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.

Comments

AMD NEEDS to scratch MS's Back.....

[CSG_SurferDude]

Some years ago, whne I worked at AMD, a corporate level decision was made to run whatever the MS Mail solution was at the time (Exchange? Outlook?); even though there were several significantly better solutions out there.

What eventually came out was that it was a political decision. MS wanted to be able to show that large companies were successfully using their email package; and AMD NEEDED MS DOS/Windows to run on their 386/486 chips, and apparently this was one way of making sure that MS didn't have an "bugs" that would cause MS SW to crash on AMD chips.

What's that old quote about MS? "Window's ain't done till Lotus don't run?"

Same thing again, only different.

Poor Slashdotters

[Henry V .009]

Poor Slashdotters,

AMD good... but M$ bad... but AMD good... but M$ bad... but AMD good
MOMMY!

It's actually the smartest thing I've heard lately. A bunch of different OS versions won't help consumers, but releasing the APIs would. Go Sanders.

Re:Poor Slashdotters

[reflective recursion]

What you describe is fragmenting the complete PC software market. This _directly_ translates to hurting consumers. Instead of having all applications they need on one platform, they now have to purchase multiple platforms to obtain every application they need. And you know what? They now have to purchase _entire PCs_. Not just GatewayOS, because GatewayOS is now _bundled_ with GatewayPC.

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.

Four words: Applicaton barrier to entry.

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.

Here's an interesting twist.....

[icejai]

In his testimony, Sanders argued that Microsoft's dominance in PC operating systems fosters diversity rather than limits consumer choice. He compared the situation to "proprietary operating systems that run only on specific hardware designed and manufactured by the same vendor," such as Apple Computer's Mac OS or Sun Microsystems' Solaris. "Microsoft's Windows operating systems run on computers manufactured by thousands of different companies," he stated.

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... )

I find that line particularly interesting

[Saib0t]

"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 [Sanders] testified

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.

AMD, like other software and hardware vendors, would no longer be able to rely upon the existence of particular software code in Windows or the APIs

I really wonder what APIs or software code in the media player or IE AMD, a HARDWARE vendor relies on... I really do...

Re:Simple Solution...

[EllF]

A few points:

1. Opening up the WinAPI source would not make Lindows legal. Lindows is not illegal because of anything related to the WinAPI, it is illegal because Michael Robertson has not made the source code to Lindows available to the people who have purchased access, while still releasing the code under the GPL. Perhaps you're thinking of MS attacking Lindows based on its name?

2. Issuing free copies of Windows is not a Good Thing. Why Windows and not some of the alternative operating systems (Linux, BSD, even MacOS)? Although it would seem like a punishment, such a forced-distribution would only strengthen MS's hold on the mindshare of tomorrow's geeks. It would be like saying that the RIAA should issue free N'Sync CDs to poor kids because they broke the law with their "uncopyable" CDs - it just indirectly furthers their dominance of the market.

3. Why will desktop computing lose its prevalence once central-solutions become available? Most people don't need or want to be tied into such a system; I have serious personal doubts about anything that threatens both my privacy and my ability to manage my own system, and I'm not even doing anything *really* important.

4. AMD being on MS's side makes quite a bit of sense, because MS has been pro-Intel for so long. AMD is trying to capture market share; by showing loyalty to MS, they are aiming to hedge out some room for a deal alongside Intel. Pissing MS off would result in them never seeing that market open up.

Re:Hold on a damn second

[scenic]

On the contrary, Sanders did come out and say that "M$ is our bestest buddies and they didn't do nothing wrong." For example, this quote from Sanders's testimony:

"Contrary to some suggestions I have heard in connection with this case, product integration is unambiguously good for consumers," Sanders testified. "The integration of innovative features is a principal means by which both software and hardware products are improved, to the benefit of consumers."

Since the case ostensibly was about bundling and integration, that statement is tantamount to saying Microsoft did nothing wrong.

In addition, other statments, such as the following quote from the article:

In his testimony, Sanders argued that Microsoft's dominance in PC operating systems fosters diversity rather than limits consumer choice. He compared the situation to "proprietary operating systems that run only on specific hardware designed and manufactured by the same vendor," such as Apple Computer's Mac OS or Sun Microsystems' Solaris. "Microsoft's Windows operating systems run on computers manufactured by thousands of different companies," he stated.

demonstrates an incredible ignorance of the technical reasons why Windows requires no single hardware manufacturer. This amazing technical feat has nothing to do with Microsoft, and more to do with IBM and the use of a central (reverse-engineered) bios, and Intel's ubiquity and the reverse-engineering of their instruction set. You would think that the chairman of AMD would realize this.

So, no, Skjellifetti's summary and the headline choice wasn't a troll.

Sujal

Re:Best Friend Money Can Buy

[JordoCrouse]

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.

Backroom arm twisting

[stinkydog]

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

Re:Backroom arm twisting

[InigoMontoya(tm)]

How about:

Bill: "Hey Jerry, since we've talked before about this case, and I know you agree with me because of that conversation, would you be willing to come testify on our behalf?"
Jerry: "Okay."

You know, there is an off chance that Jerry Sanders actually believes what he is saying, and is testifying in court that the states' remedy is bad because he (gasp!) believes that the states' remedy is bad.

Some people here are worse than Republicans or gun control advocates in thinking that anyone who disagrees with them has to be getting something for it and couldn't possibly believe it themselves. People do have opinions that differ from yours, and they very well may be well-reasoned and well-thought-out.

Just a little nugget of truth in the midst of all the AMD-bashing.

InigoMontoya(tm)
(the one with the tm)

Yes, they would, because the profits are still the

[GroundBounce]

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).