Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Andy Grove has died

newsroom.intel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 179 posts

Re: Andy Grove has died

#141

Post by aidenn0 »

branchless wrote: post #134
ChuckMcM wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons I left Intel for Sun was that Intel had just realized that "lots of people" making x86 chips was a bad thing for their control of the market. There were no less than 6 suppliers of 8086 chips. But with the 80286 and the 80386 it became clear that "owning the processor" so that they could claim a big chunk of the profit on every PC sold was very very important to the company. That strategy, while un…

I really find it hard to understand what drives these people. Let's say he cornered the entire market and sold 100% of CPUs. What then? Why? Don't they want the best for the world, and isn't that clearly going to come through competition? I just cannot fathom their motives. Same for any line - fast food chains? Do they want everyone in the world to eat their burger every meal? Why? I guess I need to buy one of his bo…

They want their company to continue to exist so they can continue doing what they do. How did it work out for all the other CPU vendors from 1990?

Re: Andy Grove has died

#142

Post by yuhong »

branchless wrote: post #134
ChuckMcM wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons I left Intel for Sun was that Intel had just realized that "lots of people" making x86 chips was a bad thing for their control of the market. There were no less than 6 suppliers of 8086 chips. But with the 80286 and the 80386 it became clear that "owning the processor" so that they could claim a big chunk of the profit on every PC sold was very very important to the company. That strategy, while un…

I really find it hard to understand what drives these people. Let's say he cornered the entire market and sold 100% of CPUs. What then? Why? Don't they want the best for the world, and isn't that clearly going to come through competition? I just cannot fathom their motives. Same for any line - fast food chains? Do they want everyone in the world to eat their burger every meal? Why? I guess I need to buy one of his bo…

In this case, they were second-sourcing meaning that they were manufacturing Intel's CPU designs.

Re: Andy Grove has died

#143

Post by mickrussom »

Steve Jobs - hipster IP thief whole stole every last idea from Xerox PARC shamelessly. Real talent was Woz. Jobs was an aggressive, rude, lucky marketing machine whose success could not be recreated even if he was reincarnated. Apple has huge amounts of money and employees, but a year of work from IP4S to IP5 produced an extra row of Icons and a $650 dollar IP5 that still caters to carrier lockins. Little brat Apple trying to sue Samsung while Android has captured over 50% market share.

Without Steve Jobs we would have: No overpriced poorly supported iProducts, No hyper expensive laptops, anti-standard non-USB connectors, ruthlessly jailed operating systems.

Without Andy Grove : No x86 - the ultimate revolution in tech the world has ever seen, inexpensive, effective and universal.

When Jobs died it was like a third world funeral for a Dictator. Andy dies, nothing from the media.

Re: Andy Grove has died

#144

Post by p4wnc6 »

Grishnakh wrote: post #74
p4wnc6 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bloomberg, a company famous for an executive who expressed this same "down in the trenches" preference for cubicles, famously does not have offices. Far from their "egalitarian" culture leading to acceptable working conditions over time, it has only enshrined the idea that no one, ever, may have an office. It is much better that some people have offices even if not all do, for then at least there can be a path to ear…

I think you're missing the point with Bloomberg. The whole idea with that place is that they don't like offices: they don't want anyone to have one because they think offices are a bad thing . They think people work better in one big giant, open, noisy room. A bunch of companies these days have bought into this philosophy, and a bunch of young hipsters think it's great. So Blooomberg hasn't eliminated offices to try…

I agree with your description of Bloomberg's beliefs and motivation for it, and I agree that many other organizations, especially start-ups, cargo cult on the back of this.

Since the belief that offices are bad in terms of cost or productivity (e.g. Bloomberg's belief that people work better in noisy, open spaces) is demonstrably and quantitatively incorrect, and inflicts undeniable mental and physical health problems, it's all the more important to vocally argue for private working conditions as a social issues.

This isn't about my specific preference. It's about what the data says, and has said for decades.

By comparison, if some company said that workers worked better in a room filled with second-hand smoke, we wouldn't care whether or not they believed this. It's simply a wrong and harmful belief that ought to be stopped. In other words, we should not allow Bloomberg's management to impose a demonstrably unhealthy working condition (violent lack of privacy) regardless of whatever incorrect fictions they happen to use to justify it.

Re: Andy Grove has died

#145

Post by ecthiender »

Create wrote: post #135
branchless wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really find it hard to understand what drives these people. Let's say he cornered the entire market and sold 100% of CPUs. What then? Why? Don't they want the best for the world, and isn't that clearly going to come through competition? I just cannot fathom their motives. Same for any line - fast food chains? Do they want everyone in the world to eat their burger every meal? Why? I guess I need to buy one of his bo…

One of the chief arguments for ARM and other MIPS-like ecosystems: they are much more diverse, therefore evolve better on the long run than a tied-down monopoly (Amd used to push Intel on many fronts, ie 64 bits, SIMD, RISC core etc) btw: Intel isn't a CPU manufacturer. It is a factory for manufacturing processor factories: they are one level of abstraction higher.

