Nvidia Slips Ahead Of Earnings As Intel Hires AMD Exec

[SpaceGhostC2C]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

People like success, just not too much success. Funny how that works.

If "success" is a thriving company in a competitive market, and "too much success" is a monopolist, I can easily understand that  

 

To a large extent, every company that a large fraction of the population knows by name is a departure from free competitive markets and the good that comes with them... And in some markets the "departures" are much bigger than in others.

[Memories4K]

11 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Patents are anti-competitive in nature, as they treat Insight & Knowledge as a valuable "good". Which is necessary, though Patent Trolls can go to hell.

 

At the same time, Intel may just be setting off a legal war with both Nvidia & AMD at the same time. That's always fun. 

So AMD/Nvidia are the only patent-holders on dGPUs in x86?
That's wild.

I know this isn't a new issue, or that anything will be done about it soon, but it really makes you hate legal customs that control the market like this.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, Memories4K said:

So AMD/Nvidia are the only patent-holders on dGPUs in x86?
That's wild.

I know this isn't a new issue, or that anything will be done about it soon, but it really makes you hate legal customs that control the market like this.

They're not the only patent holders. Matrox still licenses, and S3's patents are still somewhere. Along with a bunch of other companies. It's not really about "I have patents, so I can build this". It's: "I have enough patents to counter-sue". This is why Google bought Motorola for billions and then sold off everything that wasn't the IP. That's how much it was worth to them to prevent IP lawsuits.

[Okjoek]

I kinda like what AdoredTV said about AMD's semi-custom strategy. Simply loan stuff like their GPUs to Intel or even CPUs to nVIDIA so that you're essentially arming all sides.

[ravenshrike]

18 hours ago, jasonc_01 said:

AMD and Intel collaboration announcement on Monday, Raja resigns Tuesday and Intel announces his hiring on Wednesday.

 

To me it looks like Raja going over to Intel is part of the collaboration between team red and team blue, possibly a large part of it. There's no way AMD does not have a non-compete clause in his contract that probably lasts 12 months. I think this collaboration is going to part of a much larger cross licensing deal between AMD and Intel, and Raja becomes to integrating the two.

 

Radeon graphics co developed by AMD and Intel, improbable maybe but definitely possible.

 

 

My personal bet is that there were a large amount of cross licensing deals made as part of this, possibly including the use of EMIB for discrete RTG GPUs.

[mr moose]

17 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

If "success" is a thriving company in a competitive market, and "too much success" is a monopolist, I can easily understand that  

 

To a large extent, every company that a large fraction of the population knows by name is a departure from free competitive markets and the good that comes with them... And in some markets the "departures" are much bigger than in others.

 

I guess the issue is the understanding of a monopoly.  There are two distinct yet different conditions that meet the definition of monopolistic. One is a legal term that is actually divorced from success.  Monopoly in a legal sense only concerns itself when said monopoly presents an unfair hurdle to an other business. The other is a more experienced condition being a consumer.  The best example of this is windows, it is not an illegal monopoly, however if you want to play games you don't really have a choice.  Technically a monopoly (in a generic definition of the word), but not one explicitly derived at through underhanded tactics, but more derived from being the best suited at a crucial time of adoption for many software companies.

 

All this just to say, success doesn't equal bad behaviour.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 11/10/2017 at 11:26 PM, mr moose said:

(...)

It's not about bad actions leading to a monopoly, but about monopoly leading to "bad" actions. That is, when a monopolist does what's best for itself, it's bad for everyone else. When a firm in a perfectly competitive market does what's best for itself, it's good for everyone else too.

 

Doing shady things to achieve a monopoly position is just for extra credit  

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

It's not about bad actions leading to a monopoly, but about monopoly leading to "bad" actions. That is, when a monopolist does what's best for itself, it's bad for everyone else. When a firm in a perfectly competitive market does what's best for itself, it's good for everyone else too.

 

Doing shady things to achieve a monopoly position is just for extra credit  

Well, a company is always going to do what's best for itself, in a monopoly or not.   That is why there is a legal definition and law for it.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Well, a company is always going to do what's best for itself, in a monopoly or not.

Yes. And like I said, when a monopolist does what's best for itself, it's bad for everyone else. When a firm in a perfectly competitive market does what's best for itself, it's good for everyone else too.

That's why there are laws supporting competitive markets and limiting monopolies.

[KuJoe]

Dear Intel fanboys,

 

You're welcome.

 

Love,

        AMD fanboys

 

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

 

That's why there are laws supporting competitive markets and limiting monopolies.

 

There are laws that prevent a company from unfairly using their monopoly.    But it is not illegal to hold a monopoly (even in the EU) nor are there laws that limit monopolies themselves (otherwise a monopoly wouldn't exist in the first place). It is illegal to use that monopoly to prevent other people from entering the market.  A company can still carry on business as usual whilst holding a monopoly, which includes setting high prices across the board.

 

EDIT: which brings us back to what I said 3 posts ago, regarding there being two different monopolies, a legal one and an annoying one.

[Scitesh]

On 11/10/2017 at 1:17 AM, RagnarokDel said:

You dont seem to understand how impossible it is for Intel to  make a discrete GPU that runs on x86 without licensing it from AMD or Nvidia.

 

If you could just throw money at the problem, they would have had competing GPUs for a decade.

GPUs They tried and failed

Asic they tried and failed

dAI I guess they are gonna fail yet again

On 11/10/2017 at 1:43 AM, TidaLWaveZ said:

They will buy a team.

Why stop at a team, nothing is stopping them from acquiring or loaning or RTG from AMD 

On 11/11/2017 at 1:17 AM, Okjoek said:

I kinda like what AdoredTV said about AMD's semi-custom strategy. Simply loan stuff like their GPUs to Intel or even CPUs to nVIDIA so that you're essentially arming all sides.

Incoming fan boys

 

Also this would be a suicide for AMD I feel ya