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

AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story

amd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 61 posts

Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story

#11

Post by strawberryfan »

m3kw9 wrote: post #6

Transferring lower speed tech still could be a huge jump from what China had, the main point is architecture is hard to put a value to it. For what is known, maybe slower means lowering the hertz

> "could be a huge jump" ... "maybe slower means lowering the hertz"

This is so painfully obvious it's sad that it has to be said out loud. There is no credible information about exactly what AMD means when they claim lower performance. Nothing meaningful is said about the nature of their 'protections.' And the fact that everything was supposedly blessed by all the various US government TLAs under the Obama administration is almost a confirmation of the WSJ lede; that this was yet another backdoor sellout of US tech to China.

Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story

#12

Post by mizzack »

duxup wrote: post #8
mizzack wrote: post #4

I'm sure the timing of this exposé (of a years-old story) has nothing to do with AMD's imminent release of a product that will seriously threaten if not outright beat Intel for years to come. FUD

There's got to be a law or something where for a given thread there is some user who has a conspiracy theory about it.

Conspiracies, eh

https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v....

Full disclosure, I'm long $AMD ;)

Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story

#13

Post by duxup »

mizzack wrote: post #12
duxup wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's got to be a law or something where for a given thread there is some user who has a conspiracy theory about it.

Conspiracies, eh https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v... . Full disclosure, I'm long $AMD ;)

Unless I'm misunderstanding aren't you just proving the point / following the usual example of proof people give of a conspiracy?

Every conspiracy claim has some related story people point to and draw a line from.

The claim is that the article was FUD.

The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything.

Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story

#14

Post by unethical_ban »

duxup wrote: post #5

>The Wall Street Journal story omits important factual details, including the fact that AMD put significant protections in place to protect its intellectual property (IP) and prevent valuable IP from being misused or reverse engineered to develop future generations of processors. Without knowing what those protections are, I'm not sure we have learned much. Also the US government not objecting, I'm not sure changes t…

Eh, the lean of the article and the comments on the original HN thread were knocking AMD for it as if they were going against American interests by being successfully bullied by China into giving up valuable IP.

AMD is saying that a) the IP was not of the highest value or performance, and b) it's unlikely to go against American national security interests when DoC and DoJ both give explicit sign-off. Remember too that this was in the Obama era, when the likelihood of sailing the country down a river for $$$ was lower.

Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story

#15

Post by arcanus »

duxup wrote: post #13
mizzack wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracies, eh https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v... . Full disclosure, I'm long $AMD ;)

Unless I'm misunderstanding aren't you just proving the point / following the usual example of proof people give of a conspiracy? Every conspiracy claim has some related story people point to and draw a line from. The claim is that the article was FUD. The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything.

> The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything.

The linked Wikipedia shows that Intel was convicted and fined for illegal anticompetitive measures against AMD. They were fined 1.25 billion dollars, a non-trivial sum. It is a factual statement that Intel has historically attempted to suppress AMD products through measures beyond competing on features alone.

While this does not prove the original accusation, it is supporting evidence, and makes the statement more plausible.

Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story

#16

Post by cheaprentalyeti »

unethical_ban wrote: post #14
duxup wrote: post #5

>The Wall Street Journal story omits important factual details, including the fact that AMD put significant protections in place to protect its intellectual property (IP) and prevent valuable IP from being misused or reverse engineered to develop future generations of processors. Without knowing what those protections are, I'm not sure we have learned much. Also the US government not objecting, I'm not sure changes t…

Eh, the lean of the article and the comments on the original HN thread were knocking AMD for it as if they were going against American interests by being successfully bullied by China into giving up valuable IP. AMD is saying that a) the IP was not of the highest value or performance, and b) it's unlikely to go against American national security interests when DoC and DoJ both give explicit sign-off. Remember too tha…

So now you're saying the deal has to be good because it was back when Obama was president and we didn't make deals with Russia?

Never mind that this is circular logic at work, where do you think Russia suddenly got the money to start bombing Syria within a month and a half of the Iran Deal?

Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story

#17

Post by duxup »

arcanus wrote: post #15
duxup wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm misunderstanding aren't you just proving the point / following the usual example of proof people give of a conspiracy? Every conspiracy claim has some related story people point to and draw a line from. The claim is that the article was FUD. The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything.

> The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything. The linked Wikipedia shows that Intel was convicted and fined for illegal anticompetitive measures against AMD. They were fined 1.25 billion dollars, a non-trivial sum. It is a factual statement that Intel has historically attempted to suppress AMD products through measures beyond competing on features alone. While this does no…

I don't think it makes anything more plausible.

If there is zero proof of the claim, stuff that isn't proof ... still isn't proof.

I feel like using your reasoning, you could argue ANYTHING is more plausible.

Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story

#18

Post by mizzack »

duxup wrote: post #13
mizzack wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conspiracies, eh https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49#49 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices,_Inc._v... . Full disclosure, I'm long $AMD ;)

Unless I'm misunderstanding aren't you just proving the point / following the usual example of proof people give of a conspiracy? Every conspiracy claim has some related story people point to and draw a line from. The claim is that the article was FUD. The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything.

Sure, saying there are ulterior motives to this story is a conspiracy theory. Without, say, video evidence of the author getting handed a bag of money by Bob Swan you're free to dismissively label it as such.

Without more information we're left with:

- Everything in the WSJ article was known years ago.

- AMD is a week away from likely taking the x86 performance crown from Intel in nearly every metric.

- The last time this happened, Intel engaged in outright illegal non-competitive behavior to preserve market share.

>It's like what Lenin said... you look for the person who will benefit, and, uh, uh... You know what I'm trying to say...

Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story

#19

Post by duxup »

mizzack wrote: post #18
duxup wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm misunderstanding aren't you just proving the point / following the usual example of proof people give of a conspiracy? Every conspiracy claim has some related story people point to and draw a line from. The claim is that the article was FUD. The fact that companies who are competitors can compete fiercely doesn't prove anything.

Sure, saying there are ulterior motives to this story is a conspiracy theory. Without, say, video evidence of the author getting handed a bag of money by Bob Swan you're free to dismissively label it as such. Without more information we're left with: - Everything in the WSJ article was known years ago. - AMD is a week away from likely taking the x86 performance crown from Intel in nearly every metric. - The last time…

Couldn't you also argue that any bad news about say a politician that comes out would be a conspiracy too as that would be a benefit to someone...?

Re: AMD Responds to WSJ ‘Keys to the Kingdom’ Story

#20

Post by [deleted] »

unethical_ban wrote: post #14
duxup wrote: post #5

>The Wall Street Journal story omits important factual details, including the fact that AMD put significant protections in place to protect its intellectual property (IP) and prevent valuable IP from being misused or reverse engineered to develop future generations of processors. Without knowing what those protections are, I'm not sure we have learned much. Also the US government not objecting, I'm not sure changes t…

Eh, the lean of the article and the comments on the original HN thread were knocking AMD for it as if they were going against American interests by being successfully bullied by China into giving up valuable IP. AMD is saying that a) the IP was not of the highest value or performance, and b) it's unlikely to go against American national security interests when DoC and DoJ both give explicit sign-off. Remember too tha…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN