who should acquire amd??

[CrackerJack]

Qualcomm
Or
Samsung

Or other?

Wal-Mart

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I am not a troll or a idiot by the way. I thought what I said before was a good idea.

I've been asked to be more brief, and that is a brief a response as I can muster.

Taking that particular brake off the discussion, my most respectful response is that you are either trolling because that idea is insanely stupid and laughable, or you are an idiot that doesn't understand the ramifications of what you said so flippantly.

Who exactly has patent licensing for x86 processors? Who is actually producing a decent volume of said processors? Now, who owns a bunch of the patents for current GPU technologies? Who makes current discrete GPUs? In case you missed it, the answers to these questions are:
AMD, Intel, and VIA to some extent
AMD and Intel
AMD and Nvidia
AMD and Nvidia

Kinda seems like the list of people allowed to use this technology, because of IP rights and protections, boils down to one of three companies. Remove AMD from the above equation, and you've got one CPU player and 2 GPU players. The problem with that, other than the monopoly, is that GPUs depend upon CPUs. If this somehow got past regulation, Intel could theoretically crush Nvidia by inventing a much faster GPU interconnect and not licensing the technology to Nvidia. Intel GPUs would therefore always be better than Nvidia, using a monopoly on critical infrastructure to eliminate competition.

Do you understand why this is stupid? Why the very notion that a monopoly should be tolerated is either the idea of an idiot or a fool? If not, let's just look back at history to inform us: https://ministryoffear.wordpress.com/2009/01/28/10-greatest-monopolies/
In each and every one of those ten cited cases (which are only a fraction of the anti-trut suits brought to court) consumers got boned. Price fixing, blatantly terrible decision making, and generally terrible business practices are the hallmark of monopolies. Consumers are bilked out of more cash, for an inferior product, that they have no choice but to pay for. People moan now about the price of Intel CPUs, but just imagine if your next dual core processor was $500 because Intel could get away with charging that much for it. Think that's a stretch, then obviously you're uninformed. Intel has been busted already for anti-competitive business practices against AMD. It couldn't be much of a response if I didn't have a link though: http://www.extremetech.com/computin...rs-over-amd-athlon-benchmarking-shenanigans?=

That's right, Intel lied to have their product move in the face of a superior competitor. Rather than admit that the decision was bad (which they did with the switch to the Core2 architecture), they lied to consumers. When placed in the same situation (Bulldozer), AMD has cherry picked testing, but never fully fabricated results. You are suggesting that a company with a reputation for lying be allowed a monopoly over a vital industry. That is so fundamentally stupid that, again, only an idiot or troll would say it. The former because they were so misinformed, and the latter to get a rise out of people who can't stand seeing something so stupid said aloud.



If I was to be immensely generous, I'd say that you are an optimist. Somehow, despite the track record, you believe Intel would use a monopoly on an IP to deliver a better product at a fair price. Unfortunately, that moves past optimist territory back firmly into the idiot range. Intel would have financial incentives to overcharge, no competitive market force to balance their costs, and worst of all no reason to improve their products. It isn't hard to imagine this new conglomeration of AMD and Intel demanding consumers pay huge sums of money for inferior products, because they already did it. If all of this somehow fails to get you to understand why the suggestion made is flawed, I have an answer for my original response.



Edit:
I'm not calling names here. I'm stating that entrance into a discussion about which you are either fundamentally misinformed or have an indefensible position isn't exactly a way to further said discussion. If I was to enter a debate about energy usage, and say that we should just outlaw anything but high efficiency lighting, would make me an idiot in that discussion, whether or not I was a genius otherwise.

Likewise, walking into a discussion about semiconductors, and suggesting that the only two real remaining competitors be merged, is a stupid introduction. What's worse, there's no explanation as to why it would be a good idea. Maybe you could elaborate and say that a governmental commission would be setup to prevent unfair pricing, maybe you'd think that the merger would force Intel to make the x86 structure open, the problem is none of this was brought up. Without some reasonable explanation the idea is stupid. Insisting that you aren't being an idiot, while not explaining why your patently stupid idea isn't, doesn't exactly scream intelligence.

This is a forum, make your point. All you've said thus far is "they should merge because they both make the same thing." Run with it, give us something to work with. If you can't meet that insanely low bar, then you really aren't discussing. There are plenty of places to just post a blob of words, that don't require any defending because there is no discussion. This forum isn't one of them. Ideas here are only as good as their defense.

 

[64K]

Wouldn't that solve this issue if AMD and Intel Merged into one large company? It would be like a win win for everyone they both need each other to survive,

Intel already has ~10 times the revenue of AMD and ~100 times the Market Cap.

I am not a troll or a idiot by the way. I thought what I said before was a good idea.

Never start a defense with "I am not a troll or an idiot" It will not end well.

 

[Moofachuka]

Valve!!!

 

[cadaveca]

Edit:
I'm not calling names here.

Yes you are. But whatever. Maybe you should consider that some of our users are not the age of majority, and lack both knowledge and life experience, and have a bit more tact in your responses. Not everyone in this world knows everything there is to know like you seem to.

ROFL.

I could care less about monopolies on the tech world, and personally, I think it'd be better if things were more expensive, and people had less access to tech. Cellphones and the internet are the devil's work, and you're sitting here defending it.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Yes you are. But whatever. Maybe you should consider that some of our users are not the age of majority, and lack both knowledge and life experience, and have a bit more tact in your responses. Not everyone in this world knows everything there is to know like you seem to.

ROFL.

I could care less about monopolies on the tech world, and personally, I think it'd be better if things were more expensive, and people had less access to tech. Cellphones and the internet are the devil's work, and you're sitting here defending it.

DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ NUUUUUUUUUUTZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

HAVE SPOKEN!

 

[64K]

Yes you are. But whatever. Maybe you should consider that some of our users are not the age of majority, and lack both knowledge and life experience, and have a bit more tact in your responses. Not everyone in this world knows everything there is to know like you seem to.

ROFL.

I could care less about monopolies on the tech world, and personally, I think it'd be better if things were more expensive, and people had less access to tech. Cellphones and the internet are the devil's work, and you're sitting here defending it.

Then they should expect to be called out if they talk shit.

 

[cadaveca]

Then they should expect to be called out if they talk shit.

Well, given that AMD has problems with silicon, and Intel has some of the best fabs, and has offered AMD fab time (if even jokingly), and the IP sharing agreement, it does kind of make sense that Intel would buy AMD, acquire the tech they share, and then spin off the GPU division back into ATI.

Monopolies be damned, since that's the only thing really preventing it. That and NOTHING else. Intel wants AMD's tech, or they wouldn't already have that agreement, and to make a single purchase to acquire that tech indefinitely would be a good business move. It woud probably put some people out of work, but I doubt it would truly be as bad as some might want to say it would be. People forget the purpose of patents, what they do, and also forget the fact that should a monopoly form, and Intel "slack off" on innovation, then no one will buy their products. THe idea that we should abhor a monopoly, beucase it'll amek a company lazy...is rather asinine in my books. Companies have to meet the needs of their customers, or they fail.

Also, it is a fact that with less hardware on the market, there will be less problems with software optimizations for different platforms, and then software might actually improve quite a bit, if there is only one x86 processor on the market. Simplicity can't be knocked.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Well, given that AMD has problems with silicon, and Intel has some of the best fabs, and has offered AMD fab time (if even jokingly), and the IP sharing agreement, it does kind of make sense that Intel would buy AMD, acquire the tech they share, and then spin off the GPU division back into ATI.

