AMD is in control, they are doing the design, they are just having another company they partly own do the FAB work, thus they stay contractural with Intel.
No. There is a front company, HMC, which owns the IP and satisfies the Intel/AMD IP agreement. However there is another company, Hygon, which AMD is not in control of. HMC has licensed the IP to Hygon, Hygon does the design. HMC even sells the manufactured CPUs to Hygon. HMC is a facade, it will not be where profits are realized. HMC is not really in control of the IP since it has licensed it to Hygon, and again, Hygon is doing the design not HMC.
Within 5 years an ecosystem will be developed around Hygon so that it will also realize little in profits. 100% Chinese owned subcontractors and 100% Chinese owned buyers for CPUs from Hygon will realize most of the profits. AMDs 51% of HMC and 30% of Hygon is a fiction, the accounting will be engineered so that little is paid to AMD. Much like US companies engineering the accounting to avoid US taxes.
AMD is in a position to do nothing about this. The IP was legally licensed to Hygon who has done additional design work. Chinese courts will maintain Hygon's rights to this IP, Hygon being partly state owned. AMD can not pull back its IP. It won't even be counterfeit/stolen, it will all be perfectly legal licensing within Chinese borders.
That's some A grade bullshit.
AMD's contract allows them manipulate the prices
http://m.guancha.cn/tieliu/201...
From this Article
"The core intellectual property, technology and pricing are still firmly in the hands of AMD."
In theory, via HMC, which is a facade to meet the requirements of the Intel/AMD agreement. Keep reading the article and note that the "real" company in this deal is Hygon, which HMC strangely sells finished CPUs too indicating HMC is unlikely to be where profits are realized. And within 5 years an ecosystem is likely to be built around Hygon where it does not realize much profits itself. The 100% Chinese owned companies that Hygon will sell finished CPUs too and/or subcontract out production to will be where the profits are realized. AMD will see few profits from it 51% HMC venture and it 30% Hygon venture. The accounting will be engineered to prevent that.
AMD was desparate in 2016 when it started down this path. Desperation will keep AMD participating for the next few years.
They get 50% of the revenue from these chips, and they have the potential to get close to 100% marketshare in China once the Chinese government forces Chinese companies to use Chinese made processors.
AMD owns 51% of HMC, a "front" company that exists to work around Intel/AMD IP agreements.
AMD owns 30% of Hygon, the "real" company in this deal, well sort of "real", more below.
AMD will likely see very little profit from HMC as HMC will likely sell the finished chips to Hygon at or near cost.
OK, so AMD still has 30% of Hygon? Yes in theory, but Hygon will likely not be designed to capture much of the revenue of the domestic x86 trade. Hygon will likely subcontract to 100% Chinese owned companies where some of the real profits will be realized, and will likely sell the CPUs to 100% Chinese owned companies at a low price and these companies will capture much of the remaining profits. Maybe not in year 1 but by year 5 the preceding eco system will likely be complete.
In short the accounting will be engineered to avoid having to pay AMD very much, as we see with US companies engineering the accounting to avoid paying US taxes.
And the sad part is that AMD is smart enough to see it coming. But desperation leads them to maybe a few years of some revenue, hoping that it will be the bridge they need to return to full health.
It wasn't a bad plan per se that Nixon and Kissinger came up with in the 1970s. However at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 the plan was obviously a failure and we should have adjusted trade relations appropriately.
Or you know, you could just stop the ridiculous practice of applying licence stickers when the cops all have number plate scanners and can tell if your rego is up to date without them.
Lack of a current sticker is "cause" to pull you over. Its a handy thing for them.
Why would you have to take the license plate off the car to apply a sticker? Why would you have to wipe grime off anyplace other than where the sticker goes? If you're having this much trouble, maybe I should start an Uber like service where I have an app that will get a 12 year old to come over and put the sticker on for you.
It is sarcasm, but the events portrayed are real. The recess in the plate for the annual sticker is partly obscured by the frame, recess too close to the screw holes. I take if off because in reality screw drivers are not a fearsome thing to me. I wipe the plate off because I habitually clean things I'm working on. Also I like to remove the grime for better adhesion to make peeling off more error prone (tag tears). Basically the same reason I use zip ties on cabling when I build a PC, to do things the "correct way IMHO", a matter of principle not time management.
