Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:43:41 03/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 02, 2003 at 22:18:35, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On March 02, 2003 at 10:34:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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_. > >No innovation where? AMD? That's so laughable, I don't know where to begin. Begin by learning to read and comprehend. In your list above, did you mention AMD? Then why would you think my comment was about AMD? It was about (for example) Wal-Mart. They are _not_ copying another operation. They are a retail seller. What did Boeing copy? The 707? First commercial jet airliner? Visa? None of those are "innovation-heavy" things. They are simply businesses. Intel _defines_ the X86 architecture, because they _are_ the X86 architects. Anybody making compatibles (AMD) is _following_. Which means they will always be "behind". Because Intel will change the specs, and start shipping chips, and AMD has to quickly catch up. That's just the way it is when you are copying your competition's product exactly... For example, automobiles are different. Because one vendor doesn't set the specification _precisely_ and then everyone else has to match _exactly_. > >> And Boeing is not a "copier". They've >>been around way too long. IE what did they copy for the 707??? None of the > >Several companies had commercial aircraft before Boeing. Who made the first commercial jet airliner? 'nuff said. > >>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. > >And manufacturing any other product isn't? If there is no demand, there will be >no manufacture. If there were analogous cases to Intel/AMD, I'd buy it. But name _one_ field where one company gets to design the specifications, change them when they want, and that must be followed _exactly_ by the competition. Where that happens, the foller is _always_ going to be behind and there is nothing that can be done about it. Lotus trying to keep up with windows API comes to mind. And where is 123 today? > >>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 they were still PCs, compatible with several other companies' PCs. If you >claim AMD is a follower because they release a product compatible with another >companies product, Dell becomes a follower by your definition. But nobody gets to say "A PC must look exactly like this" and force Dell to build _exactly_ that. There are a few "givens" that all manufacturers have to deal with. But only a few. Processor = X86 or compatible. Some form of off-the-shelf FAM. One of dozens of disk drives and drive interfaces. Ditto for CD/DVD/etc. > >>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. > >AMD does not exactly copy Intel processors, anymore than Boeing copied the DC-10 >when they built the first 707. It is good that they didn't since the 707 was 20 years prior to the DC-10, maybe more like 30. :) > In 1982, AMD was making 286s FOR Intel that had >more features than the parts Intel was manufacturing. To make a claim that AMD >is showing no innovation in their products is simply an ignorant claim. I did not say they were showing no innovation, and I don't make "ignorant claims". You might try to put words in my mouth if you want, but that won't make 'em mine. I said AMD _is_ following Intel. And that is _clearly_ true. Anyone that argues that point _is_ ignorant of important technical details.
This page took 0.02 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.