Re: Intel vs AMD x86-64

[Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Sean Fao wrote:
> 
>>Linus Torvalds wrote: 
>>
>>>Now, I'm not above complaining about Intel (in fact, the Intel people seem
>>>to often think I hate them because I'm apparently the only person who gets
>>>quoted who complains about bad decisions publicly), but at least I try to
>>>avoid complaining before-the-fact ;)
>>>
>>
>>It must come with the territory ;-).  Your message has already made it to
>>Slashdot so I'm sure this time will be no different.
> 
> 
> Yeah, and that's unfair to Intel. They've done the right thing 
> technically, and I applaud them for that, but their marketing people are 
> pricks.
> 
> Everybody else is "Intel-compatible" when they make x86 chips.  Intel is
> apparently a bit too used to _not_ saying "AMD-compatible".
> 
> Oh, well. The marketing people are probably proud of their "branding", and 
> screw the confusion.


I've been reading some people's comments relating to this, and it 
reflects a glimmer of an idea that occurred to me initially.  To begin 
with, I completely agree that it was unethical for Intel to imply that 
this was their innovation, giving no credit to AMD.  It was wrong, and 
they should be ashamed.

On the other hand, I don't see how Intel's marketing department could 
possibly justify to themselves doing "the right thing".  In this case, 
doing the right thing would be very bad for business, because giving 
proper credit would be like saying, (to paraphrase one commenter on 
osnews) "Well... we're behind the times, so we had to copy AMD's ideas, 
so there's little point in buying from us, because we didn't really do 
anything interesting, so you might as well give your business to AMD 
instead.  They're smarter than us."

Intel, being an organization driven by marketing and image, really 
CANNOT "do the right thing" without some kind of penalty that they would 
  find unacceptable.  Mind you, if Intel were driven by _performance_ 
and _superior_products_, rather than marketing, things would be a lot 
different.  That is to say, Intel's MUCH BIGGER sin is putting marketing 
ahead of technical merit.  (Hmmm, seems to me I've seen this sort of 
attitude elsewhere in the wintel industry.)