Would we all be screwed if AMD went bust, or would the law intervene?

[pipnina]

There's been talk recently about how the X86 instruction set is proprietary, and owned by Intel licensed to AMD. Meaning no-one besides Intel and AMD can produce X86 chips.

But this means that if AMD went bust, only Intel could produce X86 chips, and while this wouldn't put Intel in a monopoly of CPUs (ARM/IBM, even NVIDIA produce CPU/GPU combos) They would effectively have a perfect monopoly of the desktop market. Is this a situation where the powers that be are likely to intervene in? Or do you think we'd end up being forced to either stick with Intel and face ever-increasing prices or jump ship to a different architecture and leave all our old proprietary software behind?

[it_dont_work]

8 minutes ago, pipnina said:

Meaning no-one besides Intel and AMD can produce X86 chips.

And then we'd only be able to use 32bit programs all our 64bit programs wouldn't work anymore since AMD owns that instruction set and licenses it to intel. Help my tinfoil hat is way to tight at the moment,.

[iBabySlapper]

11 minutes ago, pipnina said:

There's been talk recently about how the X86 instruction set is proprietary, and owned by Intel licensed to AMD. Meaning no-one besides Intel and AMD can produce X86 chips.

But this means that if AMD went bust, only Intel could produce X86 chips, and while this wouldn't put Intel in a monopoly of CPUs (ARM/IBM, even NVIDIA produce CPU/GPU combos) They would effectively have a perfect monopoly of the desktop market. Is this a situation where the powers that be are likely to intervene in? Or do you think we'd end up being forced to either stick with Intel and face ever-increasing prices or jump ship to a different architecture and leave all our old proprietary software behind?

AMD owns x64 so they won't completely disappear any time soon, intel buys rights to make 64 bit CPUs from AMD (as far as I understand).

[pipnina]

20 minutes ago, it_dont_work said:

our 64bit programs wouldn't work anymore since AMD owns that instruction set and licenses it to intel

 

18 minutes ago, ibabyslapper said:

AMD owns x64 so they won't completely disappear any time soon

Oh my goodness, it's a circle!

 

I can't be the only one who feels this whole situation is still a bit anti-competitive though, it's one thing if all software's source code was public: you could just recompile for a different architecture. But in the real world people are locked into the X86 architecture by huge volumes of proprietary software, and it's only likely for there to be two manufacturers for the platform?

[it_dont_work]

Just now, pipnina said:

But in the real world people are locked into the X86 architecture by huge volumes of proprietary software, and it's only likely for there to be two manufacturers for the platform?

Worse case, we wait untill the patents run out, or more likely the inevitable owners of the technology, or liquidators license the tech to another company willing to manufacture. New agreements are made, the market rolls on since there's a market there.

 

Whole world keeps spinning and we all still get our tech fix.

[LooneyJuice]

AMD also has a stranglehold on the Console market for the time being, and their enterprise hardware has a chunkier share than what Desktop components would have you think. I get the thought, the what if of an oligopoly or monopoly, but hopefully AMD Execs are business savvy enough, hopefully, to not go belly up. That being said, an Intel-only Desktop market would probably be a bit of an issue for countries with no sufficient consumer protection. Alternatively, I doubt AMD would go bust without a merger of some sort prior. Meaning that someone would probably take advantage of the groundwork to maybe capitalize on an opening in the market. Companies like that don't just disappear like a local mom and pop shop.

 

Disclaimer: These are the ramblings of a person with no Economics degrees, no crazy in-depth information about all the spaces AMD occupies, or their policies, and citing no sources as of yet. This is merely entertaining an interesting and often talked-about idea.

[KuJoe]

There's always ARM.

[iBabySlapper]

1 minute ago, pipnina said:

 

Oh my goodness, it's a circle!

 

I can't be the only one who feels this whole situation is still a bit anti-competitive though, it's one thing if all software's source code was public: you could just recompile for a different architecture. But in the real world people are locked into the X86 architecture by huge volumes of proprietary software, and it's only likely for there to be two manufacturers for the platform?

Sure someone could make a new architecture, but the masses of money and time to make one, and the massive ammount of other factors needed (like luck and coincidence, having the human resources with the right talents, cooperation from software makers, etc. etc.) to make an actually good and usable architecture. They have also made the correct financial choices that have made them the chips of choice for many companies. It also costs a lot to make a x64 cpu of your own, that's why new companies can't feasably make a new (desktop) chip (that doesn't suck at least).

 

Intel and AMD have done all the hard work needed to make good CPUs and that's earning them money, and ofc they'll legally protect their massive investments. This isn't only in CPUs, this is true of any highly manufactured goods (like engines, motors, monitors, high-tech fabrics, etc. etc.). Their products are good and people want them, I don't see anything wrong with that. Making sure competition between any group of companies doesn't get dirty is up to the government, which many Western governments do just fine.