Well the Declaration of Independence was "fighting words" that started a war. The 1/3 of the population that wished to remain loyal British subjects likely did consider it "hate speech", plus a few folks on the other side of the Atlantic, and oh yeah them Canadians too.
But yeah. a phrase or two in there likely triggered a filter and/or facebook employee.
Well today I had the experience that would encourage many to embrace this new high tech solution. Today I had to find a screw driver and remove the four screws securing the license and its frame to the car. I had to wipe the license with a wet towel to remove some of the grime before putting a new registration sticker on top of the old, then going through the misery of aligning screws with threads four times to reattach everything.
All of this annual ugliness could be performed much more elegantly digitally. The DMV charges my credit card, the charge clears, it then could send an updated registration sticker image to the digital plate for its display.
$700 at time of car purchase and $84 a year thereafter, worth it to avoid the preceding messiness.
I thought that was OS/2, the world finally moved on? In any case that's more industrial control than embedded, and the PC component of the system may be upgradable/replaceable compared to the reset of the system. In telecommunications software I once worked on the big racksized box with all sorts of processors and embedded software inside also had an off-the-shelf industrial grade PC running a desktop OS with the user's interface software (reports, configuration). This PC board and its hard drive could be replaced and the embedded software could care less what OS it was running. I'd be surprised if an ATM's "PC" hardware is not similarly replaceable and the OS it runs similarly irrelevant to the actual embedded software. Much like with the ATM's transition from OS/2 to Win7.
Don't ask me, I most definitely would not do that. But these devices are out there and in use.
I've seen references to X-Ray and MRI user consoles in other responses, I don't think of them as "embedded", rather as "industrial control". Perhaps its personal bias, I once worked in telecommunications and the big expensive boxes we sold had plenty of embedded software (my part) and an industrial grade PC running the manager's interface software that generates reports and lets them configure the embedded software. The manager's software was desktop OS. I expect something similar (embedded and PC-based user software) in the X-Ray, MRI, etc. I consider the distinction because the PC based user/manager software is far more replaceable than the embedded software it communicates with. The embedded could care less if the managers' box is WinXP, Win7, Win10, OS/2, Linux or Mac. The manager's box was bundled with the system, sometimes a standalone PC and sometimes a PC installed in our equipment's rack, yet it remained a replaceable PC at its heart.
"very obscure CPU architectures for which no maintainers would step up, and nobody had promised to maintain in exchange for money for a fixed amount of time.
Nobody else could, even if they would want to, step up and keep Microsoft's code up to snuff, nor was any such help solicited. And why would anyone? Microsoft took the money and promised support until 2020.
Some problems are in drivers and a driver for an obsolete unsupported version of Windows is quite doable.
"Linux Set To Shed Nearly 500k Lines Of Code By Dropping Old CPUs"
This is not comparable.
Linux dropped support for very obscure CPU architectures. Consumers are unlikely to possess these architectures at all.
When it was announced various users did complain. "Obscure" is not constant across platforms. With Linux being a re-use path for old PC hardware dropping a PIII would be a larger issue in Linux than in Windows. Windows boxes actively used still running on a PIII based system may be as rare as the platforms dropped by Linux. Things are a bit more comparable than you suggest.
The truth is every supported OS drops support for CPUs at some point and businesses have to be ready to adapt whether they are windows, os/2 or linux.
While true, it raises the question of why. In OS/2's case for example, the minimum currently is i686 (Pentium Pro) due to so much current software needing the atomic instructions that weren't available on older CPU's and in this day of multiple cores, SMP support is important.
Generally with SSE or other simd instructions, there are slower code paths that can be easily taken that don't depend on simd instructions.
OS/2 may be used in more "embedded" applications than Win7. PIII min would possibly be a larger issue in the OS/2 community than the Win7 community.
Even using your out of the ass numbers of 0.5% of computers (really using just Windows 7 sales (300 million), which is a smaller number), and you're talking 1.5 million computers. You don't think 1.5 million computers as part of a botnet would be a big thing? Or replacing 1.5 million computers early would be a big thing?