Monopolies be damned, since that's the only thing really preventing it. That and NOTHING else. Intel wants AMD's tech, or they wouldn't already have that agreement, and to make a single purchase to acquire that tech indefinitely would be a good business move. It woud probably put some people out of work, but I doubt it would truly be as bad as some might want to say it would be. People forget the purpose of patents, what they do, and also forget the fact that should a monopoly form, and Intel "slack off" on innovation, then no one will buy their products. THe idea that we should abhor a monopoly, beucase it'll amek a company lazy...is rather asinine in my books. Companies have to meet the needs of their customers, or they fail.

Also, it is a fact that with less hardware on the market, there will be less problems with software optimizations for different platforms, and then software might actually improve quite a bit, if there is only one x86 processor on the market. Simplicity can't be knocked.

Exactly how does one "not buy their products" if a monopoly refuses to innovate? I never thought I would hear what I always considered an intelligent person advocate for a one-company system!

Maybe we should do that for all motherboards, GPU's, cases, monitors, etc. I think you might be tech-smart, but have no background in economics, and it shows.

 

[BiggieShady]

Cellphones and the internet are the devil's work, and you're sitting here defending it.

If that's so TPU is 9th circle of hell ... I think I speak for all of us when I say we all knew it deep inside ...

 

[cadaveca]

Exactly how does one "not buy their products" if a monopoly refuses to innovate? I never thought I would hear what I always considered an intelligent person advocate for a one-company system!

Maybe we should do that for all motherboards, GPU's, cases, monitors, etc. I think you might be tech-smart, but have no background in economics, and it shows.

LoL. How many posts have I made saying I'm an idiot? And you take me seriously?

Economics are dumb. So is societal structure and money.


PLeas also don't forget... if you own or use a cell phone, you have no idea what's going on in my head. The fact you have one says you are incapable of seeing things from my perspective. Intelligence has nothing to with it.


BTW, thanks for the vote of confidence, but really, I'm not that smart either. Like thanks for making me bear that responsibility.

Finally, think about that cell phone... is it x86? And what can you do with it? Anything an x86 CPU does, pretty much?

If that's so TPU is 9th circle of hell ... I think I speak for all of us when I say we all knew it deep inside ...

Ha! At least you had the foresight to see the tree in the forest.

 

[64K]

LoL. How many posts have I made saying I'm an idiot? And you take me seriously?

Economics are dumb. So is societal structure and money.


PLeas also don't forget... if you own or use a cell phone, you have no idea what's going on in my head. The fact you have one says you are incapable of seeing things from my perspective. Intelligence has nothing to with it.


BTW, thanks for the vote of confidence, but really, I'm not that smart either. Like thanks for making me bear that responsibility.




Ha! At least you had the foresight to see the tree in the forest.

But it's not ok for you to be an idiot.

That's the point.

People respect you and look up to you.

 

[cadaveca]

But it's no ok for you to be an idiot.

That's the point.

People respect you and look up to you.

But from my perspective, that only occurs because I am honest. I'm NOT very smart at all.

Please remember, I'm nearly 40, and haven't had a real job in years. Like nearly a decade. And I don't make any money doing reviews... and you think I'm not an idiot? The fact I even write for TPU says it all. I've been offered a job, a well paying job, doing reviews.. and said no, because I'm loyal to W1zz. Meanwhile, my kids need new shoes...

And I'll say it again, x86 CPUs aren't the only option, so Intel would not have a monopoly. Many tablets use ARM-based CPUs and do nearly everything an x86 system can do for most end users.

 

[dorsetknob]

Finally, think about that cell phone... is it x86? And what can you do with it?

yup my phone is X86 it runs Android ( Intel inside ) features an Intel Atom Z2420 1.2Ghz CPU

 

[darkangel0504]

AMD stock is declining. Maybe Microsoft is going to buy AMD. It is really sad for a legacy company

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Well, given that AMD has problems with silicon, and Intel has some of the best fabs, and has offered AMD fab time (if even jokingly), and the IP sharing agreement, it does kind of make sense that Intel would buy AMD, acquire the tech they share, and then spin off the GPU division back into ATI.