[porina]

I'm not 100% up to speed on the arrangement between AMD and Intel, but my understanding is the licence to AMD was written in a way to prevent AMD from passing it on should they get taken over. It's AMD or bust for a 2nd source of x86. In theory there's nothing stopping anyone else from licencing from Intel, other than the huge sacks of cash they'd probably need making it uneconomic.

 

The mobile area is what worries Intel more than anything AMD have. AMD is an annoyance for today, mobile (not limited to ARM) is the longer term pain point. If AMD were to disappear overnight for whatever reason, we'll just have to pay whatever Intel asks until such point mobile moves up to take over historic desktop. With more and more cloud use cases, the OS is lowering in importance.

 

As for government or other regulatory intervention, it depends on the cause of AMD's demise. If it is poor business decisions on their part, they get what they deserve. If it can be proven Intel did underhand and anti-competitive practices like they have done in the past, that could be very different.

[pipnina]

Just now, ibabyslapper said:

and ofc they'll legally protect their massive investments. This isn't only in CPUs, this is true of any highly manufactured goods (like engines, motors, monitors, high-tech fabrics, etc. etc.). Their products are good and people want them, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Comparing computers to other industries always falls flat. Computers are not cars.

 

An instruction set is closest analogized as a road, a road can't be patented or trademarked- it's a flat bit of tarmac. Maybe the tarmac can be protected (i.e. the design of an individual CPU architecture) but the road cannot. A ford, Ferrari, Honda can all use any road without having to pay some other car manufacturer for the rights to use their road standard.

 

A car might only work with a specific engine (i.e. a Honda won't work with a Subaru engine) but for a computer that's closer to not being able to put an Intel CPU in an AM4 motherboard. Patenting an instruction set (i.e. a standard for computers... doing things computers do by nature) is like Ford patenting a road and asking Audi to pay to use the same road, and tyres needing to be designed specifically for that type of road.

 

 

[LooneyJuice]

Just now, porina said:

I'm not 100% up to speed on the arrangement between AMD and Intel, but my understanding is the licence to AMD was written in a way to prevent AMD from passing it on should they get taken over. It's AMD or bust for a 2nd source of x86. In theory there's nothing stopping anyone else from licencing from Intel, other than the huge sacks of cash they'd probably need making it uneconomic.

That's a good point actually, I forgot about that. They did have a pretty tight situation when it came to x86 licensing with AMD. I think there was some back and forth too more recently regarding renegotiation of terms. Not 100% sure on the last bit though.

[iBabySlapper]

3 minutes ago, pipnina said:

Comparing computers to other industries always falls flat. Computers are not cars.

 

An instruction set is closest analogized as a road, a road can't be patented or trademarked- it's a flat bit of tarmac. Maybe the tarmac can be protected (i.e. the design of an individual CPU architecture) but the road cannot. A ford, Ferrari, Honda can all use any road without having to pay some other car manufacturer for the rights to use their road standard.

 

A car might only work with a specific engine (i.e. a Honda won't work with a Subaru engine) but for a computer that's closer to not being able to put an Intel CPU in an AM4 motherboard. Patenting an instruction set (i.e. a standard for computers... doing things computers do by nature) is like Ford patenting a road and asking Audi to pay to use the same road, and tyres needing to be designed specifically for that type of road.

 

 

Well, using your analogy, wouldn't it be more like if Ford invented a certain type of asphalt that's better in some way? Or if Hitachi invented a new type of rail (which they probably did for their bullet trains) that enabled much faster speeds and what not.

[pipnina]

2 minutes ago, ibabyslapper said:

Well, using your analogy, wouldn't it be more like if Ford invented a certain type of asphalt that's better in some way? Or if Hitachi invented a new type of rail (which they probably did for their bullet trains) that enabled much faster speeds and what not.

And yet, better rails or better asphalt doesn't prevent a train or car from sitting on it. Changing instruction set makes ALL SOFTWARE that ran on the old instruction set useless unless it's re-released or recompiled. The asphalt does the same job regardless of the car moving over it, but the car might run better. At that point it's up to Honda to make asphalt that's as good or better than Ford's.

[iBabySlapper]

1 minute ago, pipnina said:

And yet, better rails or better asphalt doesn't prevent a train or car from sitting on it. Changing instruction set makes ALL SOFTWARE that ran on the old instruction set useless unless it's re-released or recompiled. The asphalt does the same job regardless of the car moving over it, but the car might run better. At that point it's up to Honda to make asphalt that's as good or better than Ford's.

Actually, according to my train nerd friend bullet train rails are slightly special, and used to use a proprietary width as well. That's why I thought it'd be a better comparison.

 

I noticed at the start in you op you said nobody except AMD and Intel can make X86/64 CPUs, but what's stopping someone like ARM (violent coughing) going up to Intel/AMD licencing x86/64 themselves?

[Coaxialgamer]

Fun fact : amd and intel aren't the companies that can produce x86 processors. VIA ( a remnant of cyrix) also has a license to produce x86 microprocessors. 