Most of those have already been replaced and sent off to the metal recyclers. Congratulations, you managed to offer even dumber numbers than the GP.
Of course, the real lesson here is to cut Windows products out of your environment as much as possible. Any company that believes it can just mandate substantial changes to your business so you can keep accepting patches to fix ITS bugs is a trainwreck.
In the 1970s, the US was in a shooting war w/ the PRC. By the late 90s, I could catch a (direct) flight to Shanghai and grab a latte. The notion that the China engagement policy "failed" needs a lot more support than has been offered in this thread.
The shooting was the 1950s, Korea. In the 1970s is was a proxy war in south east asia. The notion of liberalization through engagement was not about ending the shooting per se, it was about ending the hostility of the Communist Chinese and to moderate their domestic policies. That policy objectively failed in 1989, you getting a latte is irrelevant. You could have probably gotten a latte not far from dead students at Tienaman Square. Moving from domestic moderation to external hostility, the "war" simply changed its manner. The Communist Chinese merely exchanged bullets for economic warfare and this has worked out better for them.
Certainly not every product offers a US made option, however where US options exist a preference can be shown and the situation improved. As a trend is recognized in one area some CEO in a different area will attempt domestic manufacture of a product currently only outsourced. As we rewarded the CEOs of decades past who experimented with outsourcing we can now reward the CEOs of the present/future that experiment with domestic manufacture. We are not locked into the current situation. The trend can flow in either direction. Submarkets are not permanently lost. The consumers are in control, the ship can not be turned instantly, but it can be turned.
Its not virtue signaling its objective analysis. Trump is an idiot savant at persuasion of the masses perhaps, of marketing himself. However with respect to other areas he lacks the savant and is just an idiot. And idiot can latch on to a good idea however. Our unfair trade with China was recognized as a tool of manipulation for the masses. In reality Trump was perfectly happy to work with China for manufacturing his own products. The actual brains behind the economic policy are people like Navarro.
China is fighting hard against corruption, at least on large scale corruption.
Perhaps now, now that they are an economic superpower. The fact remains that corruption did not impede their rise from developing nation to economic superpower.
The CEO's existing supply chain does not have the 25-50% discount of Chinese based raw materials, goods and services that currency manipulations provides, nor does the CEO's existing supply chain have the cost reductions from cheap labor, reduced environmental regulations enforcement, etc.
Yes there are a series of cascading effects of outsourcing, but that does not change the simple fact that consumer choices drive it all. Now look at Germany where consumers consider domestic manufacture far more then US consumers, plus they don't engage in the nonsense that a college degree is the new high school diploma.
It has been shown that consumers will pay more for domestically manufactured products but their limit is 10 to 20%. When the difference is 2 to 3 times more then of course they will pick the lower price.
Chinese products get a 25-30% discount just from the currency manipulation, let alone labor costs, lack of environmental costs, etc. The simple fact remains, consumer choices are destroying the consumer's economic and employment options. Just as predicted in the 1970s when labor tried to warn them.
Consumers need to change their purchasing habits and show companies they have a preference for US made goods...
Oh so very wrong. Corporations need to change their pricing habits and show consumers they can compete. You can pay extra for something if you want. I'm not going to pay extra so some CEO can get another yacht.
The CEO is getting the yacht whether he manufactures domestically or in China, you are only denying US workers better jobs, you are effecting the CEO not at all.
How can U.S. consumers buy U.S. made goods? Almost every consumer product is either made in China (or another Asian country) or has parts that were made there! For consumers to buy U.S. made goods, the U.S. made good have to be there first.
Some companies still manufacture domestically. There are websites that help find them. Many websites indicate where products are made. I recall REI having a US Made filter and lots of good gear was listed when I tried it out. There is more out there than you suggest, take an extra moment to find it.
Slashdot Mirror
AMD is in control, they are doing the design, they are just having another company they partly own do the FAB work, thus they stay contractural with Intel.
