Former AMD Chief?s Book Describes Fight Against Intel

[god_43]

AMD for years accused Intel of illegal
tactics in the market for microprocessor chips, a dispute that many people may have forgotten. Hector Ruiz wants the story remembered.

The former AMD chief has written a book that memorializes his bet-the-company decision in 2005 to file an antitrust case against its much larger rival, a volume of roughly 200 pages that comes with heavy doses of David versus Goliath imagery. It?s called ?Slingshot,? and subtitled ?AMD?s Fight To Free An Industry From The Ruthless Grip Of Intel.?

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/02/.../?mod=yahoo_hs


well it should certainly be an interesting book, at least we can find out more the reasons why for some decisions. yeah i think we all know the settlement amount was a joke and the ftc did bs. i mean here we were expecting real justice, and instead we got poop on a stick....in 70c weather.

[Rollo]

It's hard to say what a fair settlement is.

When the "loyalty rebates" were going on intel had far superior products for most of those years. Not to mention even when intel had inferior products, people bought them anyway.

Is it partly because more vendors were selling intel? Yeah sure- but it's in no small part due to "If you run VIA chipset X32, and install 3 in 1 driver 666, and install 3dNow! patch X87, THEN you can play GLQuake almost 90% as fast as intel AND your Adobe won't crash!".

AMD had a LOT of years where it was just harder to use their parts and their parts just weren't as good. They had one brief shining moment where they actually had better tech than their much bigger rival, but mostly they got their a$$ handed to them.

People like you and me are largely the only people who have ever bought them, they needed people like Ford and GE.

Old saying: "No one ever got fired for buying intel".

Point being: Even if their were three Kia dealers for every GM dealer and Kia had kickbacks, GM would sell more cars.

[Hornet331]

So then man who basically put AMD in its current postion wants to cash in even more on AMD..

[Cold Fussion]

Old saying: "No one ever got fired for buying intel".

Point being: Even if their were three Kia dealers for every GM dealer and Kia had kickbacks, GM would sell more cars.

Who exactly associates GM with high quality?

[STEvil]

Who exactly associates GM with high quality?

As compared to KIA... I would. But i'm sure there are GM model vehicles that you have to pull the motor like some KIA's to change an alternator..

[Rollo]

Who exactly associates GM with high quality?

As compared to Kia, I would.

[AMDforME]

There is no doubt that many Intel execs should be in prison for 20 years right now, IMO for the documented chronic violations of anti-trust laws, blackmail, intimidation, consumer fraud and much more. The fact is that Intel admited to some of their crimes and got off with a slap on the wrist for exploiting consumers for decades with inflated prices they would never have been able to charge without bribes and blackmail. They reaped hundreds of billions in revenue from their crimes. They should have been fined treble damages plus $50 billion and the execs all sent to prison. Anything less is a travesty of justice, no matter how you spin the facts. If AMD had the financial resources to maintain their judicial fight for another 10 years, the judicial system would have awarded them pretty close to the $50 Billion plus punitive damages, based on AMD's documented losses.

[kuroikenshi]

As compared to KIA... I would. But i'm sure there are GM model vehicles that you have to pull the motor like some KIA's to change an alternator..

this is not limited to Kia's....

[STEvil]

this is not limited to Kia's....

But KIA was the given example, and really the quality control of all major auto manufacturers is less than desirable in terms of longevity..

[STEvil]

There is no doubt that many Intel execs should be in prison for 20 years right now, IMO for the documented chronic violations of anti-trust laws, blackmail, intimidation, consumer fraud and much more. The fact is that Intel admited to some of their crimes and got off with a slap on the wrist for exploiting consumers for decades with inflated prices they would never have been able to charge without bribes and blackmail. They reaped hundreds of billions in revenue from their crimes. They should have been fined treble damages plus $50 billion and the execs all sent to prison. Anything less is a travesty of justice, no matter how you spin the facts. If AMD had the financial resources to maintain their judicial fight for another 10 years, the judicial system would have awarded them pretty close to the $50 Billion plus punitive damages, based on AMD's documented losses.

If any of what I heard was true back in the day from Liquid3D there should have been some people locked up for a VERY, VERY long time...

[WangChung]

There's very little consumer recognition for AMD products outside of the enthusiast world. But I would say that's only half Intel's fault; when's the last time you saw an AMD commercial on TV?

AMD insists on paying their marketing department minimum wage (facetious) and in turn they get low market penetration, which of course leads to poor sales/revenue. But Hector is the last person that should be trying to cash in on the company, he had plenty of opportunities to turn it around and shot himself in the foot every time instead.

*edit*
As someone else also said in the comments from the link:
"Who could possibly be interested in what Hector Ruiz has to say ? AMD *was* a great company before his arrival; we watched in awe as AMD poached him from Motorola ? it was a great day for those at MOTO as ?Hector-the-Disector? left MOTO to splinter the morale and spirit AMD once had. In ?07 as the companies value plummets some 50+%, Hector negotiates a healthy raise; at just under $13M in total compensation he became the highest paid CEO of his peers while simultaneously destroying the companies intrinsic and extrinsic value."

[Andrew LB]

There is no doubt that many Intel execs should be in prison for 20 years right now, IMO for the documented chronic violations of anti-trust laws, blackmail, intimidation, consumer fraud and much more.

20 years? The maximum prison sentence for antitrust violations is currently 3 years and rarely does anyone receive more than 8 months. The purpose of antitrust suits is to punish the offending corporation financially as to make the victim corporation as close to whole as possible. Long prison terms don't do that.

The fact is that Intel admited to some of their crimes and got off with a slap on the wrist for exploiting consumers for decades with inflated prices they would never have been able to charge without bribes and blackmail.

You have no evidence of such practices, nor was such wrongdoing found by the courts. Intel never admitted to anything either. The case was settled privately and AMD happily took the money AS WELL AS voluntarily dropped all pending legal action and regulatory complaints worldwide.

They reaped hundreds of billions in revenue from their crimes. They should have been fined treble damages plus $50 billion and the execs all sent to prison. Anything less is a travesty of justice, no matter how you spin the facts.

The system worked exactly how it should. AMD accepted a settlement made by Intel and went home happy.

If AMD had the financial resources to maintain their judicial fight for another 10 years, the judicial system would have awarded them pretty close to the $50 Billion plus punitive damages, based on AMD's documented losses.

You really have no idea how the legal system works do you? Everything you've typed has little basis on reality and sounds more like a fanboy wet-dream.


edit: I forgot to add that the statute of limitations on antitrust suits is a maximum of 5 years. So that greatly limited AMD in their suit.

[Rollo]

You really have no idea how the legal system works do you? Everything you've typed has little basis on reality and sounds more like a fanboy wet-dream.

"Naaasssty intel hurt the Precioussss! They sneaks and they tricks! We THROWS them in dungeon for a million billion years, and TAKES their gold for the Precioussss!"

Heh- you are spot on. Over the years I have seen many posts that have little to do with law, and more to do with vague concept there are laws somehow related to the subject, and someone is "goin' down in flames!". Company X puts out a marketing slide where their product does task Y better" and a dozen fans of company Z excitedly post "Nuh uh! If you enable 16X MSAA, and texture pack OMFGBBQ, company Z's product is faster! Company X will be sued for slander and false advertising, they'll be out of business in a few months!".

It is the way of teh intarwebz.

[Hornet331]

*edit*
As someone else also said in the comments from the link:
"Who could possibly be interested in what Hector Ruiz has to say ? AMD *was* a great company before his arrival; we watched in awe as AMD poached him from Motorola ? it was a great day for those at MOTO as ?Hector-the-Disector? left MOTO to splinter the morale and spirit AMD once had. In ?07 as the companies value plummets some 50+%, Hector negotiates a healthy raise; at just under $13M in total compensation he became the highest paid CEO of his peers while simultaneously destroying the companies intrinsic and extrinsic value."

thats why way back then he was called wrecktor, remember his 30% market share at all costs..

[Rollo]

As someone else also said in the comments from the link:
"Who could possibly be interested in what Hector Ruiz has to say ? AMD *was* a great company before his arrival; we watched in awe as AMD poached him from Motorola ?