 

6 hours ago, ibabyslapper said:

Actually, according to my train nerd friend bullet train rails are slightly special, and used to use a proprietary width as well. That's why I thought it'd be a better comparison.

 

I noticed at the start in you op you said nobody except AMD and Intel can make X86/64 CPUs, but what's stopping someone like ARM (violent coughing) going up to Intel/AMD licencing x86/64 themselves?

Arm already has a successful ISA, why would they want x86? Plus, intel has to want to license it. Given that arm is one of intel's competitors, why would intel allow arm to access x86 ip? 

[Princess Luna]

That won't happen, AMD is doing fine enough, besides this kind of huge company never really closes door as Government will assume and re-sale it later so it remains open.

 

In the worse case scenario Intel would be forced to share 32bits and 64bits with something like Qualcomm or a new Company taken from Intel to remain a competition in the market.

[Sniperfox47]

3 hours ago, ibabyslapper said:

Sure someone could make a new architecture, but the masses of money and time to make one, and the massive ammount of other factors needed (like luck and coincidence, having the human resources with the right talents, cooperation from software makers, etc. etc.) to make an actually good and usable architecture.

You mean like RISC-V (risc 5) which the industry  as a whole is making as an open standard to get away from x86, ARM, MIPS, and all those other proprietary licensed architectures? I can't wait to see where it goes in the next 20 years.

 

2 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

In the worse case scenario Intel would be forced to share 32bits and 64bits with something like Qualcomm or a new Company taken from Intel to remain a competition in the market.

Intel will shower AMD with heaps of money before this is ever a thing. If people think Intel is seriously worried about Zen coming up and taking their business, they have no idea how much trouble Intel would be in if Qualcomm ever got their hands on an x86 and x86_64 license. Qualcomm is the kind of company I wouldn't want to share a house with, much less a room.

 

 

[Guest lilbman]

We wouldn't be screwed for all eternity.

 

The free market would work itself out.  In a free market, it is near impossible to keep up a monopoly in a free market as it is too large to manage.

 

For example, Standard Oil was a monopoly for a while because there were no regulations and practically owned the entire market.  By the time the U.S. government passed anti-monopoly regulations, Standard Oil had already lost a significant amount of market share.  Here's some more info on it-LINK

[pipnina]

15 minutes ago, lilbman said:

We wouldn't be screwed for all eternity.

 

The free market would work itself out.  In a free market, it is near impossible to keep up a monopoly in a free market as it is too large to manage.

 

For example, Standard Oil was a monopoly for a while because there were no regulations and practically owned the entire market.  By the time the U.S. government passed anti-monopoly regulations, Standard Oil had already lost a significant amount of market share.  Here's some more info on it-LINK

Oil is different to computers though. You can own land which you use to drill (or whatever you do) oil. Then the oil works the same for everyone. With computers, if you aren't compatible, you're useless. And you won't be made compatible without effort from developers, which need to put effort in to make you compatible. Which means you could create a small oil field that the big guy hasn't thought of yet and maybe even sell for cheaper. With computers, you are required by law to sell "oil" that isn't compatible with "Standard oil" if you want to sell it at all. And because you aren't compatible, and none of the "car manufacturers" will support someone who makes up 0.1% of the market, you die.

 

This is why a totally free market, while good in principle, doesn't work in the modern age. Regulations are necessary to prevent the most important technologies being controlled by a small handful of companies. The opposite of a free market would be worse than a totally free one but neither side is preferable, there is a middle ground that should be reached.

[yathis]

AMD is based outta Taiwan right?

[TacticlTwinkie]

1 minute ago, yathis said:

AMD is based outta Taiwan right?

Nope. Sunnyvale, California (Bay Area).

[yathis]

Just now, TacticlTwinkie said:

Nope. Sunnyvale, California (Bay Area).

Oh so its an American Company.

[Drak3]

8 hours ago, it_dont_work said:

And then we'd only be able to use 32bit programs all our 64bit programs wouldn't work anymore since AMD owns that instruction set and licenses it to intel. Help my tinfoil hat is way to tight at the moment,.

8 hours ago, ibabyslapper said:

AMD owns x64 so they won't completely disappear any time soon, intel buys rights to make 64 bit CPUs from AMD (as far as I understand).

AMD goes under, and AMD's IP goes up to auction or gets acquired completely by Intel. In the first instance, if Samsung, NVidia, and Apple get all the IP spilt between them, we have potentially 3 new x86 manufacturers. If Intel acquires it all, they're split into multiple companies by the US Govt., but likely will form a cartel or still act as one company under the table.

[2FA]

Monopolies are perfectly legal in the US as long as they are acquired fairly by being the better competitor.

[yathis]

1 hour ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

Monopolies are perfectly legal in the US as long as they are acquired fairly by being the better competitor.

Thats what Rockerfeller thought too.