Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 19:18:35 03/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
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. > 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. >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. >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 _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. 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.
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.