Intel was sued in Japan (for offering money to NEC, Fujitsu, Toshiba, Sony, and Hitachi,) in the EU (for paying German retailers to sell Intel PC's only) and in the U.S. for predatory (pricing), exclusionary behavior, and the abuse of a dominant position (HP, Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Gateway and Hitachi.) The legal record is pretty clear that Intel used payments, marketing loyalty rebates and threats to persuade computer manufacturers, including Dell and Hewlett-Packard (HP), to limit their use of AMD processors. U.S. antitrust authorities have focused on whether the loyalty rebates used by Intel were a predatory device in violation of the Sherman Act. The European Commission (EC) brought similar charges and imposed a 1.06 billion Euros fine on Intel for abuse of a dominant position.
The sum of these efforts not only killed competitors but it killed innovation in microprocessor design outside of Intel for decades.
Ironically Intel's lack of innovation in the 21st century is a direct result of its 20th century policy of being a monopolist.
Which Intel did. They were largely the one who turned primitive PC ATs + 57 different hacks into the modern PC platform. APIC PCI USB etc. (AMD gets credit for 64-bit largely because Intel refused to do so.) "Intel Inside" wasn't just marketing kickbacks, it was a badly-needed standardization program.
Yeah, no. Amd64 was made at a time where AMD was on top of its game, they released to the general public first while intel64 still wasn't ready, and microsoft annonced both that 1. windows was going to support amd64, and 2. windows was not going to support two different instruction sets for x86_64, effectively forcing Intel to implement the amd set which they still need to licence to this day.
Calling it "Intel let AMD get the credit because they couldn't be bothered" is either a lack of information over what happened or a nice rewrite of history, back then Intel was already feeling the effect of monopoly without competition which made them late on everything and pushing their pentium4 against the upcoming athlon 64 monster.
First it's pretty clear, seeing how Intel played their game with the x86 licence, they would never have voluntarily made themselves depend on AMD licensing them x86_64 for the next decades like they are now.
Second, back then Intel was very seriously asking / pressuring microsoft into not supporting amd64 extension and wait for intel64 to be released instead. But intel64 was late and delayed, pentium 4 kept hitting brick walls while Athlon started reigning supreme, opteron was starting to be noticed on the server side, and IA-64 was not getting outside of niche territory. Meanwhile linux started making some real pressure on the server andbusiness demands meant microsoft needed to show a windows that supported 64 bits on commodity hardware, asap. Amd64 was ready and the chip using it were cheap and powerfull, so microsoft made their choice.
That's not ironic at all. Monopolies are bad for innovation.
There is no single ideologically pure one true best answer in all cases. The real world just doesn't work that way.
If I come up with a unique patentable idea and facebook copies it, I would not have the legal funds to fight such a big entity. The patent is useless unless I team up with another entity big enough to fight that battle.
In the end I am better off in an environment with no patents because the ability to defend my patent is beyond me. If facebook patented a slightly modified version they may sue to invalid my patent and prevent my ability to use my idea.
Much safer for the little guy to not have patents.
Some would say they were actually bribery.
Also, they were the first to move away from the "higher frequency is better" to running lower power CPUs with more computation per clock cycle for mobile.
IMHO, Apple should have moved to Intel when the IBM PC came out. The IBM PC used the Intel 8088 which ran Intel 8086 16-bit processor while using a cheaper 8-bit bus which could use the more mature and less expensive 8085 interface chips. The Apple II had only an 8-bit processor.
The processes for fabrication was surely because they maintained their monopoly and having money to buy the best tech rather than innovation.
And, no, intel was the last to move away from "higher frequency is better". In fact, they were the ones that created that whole mindset since they were the ones that benefited from it. All because their Pentium 4 NetBurst architecture required high frequencies to remain competitive.
My first job was VLSI designer (GPUs) and I follow the industry. Intel is the innovator when it comes to fab. IBM has a fab (or just sold it) in Upstate NY, but they could not keep up with Intel.
The Pentium M (Banias was the first processor) was developed in the Haifa, Israel design center and it is the first example (in microprocessors) of slowing the clock rate and performing more computation per clock cycle. This was released in March, 2003. Could you please cite examples of competitors releasing low TDP models before this?
I'm sure designers were trying to get more out of each cycle, even while they were pumping up the clock frequency.
With the AthlonXP/MP, AMD was the first company to really market outsize the Ghz speed; pushing model numbers they believed rivaled their Intel equivalents that were lower than the actual clock speed. Today both manufactures market using model numbers.
AMD was way ahead of Intel at the time regarding IPC, the Pentium M was just Intel catching up to AMD, and had about the same IPC as A64 that was released the same year. But unlike Pentium M the A64 was a real performant CPU.
Don't get me wrong, I loved Pentium M and I when looking at laptops there was no reason to bother looking at anything else at that time. But it was a parenthesis few even knew existed. It was more of a successful prototype proving that the (future) Core series had a good foundation.
AMD didn't have as good fabrication, which is partly why they couldn't compete with Pentium M on power. But that's not what we are talking about either, because of the higher IPC the A64 smoked everything Intel had for years coming. Despite Intel having better fabrication.
And you shouldn't be comparing IPC of P4 or PM to A64. A64 was more a shot across the bow at Itanium at the time. You can rightly accuse Itanium of a lot of things, but lack of innovation isn't one of them.
I respectfully disagree. These are direct quotes from the Wikipedia article mentioned above. The Pentium M (Banias) was an innovation of increasing the (maximum) speed vs. power ratio. Intel chose not to extend to x64 because they wanted to market an entirely different 64-bit architecture, the Itanium processors.
