Slashdot Mirror
AMD Takes Microsoft's Side in Antitrust Case
Skjellifetti writes "CNet has an article that says that AMDs CEO is opposed to the MS antitrust remedy being persued by the states. "
There's a lot of information packed fairly tightly in that article that I won't
rehash here. Worth a read tho. Update: 04/16 18:01 GMT by M : Reuters has a story with more about Sanders' testimony today.
Everybody has a price.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
I guess I don't really see the point of breaking Microsoft up, (look at what happenned to the baby bells) however I think there are some great ways to keep them from being anticompetative:
:))
1. Open up their APIs, etc... (Cool things like Lindows will be 100% legal then
2. Fix their pricing so that it is uniform to all OEMs (so that OEMs will not be persecuted individually for carrying a competing product, like Linux or Netscape)
3. Fine them for blatent lying in court (have they commited perjury?)
4. As reparations for breaking the law, force them to issue free copies of software to schools in poor neighborhoods, etc...
I just don't think that drastic solutions are going to work here... But in a way, I almost don't CARE about microsoft's monopoly, because it's almost a given that the desktop computer will lose its prevelance once Ubiquetous Computing (ala MIT's Oxygen, etc) becomes a reality. Just so long as they don't control *THAT*, I'm happy.
It is funny to see AMD on microsoft's side, since MS has been very pro-Intel for a long time.
Cheers,
Justin
Twenty years? I guess my old Commodore might become useful after all.
20 years? Is this an accurate statement? I'm skeptical of anyone's testimony when Bill Gates *asks them to testify* on MS's behalf.
"AMD Takes Microsoft's Side in Antitrust Case" is a long damned streatch from them/CEO being opposed to the "remedy being persued by the states".
Your comment was inflamatory and hurt AMD without cause. If they come out and say "M$ is our bestest buddies and they didn't do nothing wrong." then you might have a point, but they didn't do that.
That was a GD troll CT and you know it.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
For some reason, I can't help but think amd's ceo has a valid point here.
Would (almost) every home have a pc if microsoft didn't exist? What if the market share were split evenly between mac/solaris/*nix/*bsd/etc?
Would game developers pump millions into development of a game for something like... 25% market share?
Seriously... just wondering... (no this isn't a troll... )
This line (the last of the article actually) puzzles me a lot. Microsoft servers are not in direct competition with big irons but more with linux, BSD and solaris servers as far as my understanding goes. So why does he say that "non-MS servers" run on specialiazed microprocessors.
AMD processors are very well supported under linux, albeit a bit later than Intel counterparts
I'm leaving aside the claim that MS makes "reliable and scalable" servers.
I really wonder what APIs or software code in the media player or IE AMD, a HARDWARE vendor relies on... I really do...One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
Sounds like when Henry Ford, commenting on the lack of variety in color of the Model-T, declared that every American could have whatever color car they wanted, as long as that color was black.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Microsoft supports AMD because they want the price of the cpu to be as low as possible. Higher prices for the cpu leaves less money for the operating system.
love is just extroverted narcissism
sorry, but i didn't notice linux radically taking over the desktop.
'better' depends on point of view.
Your post starts by praising AMD for its quality products and valuable market role. After reading the rest of the post, however, it's hard to understand why you would want to boycott AMD simply because of their agreeing with Microsoft, regardless of whether or not AMD produces a superior product.
I really don't mean this to be a troll, but does AMD's support of Microsoft really make that much of a difference?
If I recall correctly, AMD was once hailed as the Linux of CPU's because they provided an inexpensive and valid competition to the (then evil) Intel juggernaught, who at the time had a rather strong relationship with Microsoft. Apparently the Slashdot community is now prepared to completely reverses that sentiment, condemning AMD and praising Intel.
If your perception of a product's quality depends solely on it's relationship with Microsoft, you really need to be more critical of the product itself, and less concerned with their affiliations.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Windows runs on hardware made by thousands of vendors, and this is good for choice.
Windows runs on hardware made by thousands of vendors that are only using a handful of approved CPUs and BIOS approved and mandated by Microsoft themselves. You will find drastic similarity in 95% of all of those products.
Releasing bits of Windows that are different for every vendor creates less choice because specific custom versions of Windows will be tied to a specific vendor.
The other 5% of vendors (PDAs, set top boxes, etc...) *do* run custom versions of Windows, apparently with no noticable affect on profits. And remember that Microsoft probably charged these companies hundreds of thosuands of dollars for custom versions of the operating system.
This means that you will have to go with one hardware vendor or another to get the version of Windows you want.
This is completely not true. The code that you are discussing is so far removed from the processor type that its like trying to say that your car runs differently depending on what color shirt you are wearing. Again, the code on 95% of all Windows boxes will be virtually idential (exepct for some bootstrap code that probably already differs for each processor anyway). The other 5% are already custom jobs, so your point has no merit.