The 10,000 copy first print run of this book is coming soon to a $.99 clearance rack near you. 99% of the world has no idea who Hector Ruiz is, probably half the world couldn't respond accurately if you asked them who AMD is, and it's just not that intriguing a story.

"I used to run a company, we had some ups and downs, and we were competed unfairly against". The next "Catcher in the Rye" this isn't.

[Rollo]

How does this even...

Intel didn't have a single second of "far superior products" since the first Athlon to the introduction of Conroe, with instead multiple instances of clear inferiority, long standing lower performance and even longer standing lower price/performance from low to high end: chips systematically overheating and throttling during continuous workloads, horrible performance at the low-mid end, no dual cores or non-competitive MCM, freakin' WILLAMETTE, the list goes on.
During that time AMD should have gained the consumers' trust but that wasn't possible because of Intel's anti-competitive practices that kept its rival relegated to the low cost alternative corner where it absolutely didn't belong anymore. Intel agreed to pay ONE BILLION DOLLARS (plus its partners losing multiple lawsuits worldwide) for it, parts not as good my arse.
But hey, you had to install drivers to make the most of the machine... OH-MY-GOD! I'm sure no HP could ever manage to do that on a scale!

Your bias is disgusting. Actually, your person is disgusting. You are a shameful liar and and deserve removal from every single tech forum there is.

Nice revisionist history and OT personal attack.

Look chief, I bought EVERY top end AMD product up through Phenom II, and in the 486-Pentium III days AMD motherboard tech just wasn't as user friendly as intels.

Joe Consumer, and OEMs, want "It just works", they don't want drivers and patches, and they certainly don't want parts missing the latest tech, whether it's making a difference currently or not. This is what killed AMD, as well as second tier performance.

I remember paying $1000 for FX chips pretty well, they did "make it out of the bargain basement".

Your post is full of anger, has very little to do with fact. If anyone who is ranting doesn't believe me, I'd be happy to pull links to reviews that back up what I posted. I didn't just pull that out of my a$$, it's based on my experiences.

Your problem is you think EVERYONE is willing to tinker like us, most just want to turn it on and "installing a patch" or "flashing a bios" is something you pay GeekSquad to do.

[hokiealumnus]

edit: I forgot to add that the statute of limitations on antitrust suits is a maximum of 5 years. So that greatly limited AMD in their suit.

First off, I have no dog in this fight and don't care to get into Intel vs. AMD, nor do I particularly care.

This post is just to help correct a slight misunderstanding. Once a suit is filled, it effectively tolls the statute indefinitely. AMD had filed suit, therefore the court case could have gone on as long as it needed to until it was actually tried in front of a jury and they decided to award (or not award) a settlement for however much they decided. The statute gives you a limited amount of time to file a suit. Once suit is filed, for practical purposes, the statute goes away.

[AMDDeathstar]

Nice revisionist history and OT personal attack.

Look chief, I bought EVERY top end AMD product up through Phenom II, and in the 486-Pentium III days AMD motherboard tech just wasn't as user friendly as intels.

Joe Consumer, and OEMs, want "It just works", they don't want drivers and patches, and they certainly don't want parts missing the latest tech, whether it's making a difference currently or not. This is what killed AMD, as well as second tier performance.

I remember paying $1000 for FX chips pretty well, they did "make it out of the bargain basement".

Your post is full of anger, has very little to do with fact. If anyone who is ranting doesn't believe me, I'd be happy to pull links to reviews that back up what I posted. I didn't just pull that out of my a$$, it's based on my experiences.

Your problem is you think EVERYONE is willing to tinker like us, most just want to turn it on and "installing a patch" or "flashing a bios" is something you pay GeekSquad to do.

Performance was probably hampered because Intel was screwing with the compiler which would cripple performance on non Intel chip

http://="http://www.osnews.com/story...rom_Compiler_"

There is a link to FTC suit in the the article.

[JaD]

Nice revisionist history and OT personal attack.

Look chief, I bought EVERY top end AMD product up through Phenom II, and in the 486-Pentium III days AMD motherboard tech just wasn't as user friendly as intels.