No. There is a front company, HMC, which owns the IP and satisfies the Intel/AMD IP agreement. However there is another company, Hygon, which AMD is not in control of. HMC has licensed the IP to Hygon, Hygon does the design. HMC even sells the manufactured CPUs to Hygon. HMC is a facade, it will not be where profits are realized. HMC is not really in control of the IP since it has licensed it to Hygon, and again, Hygon is doing the design not HMC.
Within 5 years an ecosystem will be developed around Hygon so that it will also realize little in profits. 100% Chinese owned subcontractors and 100% Chinese owned buyers for CPUs from Hygon will realize most of the profits. AMDs 51% of HMC and 30% of Hygon is a fiction, the accounting will be engineered so that little is paid to AMD. Much like US companies engineering the accounting to avoid US taxes.
AMD is in a position to do nothing about this. The IP was legally licensed to Hygon who has done additional design work. Chinese courts will maintain Hygon's rights to this IP, Hygon being partly state owned. AMD can not pull back its IP. It won't even be counterfeit/stolen, it will all be perfectly legal licensing within Chinese borders.
That's some A grade bullshit. AMD's contract allows them manipulate the prices
http://m.guancha.cn/tieliu/201... From this Article "The core intellectual property, technology and pricing are still firmly in the hands of AMD."
In theory, via HMC, which is a facade to meet the requirements of the Intel/AMD agreement. Keep reading the article and note that the "real" company in this deal is Hygon, which HMC strangely sells finished CPUs too indicating HMC is unlikely to be where profits are realized. And within 5 years an ecosystem is likely to be built around Hygon where it does not realize much profits itself. The 100% Chinese owned companies that Hygon will sell finished CPUs too and/or subcontract out production to will be where the profits are realized. AMD will see few profits from it 51% HMC venture and it 30% Hygon venture. The accounting will be engineered to prevent that.
AMD was desparate in 2016 when it started down this path. Desperation will keep AMD participating for the next few years.
They get 50% of the revenue from these chips, and they have the potential to get close to 100% marketshare in China once the Chinese government forces Chinese companies to use Chinese made processors.
AMD owns 51% of HMC, a "front" company that exists to work around Intel/AMD IP agreements.
AMD owns 30% of Hygon, the "real" company in this deal, well sort of "real", more below.
AMD will likely see very little profit from HMC as HMC will likely sell the finished chips to Hygon at or near cost.
OK, so AMD still has 30% of Hygon? Yes in theory, but Hygon will likely not be designed to capture much of the revenue of the domestic x86 trade. Hygon will likely subcontract to 100% Chinese owned companies where some of the real profits will be realized, and will likely sell the CPUs to 100% Chinese owned companies at a low price and these companies will capture much of the remaining profits. Maybe not in year 1 but by year 5 the preceding eco system will likely be complete.
In short the accounting will be engineered to avoid having to pay AMD very much, as we see with US companies engineering the accounting to avoid paying US taxes.
And the sad part is that AMD is smart enough to see it coming. But desperation leads them to maybe a few years of some revenue, hoping that it will be the bridge they need to return to full health.
It wasn't a bad plan per se that Nixon and Kissinger came up with in the 1970s. However at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 the plan was obviously a failure and we should have adjusted trade relations appropriately.
Intel is fucked as they not even ok for china to copy them.
More likely AMD is f'd if they felt desperate enough to engage in this short term benefit deal with long term negative consequences.
Or you know, you could just stop the ridiculous practice of applying licence stickers when the cops all have number plate scanners and can tell if your rego is up to date without them.
Lack of a current sticker is "cause" to pull you over. Its a handy thing for them.
Just in case this isn't sarcasm;
Why would you have to take the license plate off the car to apply a sticker? Why would you have to wipe grime off anyplace other than where the sticker goes? If you're having this much trouble, maybe I should start an Uber like service where I have an app that will get a 12 year old to come over and put the sticker on for you.
It is sarcasm, but the events portrayed are real. The recess in the plate for the annual sticker is partly obscured by the frame, recess too close to the screw holes. I take if off because in reality screw drivers are not a fearsome thing to me. I wipe the plate off because I habitually clean things I'm working on. Also I like to remove the grime for better adhesion to make peeling off more error prone (tag tears). Basically the same reason I use zip ties on cabling when I build a PC, to do things the "correct way IMHO", a matter of principle not time management.