Open APIs keep consumer choice in place (choose the same OS for 1000's of hardware vendors), allow competing software into the platform, and does require much work on anyones part in terms of enforcement.
Which is great, as long as the API is truely open. In the past, they have opened half of a given API, and its turns out that the other half is the stuff that really makes the software work well. Its difficult to compete with the makers of the worlds most dominate operating system when they won't even give you the complete API to make your program work in the first place.
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
I wonder if the bargining chip is to make AMD the preferred platform for Windows. If Windows supported the AMD specific x86-64 instruction set, and this gave performance gains for AMD over Intel, then Intel would suddenly switch into second place.
There are two possible conversations:
Jerry: Hello.
Bill: Hey Jerry, could you set the DoJ right about the goodness of Windows.
Jerry: Sure! Anything to support your Monoply.
Bill: Great, see you next week. Bye.
Or
Jerry: Hello.
Bill: Hey, Jerry wouldn't it be funny if Windows XP V2 read the CPU ID and just mysteroiusly crashed if it saw AMD in it?
Jerry: Good one Bill. What can I do for you?
Bill: Some losers are suing me because I have the power to destroy a company with a simple code change. I need you to testify on my behalf.
Jerry: Um, Sure Bill, Anything to keep you happy.
Bill: Don't forget to wax my car this week.
Jerry: Sure anything you say.
Bill: One OS to bind them. HA HA HA HA.
You decide which is true.
SD
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
"the Justice Department made clear that the federal government and not the states sets national antitrust policy--a point the judge should take into consideration."
How many processors can Linux compile on again? With exactly the same functionality?
Just curious.
GMFTatsujin
The proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years."
Where did that number come from? Windows hasn't even been around for 20 years, how is pulling out the browser going to be worse than starting from scratch?
He faulted the remedy provision of the litigating states, which would compel Microsoft to release a second version of Windows without so-called middleware, such as browsing and media playback technologies.
Oh no, what would we do, use Netscape or WinAmp? Or, or, we could still use IE and WindowsMediaPlayer, only it would be by choice, that's all we're asking..
What a bunch of FUD.
Stupider like a fox! - H.S.
Much of the article mentioned Sanders saying that not letting Microsoft bundle their software with the OS would fragment the Windows operating system, which I totally don't understand. And to make it even more puzzling to me, he said that this fragmentation would make it harder for companies like AMD to support the operating system. Would someone kindly explain to me how letting people use competing web browsers or media playing programs would make it harder for AMD to make chips?
I think one of the more interesting parts of the article is at the bottom:
"Microsoft's development of reliable and scalable server operating systems has enabled AMD to enter and compete more effectively in the server businesses...because most non-Microsoft server operating systems only run on specialized microprocessors," he testified.
I read this as AMD wanting Microsoft to be able to continue its illegal business practices as the more people who use Windows, the more potential AMD customers. And I think AMD might be scared that if Microsoft had to play fairly that would open people up to other non-x86 platforms.
FiGZ.COM - A waste of perfectly good web space
If so, however, why wouldn't you buy AMD, if they are (at the time of purchase) producing the best chips? Unless you're gonna go Alpha or Sparc or something. My point is, even if AMD has sunk a few levels with this announcement, they're certainly not as bad as Intel, and even if they were, wouldn't it then just come down to who made the better chips?
Why does Fram make oil filters for cars even though the car market is split between a dozen or so major manufacturers? Why does Champion make spark plugs even thought the automobile market is split between a dozen or so major manufacturers? Etc., etc.? Because the profits are still there in the products, and the *APIs* (thread sizes and interfaces in this case) are standerdized (at least to some degree).
What I think Sanders and others don't realize, is that if the OS market share had been evenly split between several major players, then what would have become standardized would have been the APIs and interfaces rather than the OS platform itself. The market would have demanded it, and the standards would have been determined by the needs of all companies involved rather than by decree of one monopoly company.
Even with today's situation, there are several examples of such API standards, such as TCP/IP, OpenGL, HTML, XML, etc. Unfortunately, because of the current monopoly situation, there are several standards which are proprietary and not open, primarily in the area of file formats such as MS Office formats. And there is proprietary pressure on the current existing open standards (e.g., embrace and extend).
Sure, standardizing the entire OS instead of the APIs and interfaces achieves the same goal in the short term, and perhaps this goal does benefit consumers and some software vendors, but it does so by eliminating competetion in the OS and API market, which will have the effects of monopoly rents (already happening) and eventually reduced quality (may take a little longer, but it will happen).
MS needs to be able to change the file formats to add new features. Besides, they haven't changed many of the formats in a while; Word 97/2000/XP file formats are the same. They're also moving away from some proprietary formats (HLP to HTML). Release them, yes, but don't freeze them.
A bunch of different OS versions, like say Windows 95, Windows 95OSR, Windows 95OSR2, Windows 98, Windows 95 SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows 2000 Advanced Server, Windows 2000 Data Center, Windows CE, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, and a bunch more on their way (Windows .Net, etc)...