I am very pleased that AMD came out with it and forced Intel to do the same, but the Pentium M was (for microprocessors) a true innovation.
"The Pentium M coupled the execution core of the Pentium III with a Pentium 4 compatible bus interface, an improved instruction decoding/issuing front end, improved branch prediction, SSE2 support, and a much larger cache. The usually power-hungry secondary cache uses an access method which only switches on the portion being accessed..."
"Other power saving methods include dynamically variable clock frequency and core voltage, allowing the Pentium M to throttle clock speed when the system is idle in order to conserve energy, using the SpeedStep 3 technology (which has more sleep stages than previous versions of SpeedStep)..."
"...Pentium M varies from 5 watts when idle to 27 watts at full load..."
You had to apply to the Intel Inside option. You don't need to do anything to avoid it. If you are accepted, you get a kickback from Intel for every chip. Part of the condition is you put a little sticker in plain site.
Any manufacturer could have shipped their machines without the Intel inside sticker, they just wouldn't get that moneyback.
I would love to know how much each product placement in a movie cost, how much some shady third-party paid to have their bloatware installed on all new laptops from a particular vendor, how much it cost to set the default browser, how much a TV manufacturer was paid to include a "smart TV" device in their product, etc..
I bet it's not even any substantial sums, just enough to get some beancounter to push for it.
Such a shame because the hardware is nice.
The idea being that if all phones ran the same software no one would choose their phone on brand but rather on what particular phone was best suited for their needs.
But that's not good enough, manufacturers create a custom feel solely because customers will get accustomed and need to relearn if they choose another manufacturer.
It doesn't matter if their software is worse than stock (and they all are (much much) worse), the only thing that matters is that it is unique.
Or perhaps there was enough incentive for Intel to get rid of the last remaining PowerPC platform in end-user computing. Certainly in volume alone Apple doesn't represent a very significant supplier of Intel-based computers.
Dell or HP sells more units, but in 300 or more SKUs each. Apple is different enough to get better terms.
The post you replied to is saying "A rebate is de facto a discount."
* Intel Inside
* AMD Radeon graphics
* Energy Star
* 2x JBL speakers (two mentions of JBL, one's not even a sticker)
* Dolby Digital Plus
...and a few others that depict generic features of the laptop (Do I really need a sticker to tell me I have a webcam on this thing?) Honestly it just looks tacky, like a Nascar car. I'll peel them off some time but yuck, totally tasteless.
Huh. Now that you mention it, I have a Windows _ (the _ is where the sticker is worn down -- 7, I think?) sticker on my Lenovo Thinkpad (which doesn't have Windows currently installed, mind you).
Never really noticed it. I'm usually too busy starting at the tastefully design webpages dancing on my screen.
1. I have problems getting used to the Mac keyboard
2. I have problems getting used to the keyboard mappings inside the VM running in the Mac, which is different to the keyboard mappings in my barebone Ubuntu machine, and different to the mappings in a VM running in my barebore Ubuntu machine
3. Integration of host OS (macOS) and VM is another source of pain (copy-paste, file sharing and so on)
If I was able (or willing) to ditch Ubuntu and do everything in the Mac, without VMs, this would be easier to achieve.
They aren't that hard to take off.
Just take the Lenovo laptop for example. I don't know which model it is, but some models are incredibly practical. They have very long battery life, beautiful keyboards, and are built like a tank. But no, let's focus on the stickers.
Which is presumably why the previous poster has one sitting next to him.
But no, let's focus on the stickers.
It is the focus of this thread. Why would you even open it if you're not interested in discussing them?
I care about aesthetics and design a lot and I always have. I consider it related to the ocd-like tendency in me that sortof itches when I see code that is inconsistently indented or when a non-mutating function is named with a verb that I feel indicates mutation.
Worse still, as you used the computers in real life, all of those stickers degraded into a gluey mess that got all over everything when you touched them.
I still have flashbacks of using a heatgun and alcohol wipes to un-sticker 2 dozen new HP laptops before rolling them out. Ugh.
This I do not do due to the shortage of genuine stickers. Maybe I will fix someone's computer one day. I will just add the sticker and they will feel it go faster.
They got extremely lucky negotiating a contract with a smaller carrier, which then transformed into one with a bigger one.
> With a big grin, Steve looked me in the eye and said, “Trust me, I made sure that’s in the contract.”
Isn't that all there is to it? If you don't want an "Intel Inside" sticker slapped on your computer, you negotiate it in the Contract.
Was Intel that aggressive that they wouldn't sell the chip unless you slapped their sticker on your computers?? What am I missing?
Apple had more leverage because they sell a product that's unique that their customers are willing to pay more for, and because they had a plan B if Intel refused to accommodate them.
For instance, maybe the fact that they heavily refer to the architecture switch as "Intel" vs. "PowerPC" instead of "x86" vs. "PowerPC" was enough to assuage Intel from a marketing standpoint.
The author seems knowledgeable, having worked in marketing for both companies, and it was an interesting read. But we still don't have any details of what kind of deal was made? Did Apple chose to pay a higher price or did they get a similar discount with only have Intel on the box?
Because of this, I'm sure Steve negotiated a good price on those chips without Apple needing to be part of the "Intel Inside" program to get cheaper CPUs.
The move to Intel in 2006ish really was a genius move and game-changer just before iPhone launched. At agencies and game studios suddenly Apple was it for both designers and developers wanting a pretty *nix. Just in time for the new gaming/app platform 1-2 years later once the SDK launched.
The Apple ad from that era that people love and remember is Richard Dreyfus' Crazy Ones, and the author even thinks that they "upgraded to Jeff Goldblum".
It's painted as "Apple and Intel both won, without Apple having to give up something they cared about"