Monopolies be damned, since that's the only thing really preventing it. That and NOTHING else. Intel wants AMD's tech, or they wouldn't already have that agreement, and to make a single purchase to acquire that tech indefinitely would be a good business move. It woud probably put some people out of work, but I doubt it would truly be as bad as some might want to say it would be. People forget the purpose of patents, what they do, and also forget the fact that should a monopoly form, and Intel "slack off" on innovation, then no one will buy their products. THe idea that we should abhor a monopoly, beucase it'll amek a company lazy...is rather asinine in my books. Companies have to meet the needs of their customers, or they fail.

Also, it is a fact that with less hardware on the market, there will be less problems with software optimizations for different platforms, and then software might actually improve quite a bit, if there is only one x86 processor on the market. Simplicity can't be knocked.

If I wanted to call someone a name I would have done so, not asked the question of idiot or troll. Right now I'll call you an applicable name, hypocrite.


You're on a technology site, arguing that competition is a bad thing. Your argument, succinctly put, is that less variation would lead to better products. Have you considered that what you are arguing for is Apple? Maybe that hasn't sunk in, but it's the truth. You're arguing for one company to be able to charge grossly overpriced values for older technology, because there's no viable competition (seriously, how much do they want for an iPOD?). Likewise, technological innovation isn't a priority, as the iPhone might as well just be a clone of whatever the Samsung Galaxy introduced last year.


As to Intel being able to acquire AMD, you're in the right ballpark but playing the wrong game. If Intel moved to acquire AMD it'd be a red tape nightmare. There'd be push back from anti-trust lawyers, that would make any acquisition proceedings take a huge amount of time. Once that decade plus of court fighting was over, Intel would basically be forced to open its patents up for licensing at a "fair" pricing. That negotiation of fair pricing would take another decade, as any competent lawyer would drag their feet and argue out the relative value of every single patent. What Intel wants is what they have, a hollow competitor that can actually occasionally develop something for them. Why would you give that up, when even if you won you'd basically be forced to allow competition?



As far as patent law, you seem to be off base. The express purpose of a patent is the government protecting creative works, by offering a limited monopoly on those creative works for the creators. Said creators agree to have their inventions cataloged, so that when the limited monopoly is over their inventions can benefit the country. Patent law was originally designed to protect the earning power of the people who made things, with the understood agreement that their works would not be theirs forever. The bastardized version of patent law we have today doesn't come close to that lofty goal, and the rise of patent trolling an much extended patent duration mean less and less creative work is being turned into the public domain in a timely fashion.

Intel and AMD have recognized that patent law, as is, can cripple them. As such, they've agreed to cross-licensing their technology in order to prevent any ugliness. Intel maintains its lead by plowing money into its R&D and Fabs, but AMD still has access to advanced technologies so they can compete. It's keeping your enemy alive, but too weak to fight you. Intel has gotten very good at this.


If you're going to die by the "products must meet consumer desires" crap, then you're sadly mistaken. The phrase you are looking for is "necessary industries can charge whatever they want, assuming there's no competition and no regulation." Don't agree, then ask what Quantum of Solace was about (the actual story was even worse than the movie)? Someone comes in to Bolivia, buys up the water treatment facilities, and jacks up the price of a vital resource 300% over night. People are forced to pay that price, for the exact same thing, because they have no competition. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bolivia/timeline.html

Your argument to support a monopoly is a farce. Your argument that things would invariably be better with less competition is a farce. You assume others are arrogant, childish, or simply ignorant to meet your whims. I see your claims at maturity are hipocisy of the highest order. When you can come back with a reasoned argument, do so. Intel acquiring AMD isn't a reasonable argument for reasons that we've covered numerous times in the last several years, none of which have changed.

 

[cadaveca]

Your argument to support a monopoly is a farce. Your argument that things would invariably be better with less competition is a farce. You assume others are arrogant, childish, or simply ignorant to meet your whims. I see your claims at maturity are hipocisy of the highest order.