The problem is that we can't buy the version of Windows that we want, just the one that M$ wants to sell us (see Monopoly in dictionay). If I could buy a version of windows with the NT core, DirectX 8A, Windows media codecs with the evil MediaPlyaer and nothing else (use Litestep as a shell, cygwin as a command prompt, Mozilla as a browser) I should be able to. But no I have to buy Windows2000 Pro as long as I can still buy it (I will never allow Windows XP near one of my machines) which I am paying for crap like the $2 billion R&D that M$ punched into IE, Active Directory, etc. Heck since I am not using 3/4er's of the functions, don't want them added, I should be paying less for my OS.
Can you imagine if you couldn't buy a car without Air Conditioning? You must have the Mag Wheels option and the Tow package? It doesn't happen in any other industry because there is competition...
This is a dangerous game to play, if anything they should have abstained from saying much. They just came out with new (decent) processors for the handheld market, and things like Sharp Zaurus and Palm are legitimately good alternative to Microsoft CE devices.
AMD also had (had?) a contingent of ultra-loyalist OSS tinkerers and others who are not so hept on supporting Chipzilla and Microsoft.
I think that given the XBOX has has questionable market acceptance, that the damage done in supporting microsoft is far worse than the potential gain in chip sales through what is still a vapor product (and seeks to eliminate Nvidia for some odd reason in favor of ATI).
I don't understand how supporting a company that makes use of questionable long term strategies such as horrifically restrictive EULAs helps AMD much. It seems interesting that AMD is willing to use the OSS community to come up with ports of various OSS operating systems and distributions and optimizations in OSS compilers, but is also willing to spit right back in their faces with support companies that do little to promote OSS (unlike, say, IBM.). Also, vendors are not going to be further endeared to a chip company that supports a company that wants to let Microsoft get away with tell OEMs what software they *must* buy for every machine that goes out the door.
The worst thing of all is that the first AMD-64 optimized kernel that will run on the Clawhammer will be Linux, probably on a RedHat distribution.
I think the long term ramifications of this show of support will probably not be a determining factor on AMD survival or ability to make money, but this, in my opinion, is not the best was to serve the shareholders or create revenue, something that AMD has a hard time doing (actually making money) - they usually just break even or make some minute percentage of what Intel makes in profit.
People should know who their friends are.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
How many freaking years have this lawsuit been going on? For God's sake, I would pay a thousand bucks just so they can settle this lawsuit and stop talking about it.
Guess what will happen. A clear winner _will_ emerge and the "monopoly" power will simply shift to a PC vendor, a PC vendor OS, and Microsoft's fragmented Windows. Now people must comply with a vendor's definition of an OS. Just like Linux supporters must comply to Red Hat's definition of Linux simply so they have a substantial market there. And you see this happening with the adoption of RPM into even _Slackware_! And Debian, SuSE, etc. must also use RPMs to have a fighting chance at the marketplace.
Do not think that this "remedy" does more than stir up the consumer marketplace for a limited time. So much time will be lost in the scramble for a winner that advancement will creep to a stop for at least a little while. This is hillarious. You know what fragmenting Windows will do to software makers? CREATE AN EVEN HIGHER BARRIER TO ENTRY! Between the time of Windows' fragmentation and a PC vendor's definition of "Windows" captures the market there will be an emmense barrier placed on software makers. Instead of supporting just Windows they now must support GatewayOS, DellOS, CompaqOS, etc. This means multiple ports which are _costly_. And you know who is in the best position for the shift of "monopoly" power? Apple. They are already working in this exact way. They control the hardware and the software. Software makers will simply flock to Apple because now MacOS has the larger consumer market. Goodbye cheap generic hardware. Goodbye Linux. We now all use MacOS X. The barrier to OS competition is now a brickwall. Hardware will once again move towards proprietary and away from cheap generic x86 and the OS will once again be a part _of_ the computer, rather than an interchangable part (which is allowed by Microsoft and IBM's doing).
This demand for choice is going to simply create no choice. Be thankful you can install Linux/BSD on almost any PC out there today. Back in the day it was the _hobby_ market which created the extreme demand for IBM's mostly free architecture (which can be seen by the ability to install a mostly hobby OS such as Linux even 20 years after the hardware hobby market has evaporated). It was easy to clone. Today that demand is extremely small compared to end-user demand. End-users don't care about proprietary hardware or software. They just want the applications they need. They don't care about shelling out huge amounts of cash either, which is why they consistently purchase Windows with new PCs (and they do this _knowingly_.. they aren't misled at all). Hell, they pay huge amounts of cash _just_ for the pretty iMac colors. Do you really want these same people in charge of demanding where applications flock? The fact that we have a widespread clonable architecture is a near miracle in its own right. I believe people are taking this for granted.
Dijkstra Considered Dead