> btw: Intel isn't a CPU manufacturer. It is a factory for manufacturing processor factories: they are one level of abstraction higher.

Can you elaborate that a bit? I mean I'm completely ignorant about CPU manufacturing, your statement is very intriguing.

What exactly do they manufacture when you say they manufacture factory of CPUs? Design?

Re: Andy Grove has died

#146

Post by nickpsecurity »

Vegard7 wrote: post #109
nickpsecurity wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They didn't have it easy like Microsoft did where they were virtually the only game in town. They almost lost their position to AMD on more than one occasion, and were under constant pressure from Motorola, IBM, Sun, MIPS, DEC, and others all intent on capturing a dominant position in the highly lucrative desktop and server markets." You're way overstating that. You're whole post, but especially that one, totally ig…

I hear you, but on the flip side, there are companies out there that don't get locked in. Usually reflects quality of leadership at the very top and a lot of luck.

That's true, too. One has to be devious and effective to create a multi-part, lock-in strategy.

Re: Andy Grove has died

#147

Post by selimthegrim »

branchless wrote: post #134
ChuckMcM wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons I left Intel for Sun was that Intel had just realized that "lots of people" making x86 chips was a bad thing for their control of the market. There were no less than 6 suppliers of 8086 chips. But with the 80286 and the 80386 it became clear that "owning the processor" so that they could claim a big chunk of the profit on every PC sold was very very important to the company. That strategy, while un…

I really find it hard to understand what drives these people. Let's say he cornered the entire market and sold 100% of CPUs. What then? Why? Don't they want the best for the world, and isn't that clearly going to come through competition? I just cannot fathom their motives. Same for any line - fast food chains? Do they want everyone in the world to eat their burger every meal? Why? I guess I need to buy one of his bo…

Go and ask the ghost of Zilog past about competition rewarding the best technology.

Re: Andy Grove has died

#148

Post by selimthegrim »

cb18 wrote: post #92
flashman wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a strange comment, but I'm finding it hard to put my finger on exactly why. It's something to do with how you're happy to make generalisations about Jews, but careful in how you demonise Syrians, Iraqis and Afghans.

It's probably strange because it describes a basic reality of the world, but one that so many people strain to avert their eyes from. I'm not making any generalisations about Jews. Just conveying what looking at any Sunday Times, or Forbes rich list will tell you, or what looking at the annals of scientific history or the recipients list of Nobel prizes will tell you, or what looking at a list of highly regarded conc…

And I suppose the Palmach, Irgun and Stern gang were made of....

Re: Andy Grove has died

#149

Post by nickpsecurity »

_yosefk wrote: post #116
nickpsecurity wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking he meant buying x86 competitors or burying them via patents. Intel both patents and buys patents on plenty of CPU-related tech, esp for x86 compatibility. Alpha and Transmeta CPU's come to mind immediately. Things just kept disappearing until we were down to basically three companies: Intel, AMD, and VIA. AMD had to pay Intel for I.P. with VIA being a niche player running losses despite some good tech.…

Everyone else (ARM etc.) has a monopoly on the ISA or they don't even publish it (NVIDIA etc.) Intel actually makes perhaps the most open commercially significant platform.

That's far from true. We've been able to license ARM and MIPS ISA's plus implementations for a long time. They and Intel defend theirs with patents. SPARC, the most open of old ones, could be used without license fees or patent risk at all. You just had to make it ISA compatible then pay a $99 fee. Gaisler has a SPARC CPU and pile of SOC HW under GPL that ASIC proven even on radhard, space applications. Enterprise versions selling for a premium exist from Oracle and Fujitsu.

I'd say Intel is not that open at all given the secrets remaining, patent protections, and lack of competition. POWER is slightly more open with PowerPC embedded implementations. ARM and MIPS are more open since they actively license implementations. The most open is SPARC ISA hands down given every aspect is usable with source available for several CPU's.

Re: Andy Grove has died

#150

Post by branchless »

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #136
branchless wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really find it hard to understand what drives these people. Let's say he cornered the entire market and sold 100% of CPUs. What then? Why? Don't they want the best for the world, and isn't that clearly going to come through competition? I just cannot fathom their motives. Same for any line - fast food chains? Do they want everyone in the world to eat their burger every meal? Why? I guess I need to buy one of his bo…

> I just cannot fathom their motives Maybe start with "swimming in your vault full of money like Scrooge McDuck".

Nah I don't think this is what gets them out of bed every day.
Post reply on HN