Topic: Bad move for intel?

[Tus-XC]

Skype hacked (link) to disable Intel dual core detector and it works fine on AMD.  As expected this was just a ploy to exclude AMD from part of the server market.

Kinda like the anti-trust lawsuit AMD brought against intel... Even AMD admits its just to get attention...

[Nemesis]

Kinda like the anti-trust lawsuit AMD brought against intel... Even AMD admits its just to get attention...

I haven't seen that admission, do you have a link to a source?

[Tus-XC]

not atm, will have to remember where i read it first lol

[Tus-XC]

TG Daily: It has been a few months since AMD has filed an antitrust complaint against Intel. Given the media exposure of this move, do you already see an impact on your sales?

Allen: Absolutely. This really put a spotlight on the fact that AMD is very important for the market and provides people an opportunity to choose the best technology that is available. Yes, people looked into the lawsuit and our claims of their bad behavior. What is more significant, however, is the more people look at us the more they love us. People began to bring in Opteron system and benchmark them against a competitive system from Intel. We definitely have seen growing acceptance [for our systems]. Until today, 90 out of the top 100 companies have deployed Opteron systems.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/01/20/tgdaily_interviews_amd_q1_2006/page2.html

There we go

[Nemesis]

TG Daily: It has been a few months since AMD has filed an antitrust complaint against Intel. Given the media exposure of this move, do you already see an impact on your sales?

Allen: Absolutely. This really put a spotlight on the fact that AMD is very important for the market and provides people an opportunity to choose the best technology that is available. Yes, people looked into the lawsuit and our claims of their bad behavior. What is more significant, however, is the more people look at us the more they love us. People began to bring in Opteron system and benchmark them against a competitive system from Intel. We definitely have seen growing acceptance [for our systems]. Until today, 90 out of the top 100 companies have deployed Opteron systems.

I wouldn't interpret that as an admission that they started the lawsuit for attention.  Attention coming during the lawsuit does not mean that the lawsuit was started for attention.

Before the lawsuit AMD had chips that were competitive across the board but they couldn't sell them in quantity to laptop and server makers (where the high profit margins are).  Suddenly once the lawsuit started companies that previously refused to deal in AMD chips started to sell them, almost like they were given permission by someone who wouldn't previously allow them to sell AMD. 

It actually seems to make it more convincing that Intel was blocking AMD sales.

[Tus-XC]

TG Daily: It has been a few months since AMD has filed an antitrust complaint against Intel. Given the media exposure of this move, do you already see an impact on your sales?

Allen: Absolutely. This really put a spotlight on the fact that AMD is very important for the market and provides people an opportunity to choose the best technology that is available. Yes, people looked into the lawsuit and our claims of their bad behavior. What is more significant, however, is the more people look at us the more they love us. People began to bring in Opteron system and benchmark them against a competitive system from Intel. We definitely have seen growing acceptance [for our systems]. Until today, 90 out of the top 100 companies have deployed Opteron systems.

I would say its interpretation, and when i read this part
 "Yes, people looked into the lawsuit and our claims of their bad behavior. What is more significant, however, is the more people look at us the more they love us." it tells me the primary purpose was to get attention.  I don't know how you see it, but that was certainly my first impression.  It might not have been a direct admission, but i'm sure as hell picking up that they are descreetly implying that.

[Nemesis]

I would say its interpretation, and when i read this part
 "Yes, people looked into the lawsuit and our claims of their bad behavior. What is more significant, however, is the more people look at us the more they love us." it tells me the primary purpose was to get attention.  I don't know how you see it, but that was certainly my first impression.  It might not have been a direct admission, but i'm sure as hell picking up that they are descreetly implying that.

My interpretation is that they are saying this is one of the effects of the lawsuit.  Not that they are saying they started the lawsuit to cause this effect.  Even if it were true AMD would have to be crazy to say it during the suit.  It could bias things against them even if they had solid evidence proving their side.  At this point I would say there is not enough public information to clearly decide though I am slightly leaning towards AMD based on various things heard over the years.

Many things you do can have effects that are beneficial (or harmful) without being done to cause that effect or without your realizing in advance the effect would occur.  An old example between AMD and Intel is that for the best part of a year after the Athlon was released none of the major motherboard makers sold boards for it.  Then a reviewer of an "offbrand" motherboard pulled the manufacturers sticker off the board and saw the actual manufacturer was ASUS and wrote about that.  Shortly thereafter all the major motherboard makers started shipping boards.  For some reason none of the major motherboard makers were willing to publicly be the first one to ship Athlon motherboards.  Who would have thought that pulling a sticker off an "offbrand" motherboard would result in support for the Athlon by all the major board makers?

The rumour at the time was that Intel was threatening to cut off supplies of chipsets for making P3 motherboards.  No one could afford not to make P3 boards.  That of course would be an anti-trust violation if true.