Well the Declaration of Independence was "fighting words" that started a war. The 1/3 of the population that wished to remain loyal British subjects likely did consider it "hate speech", plus a few folks on the other side of the Atlantic, and oh yeah them Canadians too.
But yeah. a phrase or two in there likely triggered a filter and/or facebook employee.
I don't understand. Why would anyone do this?
Well today I had the experience that would encourage many to embrace this new high tech solution. Today I had to find a screw driver and remove the four screws securing the license and its frame to the car. I had to wipe the license with a wet towel to remove some of the grime before putting a new registration sticker on top of the old, then going through the misery of aligning screws with threads four times to reattach everything.
All of this annual ugliness could be performed much more elegantly digitally. The DMV charges my credit card, the charge clears, it then could send an updated registration sticker image to the digital plate for its display.
$700 at time of car purchase and $84 a year thereafter, worth it to avoid the preceding messiness.
Many ATMs run Windows 7.
I thought that was OS/2, the world finally moved on? In any case that's more industrial control than embedded, and the PC component of the system may be upgradable/replaceable compared to the reset of the system. In telecommunications software I once worked on the big racksized box with all sorts of processors and embedded software inside also had an off-the-shelf industrial grade PC running a desktop OS with the user's interface software (reports, configuration). This PC board and its hard drive could be replaced and the embedded software could care less what OS it was running. I'd be surprised if an ATM's "PC" hardware is not similarly replaceable and the OS it runs similarly irrelevant to the actual embedded software. Much like with the ATM's transition from OS/2 to Win7.
Don't ask me, I most definitely would not do that. But these devices are out there and in use.
I've seen references to X-Ray and MRI user consoles in other responses, I don't think of them as "embedded", rather as "industrial control". Perhaps its personal bias, I once worked in telecommunications and the big expensive boxes we sold had plenty of embedded software (my part) and an industrial grade PC running the manager's interface software that generates reports and lets them configure the embedded software. The manager's software was desktop OS. I expect something similar (embedded and PC-based user software) in the X-Ray, MRI, etc. I consider the distinction because the PC based user/manager software is far more replaceable than the embedded software it communicates with. The embedded could care less if the managers' box is WinXP, Win7, Win10, OS/2, Linux or Mac. The manager's box was bundled with the system, sometimes a standalone PC and sometimes a PC installed in our equipment's rack, yet it remained a replaceable PC at its heart.
"very obscure CPU architectures for which no maintainers would step up, and nobody had promised to maintain in exchange for money for a fixed amount of time.
Nobody else could, even if they would want to, step up and keep Microsoft's code up to snuff, nor was any such help solicited. And why would anyone? Microsoft took the money and promised support until 2020.
Some problems are in drivers and a driver for an obsolete unsupported version of Windows is quite doable.
"Linux Set To Shed Nearly 500k Lines Of Code By Dropping Old CPUs"
This is not comparable.
Linux dropped support for very obscure CPU architectures. Consumers are unlikely to possess these architectures at all.
When it was announced various users did complain. "Obscure" is not constant across platforms. With Linux being a re-use path for old PC hardware dropping a PIII would be a larger issue in Linux than in Windows. Windows boxes actively used still running on a PIII based system may be as rare as the platforms dropped by Linux. Things are a bit more comparable than you suggest.
The truth is every supported OS drops support for CPUs at some point and businesses have to be ready to adapt whether they are windows, os/2 or linux.
While true, it raises the question of why. In OS/2's case for example, the minimum currently is i686 (Pentium Pro) due to so much current software needing the atomic instructions that weren't available on older CPU's and in this day of multiple cores, SMP support is important. Generally with SSE or other simd instructions, there are slower code paths that can be easily taken that don't depend on simd instructions.
OS/2 may be used in more "embedded" applications than Win7. PIII min would possibly be a larger issue in the OS/2 community than the Win7 community.
Even using your out of the ass numbers of 0.5% of computers (really using just Windows 7 sales (300 million), which is a smaller number), and you're talking 1.5 million computers. You don't think 1.5 million computers as part of a botnet would be a big thing? Or replacing 1.5 million computers early would be a big thing?