Joe Consumer, and OEMs, want "It just works", they don't want drivers and patches, and they certainly don't want parts missing the latest tech, whether it's making a difference currently or not. This is what killed AMD, as well as second tier performance.

I remember paying $1000 for FX chips pretty well, they did "make it out of the bargain basement".

Your post is full of anger, has very little to do with fact. If anyone who is ranting doesn't believe me, I'd be happy to pull links to reviews that back up what I posted. I didn't just pull that out of my a$$, it's based on my experiences.

Your problem is you think EVERYONE is willing to tinker like us, most just want to turn it on and "installing a patch" or "flashing a bios" is something you pay GeekSquad to do.

My post is full of anger because you twist reality as a profession.
I'm the revisionist? Who the hell was talking about 486/K6 times? Nobody, not even the lawsuits nor the settlement. But hey, anything to give false credit to your bias.

To be honest we all have our pockets full of your continuous "I BUY AMD" assertions. I don't believe it's true and even if it was it wouldn't matter one bit, you still shovel biased horse crap all the time, doesn't matter what you bought.

AMD CPUs never required any more tinkering than Intel ones after the PC was set up, so cut it. No patches no nothing except maybe one case. Instead I do remember dozens of badly cooled OEM Northwood-based systems not functioning after 6 months of use as soon as there was a bit of dust build up, if not right out of HP's factory in more temperate climates. May I remind you that the topic is the post-athlon era.

Please show us those reviews showing Intel's "far superiority", go ahead. I'm truly curious of how you'll manage to make the Athlon XP, 64 and X2 look far inferior front of Intel's astounding competition at the time. I'm eager to see which hand picked unfairly optimised (remember Intel compiler's scandal?) benchmarks, or some silly Perntium II vs K6 out of topic example.

[god_43]

My post is full of anger because you twist reality as a profession.
I'm the revisionist? Who the hell was talking about 486/K6 times? Nobody, not even the lawsuits nor the settlement. But hey, anything to give false credit to your bias.

To be honest we all have our pockets full of your continuous "I BUY AMD" assertions. I don't believe it's true and even if it was it wouldn't matter one bit, you still shovel biased horse crap all the time, doesn't matter what you bought.

AMD CPUs never required any more tinkering than Intel ones after the PC was set up, so cut it. No patches no nothing except maybe one case. Instead I do remember dozens of badly cooled OEM Northwood-based systems not functioning after 6 months of use as soon as there was a bit of dust build up, if not right out of HP's factory in more temperate climates. May I remind you that the topic is the post-athlon era.

Please show us those reviews showing Intel's "far superiority", go ahead. I'm truly curious of how you'll manage to make the Athlon XP, 64 and X2 look far inferior front of Intel's astounding competition at the time. I'm eager to see which hand picked unfairly optimized (remember Intel compiler's scandal?) benchmarks, or some silly Pentium II vs K6 out of topic example.

whoa whoa...wait a minute...someone actually asking for the revisionists to provide PROOF of their claims...wow - now i have seen everything. you will have better luck squeezing water from a stone my friend.

[Tim]

JaD, post has been reported. I'd rather not read such abuse on XS.

I loved every single second of the Athlon times, but apart from that relatively brief period of supremacy, Intel has ruled all the way for a very long time, before and after. Even if you spoke to any IT professional in the Athlon times, alot of them would go : AMD? lol

Enthusiasts like me loved AMD, that's true, but I think AMD has had some stigma attached to it for a long time. I haven't worked in IT for almost a decade, so can't comment on what it is like now.

Edit: Anyway, I see I didn't even remember what the thread was about.

Hector will have a book out, lovely. Will it talk about the mistakes he made and tanked the AMD that we loved?

[Rollo]

My post is full of anger because you twist reality as a profession.

No, I've worked for the same software company for the last 14 years as a profession. Before that I worked six years in advertising for pharmacies, and before that I was picking up my two bachelor's degrees and doing my best to avoid responsibility.

I'm the revisionist? Who the hell was talking about 486/K6 times? Nobody, not even the lawsuits nor the settlement. But hey, anything to give false credit to your bias.