A farce? Yes. The rest that I quoted? that's just your own supposition, but thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm not the one writing many paragraphs in response to what was obviously posted by a teenager who is a bit naïve. So I trolled you a bit. All those words to try to prove my opinion wrong, or me wrong or whatever... why? Because you feel the need to back up your opinion to my trolling?


Really though, I think you should have taken the humble road, and not even responded to his post. Instead, you're on this road, and I'm a pig making it all dirty so you get a little dirty too.

Mailman caught on from the let-off. Think about that for a moment.

 

[nolafotoknut]

Yes you are. But whatever. Maybe you should consider that some of our users are not the age of majority, and lack both knowledge and life experience, and have a bit more tact in your responses. Not everyone in this world knows everything there is to know like you seem to.

ROFL.

I could care less about monopolies on the tech world, and personally, I think it'd be better if things were more expensive, and people had less access to tech. Cellphones and the internet are the devil's work, and you're sitting here defending it.

Nice. Although you could care less about monopolies, how do you think economies would be sustainable without competition? As for technology being the devil's work, how are you able to access this site? Seems to me, you support it as well since you use it.

 

[cadaveca]

Nice. Although you could care less about monopolies, how do you think economies would be sustainable without competition? As for technology being the devil's work, how are you able to access this site? Seems to me, you support it as well since you use it.

I don't care about financials. Everything should be free. I hate money as it's the major motivator for 99% of the problems around the world.

I was being a bit of an ass, tech does suck, but like any good prophet, I go to where the evil is to fight it tooth and nail.

 

[TheMailMan78]

@cadaveca and I up in dis bitch!

 

[cadaveca]

You just mad I got to wear the dress this time. Maybe AMD will wear the dress Intel buys, and be their bitch. Oh wait... that's already happening...

 

[TheMailMan78]

You just mad I got to wear the dress this time. Maybe AMD will wear the dress Intel buys, and be their bitch. Oh wait... that's already happening...

No day mad.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

A farce? Yes. The rest that I quoted? that's just your own supposition, but thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm not the one writing many paragraphs in response to what was obviously posted by a teenager who is a bit naïve. So I trolled you a bit. All those words to try to prove my opinion wrong, or me wrong or whatever... why? Because you feel the need to back up your opinion to my trolling?


Really though, I think you should have taken the humble road, and not even responded to his post. Instead, you're on this road, and I'm a pig making it all dirty so you get a little dirty too.

Mailman caught on from the let-off. Think about that for a moment.

So, you troll and expect an equally half-assed answer. Bravo, I fell for your plan. Slow clap. Neither of us is the better off.

 

[rtwjunkie]

I don't care about financials. Everything should be free. I hate money as it's the major motivator for 99% of the problems around the world.

I was being a bit of an ass, tech does suck, but like any good prophet, I go to where the evil is to fight it tooth and nail.

Free? How is it Mailman and you are on the same side in this argument? He has always come accross as an ardent anti-Socialist.

It's like Bizarro-World today, LOL.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Valve!!!

That's not a bad idea. Valve could use AMD's resources to leverage Steam OS as well as fast track VR development.

 

[cadaveca]

Free? How is it Mailman and you are on the same side in this argument? He has always come accross as an ardent anti-Socialist.

It's like Bizarro-World today, LOL.

OH, you didn't know that mailman has been my protégé for many years? I know its hard to tell because he is banned so often.

So, you troll and expect an equally half-assed answer. Bravo, I fell for your plan. Slow clap. Neither of us is the better off.

Like I said, I'm an idiot. But at least you aren't jumping down the young one's throat now, and instead are focused on me. Like, I could care less what anyone thinks about me. THe only people whose opinions I rally for are those of my children. Rather than calling his opinion idiotic, you could have chosen less harsh words. Seemed like you were looking for a fight, so I gave you an easy one. Yet, we are supposed to be a community, so rather than bashing someone down, reach out and help them take a step up higher, please?