Most of those have already been replaced and sent off to the metal recyclers. Congratulations, you managed to offer even dumber numbers than the GP.
Of course, the real lesson here is to cut Windows products out of your environment as much as possible. Any company that believes it can just mandate substantial changes to your business so you can keep accepting patches to fix ITS bugs is a trainwreck.
"Linux Set To Shed Nearly 500k Lines Of Code By Dropping Old CPUs"
https://www.phoronix.com/scan....
Embedded systems like medical equipment, displays, measurement equipment, etc.
Why would you be running Windows 7 on embedded systems, its a desktop OS?
In the 1970s, the US was in a shooting war w/ the PRC. By the late 90s, I could catch a (direct) flight to Shanghai and grab a latte. The notion that the China engagement policy "failed" needs a lot more support than has been offered in this thread.
The shooting was the 1950s, Korea. In the 1970s is was a proxy war in south east asia. The notion of liberalization through engagement was not about ending the shooting per se, it was about ending the hostility of the Communist Chinese and to moderate their domestic policies. That policy objectively failed in 1989, you getting a latte is irrelevant. You could have probably gotten a latte not far from dead students at Tienaman Square. Moving from domestic moderation to external hostility, the "war" simply changed its manner. The Communist Chinese merely exchanged bullets for economic warfare and this has worked out better for them.
Certainly not every product offers a US made option, however where US options exist a preference can be shown and the situation improved. As a trend is recognized in one area some CEO in a different area will attempt domestic manufacture of a product currently only outsourced. As we rewarded the CEOs of decades past who experimented with outsourcing we can now reward the CEOs of the present/future that experiment with domestic manufacture. We are not locked into the current situation. The trend can flow in either direction. Submarkets are not permanently lost. The consumers are in control, the ship can not be turned instantly, but it can be turned.
Its not virtue signaling its objective analysis. Trump is an idiot savant at persuasion of the masses perhaps, of marketing himself. However with respect to other areas he lacks the savant and is just an idiot. And idiot can latch on to a good idea however. Our unfair trade with China was recognized as a tool of manipulation for the masses. In reality Trump was perfectly happy to work with China for manufacturing his own products. The actual brains behind the economic policy are people like Navarro.
Sounds like the children of upper echelon Chinese Communist Party members.
China is fighting hard against corruption, at least on large scale corruption.
Perhaps now, now that they are an economic superpower. The fact remains that corruption did not impede their rise from developing nation to economic superpower.
The CEO's existing supply chain does not have the 25-50% discount of Chinese based raw materials, goods and services that currency manipulations provides, nor does the CEO's existing supply chain have the cost reductions from cheap labor, reduced environmental regulations enforcement, etc.
Yes there are a series of cascading effects of outsourcing, but that does not change the simple fact that consumer choices drive it all. Now look at Germany where consumers consider domestic manufacture far more then US consumers, plus they don't engage in the nonsense that a college degree is the new high school diploma.
It has been shown that consumers will pay more for domestically manufactured products but their limit is 10 to 20%. When the difference is 2 to 3 times more then of course they will pick the lower price.
Chinese products get a 25-30% discount just from the currency manipulation, let alone labor costs, lack of environmental costs, etc. The simple fact remains, consumer choices are destroying the consumer's economic and employment options. Just as predicted in the 1970s when labor tried to warn them.
Consumers need to change their purchasing habits and show companies they have a preference for US made goods...
Oh so very wrong. Corporations need to change their pricing habits and show consumers they can compete. You can pay extra for something if you want. I'm not going to pay extra so some CEO can get another yacht.
The CEO is getting the yacht whether he manufactures domestically or in China, you are only denying US workers better jobs, you are effecting the CEO not at all.
How can U.S. consumers buy U.S. made goods? Almost every consumer product is either made in China (or another Asian country) or has parts that were made there! For consumers to buy U.S. made goods, the U.S. made good have to be there first.
Some companies still manufacture domestically. There are websites that help find them. Many websites indicate where products are made. I recall REI having a US Made filter and lots of good gear was listed when I tried it out. There is more out there than you suggest, take an extra moment to find it.