider AMD a "copier".  Nothing wrong with
>>being a "copier" but it also means you are a "follower".  And 2nd place is all
>>that a follower can _ever_ reach...
>
>Matt already said most of what I wanted to say, so I will just give some
>examples of 'follower' companies that eclipsed (or at least achieved parity)
>with their 'leaders':
>
>AOL, Dell, Boeing, International Paper, Exxon-Mobil, Wal-Mart, Visa, Federal
>Express, FOX (television network)...  The list can go on.


Not the same thing.  _no_ "innovation_.  And Boeing is not a "copier".  They've
been around way too long.  IE what did they copy for the 707???  None of the
above companies is based solely on replicating a product that is identical in
every way to something someone produced before them.

I'm not sure I include base manufacturing processes in this mix either, as
refining crude oil is about supply and demand mainly.

Dell is hardly a "follower".  They jumped into the PC manufacturing world,
but they've done plenty of innovation, from custom machines/motherboards/
etc to customer support.

But _none_ of those vendors build a product that their competition is forced to
copy exclusively.  As Intel is doing.  They were at the right place, at the
right time (yes, I would have preferred that Motorola had been the PC processor
of choice as it is a better ISA) and they now define the PC architecture.





This page took 0.04 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.