No I mention them to make my point. When you dig a hole of bad will in the business world it takes a long time for people to forget. Back then, AMD motherboards were the worst of the lot, but the VIA/NVIDIA/other chipsets all had their issues as well. Remember AMDs IronGate chipset? As I recall, it was the last one you'd want. It's also a matter of perspective:On one had their stuff was second best in the world (an accomplishment) on the other, second best doesn't build marketshare unless it buys it with lower ASP.

To be honest we all have our pockets full of your continuous "I BUY AMD" assertions. I don't believe it's true and even if it was it wouldn't matter one bit, you still shovel biased horse crap all the time, doesn't matter what you bought.

1. No, we don't. AMD's marketshare has never been over 25% IIRC, that puts me in a very small group. I bought a HD7970 in 2012, and a 6870 plus two top end Phenom 2s in 2011. And I have bought EVERY AMD top end chip (or next down) going back to my 486 DX4-120MHz. If half the market supported AMD like me, Hector isn't writing books and AMD is doing fine.
2. It doesn't matter what I bought? On what planet? AMD's only concern with you/me/anyone begins and ends at our wallet.

AMD CPUs never required any more tinkering than Intel ones after the PC was set up, so cut it. No patches no nothing except maybe one case. Instead I do remember dozens of badly cooled OEM Northwood-based systems not functioning after 6 months of use as soon as there was a bit of dust build up, if not right out of HP's factory in more temperate climates. May I remind you that the topic is the post-athlon era.

And may I remind you that my whole point was it's impossible to quantify what AMD would or wouldn't do because back in the 3d Now!/3in1 chispet driver days they built a rep of being hand's on, and most people (not people like us) will pay to avoid that. AMD's "salad days" came after years of being the brand that developers did not code for, and many chipset vendors that all had their pros/cons. (not the least of which was stability) For the same reason Vishera isn't selling as well as it should (Bulldozer fail) the Athlon X2s etc didn't take off as much as they should. Your history is part of your present and future in business.

Please show us those reviews showing Intel's "far superiority", go ahead. I'm truly curious of how you'll manage to make the Athlon XP, 64 and X2 look far inferior front of Intel's astounding competition at the time. I'm eager to see which hand picked unfairly optimised (remember Intel compiler's scandal?) benchmarks, or some silly Perntium II vs K6 out of topic example.

To what end? I argued FOR AMD in those days, now you want me to point out flaws that have long since gone? It would be off topic, and pointless, like much of your argument is. Sorry, don't want to waste people's time reading "Why yes, Rollo apears to be right. AMD compensated for things like lower FPU power with workarounds like 3d Now, and they seemed to have some stability issues back in the day". It serves no one.

[LightSpeed]

Rollo, give it a break man. You state wrong stuff like "they had one brief shining moment", bring out the 486 days and keep on mentioning it which have no relevance to the settlement, state AMD motherboards required tinkering to work which simply isnt true since the Athlon XP days, etc etc. Then someone rants at your misinformed post(s) and you say a load of stuff which arent even relevant. Also, stop the "I buy AMD" stuff in every post of yours where you bash AMD, its getting old.

Anyway, while I do have some new found respect for Intel, claiming Intel did nothing wrong during the Athlon 64 era are plain and simply wrong. Starting from the compiler stuff to giving the so called rewards to distributors, it really was quite sad as to what they did for a few years.

Its also quite amazing as to the extent Intel went to throughout the world at that time. When I traveled to Bangladesh, I went to their computer city which is basically a plaza with hundreds of small computer stores. Out of the few hundred stores, I found only two stores selling AMD at a time when AMD was spanking Intel. Perplexed, I asked around and basically found out that Intel 'rewards' them if they only stock and sell Intel CPU's. Hmm

[Andi64]

Please show us those reviews showing Intel's "far superiority", go ahead. I'm truly curious of how you'll manage to make the Athlon XP, 64 and X2 look far inferior front of Intel's astounding competition at the time. I'm eager to see which hand picked unfairly optimised (remember Intel compiler's scandal?) benchmarks, or some silly Perntium II vs K6 out of topic example.

+1

I would also like to see a Pentium III that was far superior than any Athlon (non-XP), that was priced against Celerons.
It wasn't one brief moment...

[gallag]

You guys still arguing about this sh1t?