WYP
News Guru
Last edited:
Pat Gelsinger is now Intel's CEO
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
KingNosser
Well-known member
I wish him well, but personally i won't touch Intel again, for one reason once they are in the lead they will milk their customers dry for every cent they can get and stagnate the market, thanks but no thanks.
Dark NighT
New member
I hope he can turn the company around, and get the investors in tune to do it, Intel needs a new approach that isnt driven on pure profits and skimping of the top and locking out features on mainstream platforms.
As much as we like AMD right now, we do need intel to keep them in check, and lower prices on both sides.
As much as we like AMD right now, we do need intel to keep them in check, and lower prices on both sides.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I wish them the best. I actually prefer Intel than Nvidia at this point. Not that taking sides or seeing this companies as individuals or a sports team is valid, but whatever.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
I am just a fan of reasonable prices and availability... could care less who's the boss.
g0ggles1994
Active member
Just as I supported AMD's return, I'm supporting this as well. Fair competition keeps the innovation going and stops stagnation
I just hope we will see a new Intel emerge; one that doesn't use shady back handed deals to push AMD out
I just hope we will see a new Intel emerge; one that doesn't use shady back handed deals to push AMD out
This is why I'm not supporting Intel no matter what. I remember a lot of good people being hurt back in the day by Intels dirty tactics.
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Kleptobot
Member
So you still care a little who's the boss ? Or could you not care less ?
Well this is a discussion thread on who the boss is, so i would say the original is actually more correct
g0ggles1994
Active member
While I agree that Intel's dirty tactics should never be excused, it was the result of greedy execs and management. I could be wrong but they might have new people in who won't resort to such things and fight fairly...
...oh who am I kidding? If they can smell the opportunity to do it again, they will.
The profit motive works in mysterious ways, in practice.
Sometimes it will act as intended and push companies to innovate and undercut to secure marketshare against a larger competitor. Alternatively if you're already the big boy, what we've seen over the last 100 or so years is that more often than not it's much cheaper and more profitable to simply try to buy out or crush your competitors rather than compete with them.
If the laws don't let you crush people, it's usually far cheaper* for a large company to lobby politicians and governments to change the laws so that they do and give them more power over consumers and small competitors, hence why 100+ years of capitalism has created overwhelming corporate power where big business can do as they please, it's far easier and more profitable to be corrupt than it is to be good at something this complex with this system.
AMD or Intel? Doesn't matter, the issue is with how you win the game, not who's playing it. The large detached business, accounting, ect departments of these companies would all behave mostly the same way in the same position.
*(Often it's the choice between spending tens to hundreds of millions on R&D, teams of engineers salaries, production costs, ect, to push the envelope in the hope you get a competitive advantage for a short period until your competitors catch up, or just hundreds of thousands to millions to set up a lobbying group or pad a bunch of pockets, often through quite legal formal systems now in the US, UK, ect, due to prior influence of the wealthy of course, and influence laws in such a way that give you the ability to cut corners or monopolise or consolidate portions of your existing marketshare, and/or ensure you face fairly minor cash penalties in the case you "slip up", often also while ensuring these companies get large subsidies and much lower rates of tax, with assurances of large govt. bailouts due to their "Too big to fail" status)
Sometimes it will act as intended and push companies to innovate and undercut to secure marketshare against a larger competitor. Alternatively if you're already the big boy, what we've seen over the last 100 or so years is that more often than not it's much cheaper and more profitable to simply try to buy out or crush your competitors rather than compete with them.
If the laws don't let you crush people, it's usually far cheaper* for a large company to lobby politicians and governments to change the laws so that they do and give them more power over consumers and small competitors, hence why 100+ years of capitalism has created overwhelming corporate power where big business can do as they please, it's far easier and more profitable to be corrupt than it is to be good at something this complex with this system.
AMD or Intel? Doesn't matter, the issue is with how you win the game, not who's playing it. The large detached business, accounting, ect departments of these companies would all behave mostly the same way in the same position.
*(Often it's the choice between spending tens to hundreds of millions on R&D, teams of engineers salaries, production costs, ect, to push the envelope in the hope you get a competitive advantage for a short period until your competitors catch up, or just hundreds of thousands to millions to set up a lobbying group or pad a bunch of pockets, often through quite legal formal systems now in the US, UK, ect, due to prior influence of the wealthy of course, and influence laws in such a way that give you the ability to cut corners or monopolise or consolidate portions of your existing marketshare, and/or ensure you face fairly minor cash penalties in the case you "slip up", often also while ensuring these companies get large subsidies and much lower rates of tax, with assurances of large govt. bailouts due to their "Too big to fail" status)
Last edited:
