From: phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu
Date: Wed Oct 06 1999 - 17:01:37 MDT
Robin Hanson <rhanson@gmu.edu> wrote:
> Peter McCluskey wrote:
> >I find it easy to imagine that the merged company would be much less likely
> >to cooperate with AMD about problems AMD has with running Microsoft software,
> >and with Linux/FreeBSD developers about problems they have adapting their
> >software to new chips.
>
> Ok, that's a reasonable point. I guess it comes down to how serious these
> are as entry threats? If they don't have much of a chance of beating Intel
> or Microsoft, then it's a shame to impose great inefficiency on current
> customers merely to increase a small chance of a competitor beating them.
What's beating? After years of being an Intel imitator, this summer AMD
released the K-7, which articles I read called a year ahead of Intel's release
schedule. Intel probably has a bigger share of the market, but AMD is gaining
ground and pulling ahead in products. So, (a) it'd be a shame if AMD had
gotten squished in the past, and (b) Intel probably can't be called a
monopoly. I'm not sure if it ever was. Cyrix was an imitator as well, and
even if AMD and Cyrix had never grown in market share, just their thread
should keep Intel's prices down.
And Linux is obviously growing, although not an obvious direct competitor with
MS products.
> The FOC of the first max gives 0 = D(P) + (PX-CX)D'(P)
I know what you did, but not what you called. FOC expands to?
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:26 MST