InterviewSolution
Saved Bookmarks
InterviewSolution
| 1. |
Solve : Interesting read...? |
|
Answer» Full Story.I didn't know Geek-9pm WROTE for wired. Hey! Rared the article. This can be a turning point.Quote from: Geek-9pm on May 04, 2014, 11:27:34 AM Hey! Rared the article. This can be a turning point. Well it "can" be, but I think the article in quite premature in it's assessment since it quite clearly isn't stating it as a possibility- it illustrates it as essentially being inevitable. The title is sensational- "This Google MOTHERBOARD Means Trouble for Intel" It never says why. It also ignores that the motherboard in question, designed by IBM to utilize it's PowerPC Processors and get them back into the game for servers- is just that- a Server motherboard. I'm not up on the particulars and standards for Server motherboards (I'm going to assume the slots that appear to look EXACTLY like PCI slots are for something else). There is a lot of information online about this. Google and NVidia are behind it, with the claim that "power is open and x86 is not. " Which I find laughable given history. Just look at it. the CURRENT x86 architecture goes back to the original IBM PC in many ways. IBM had a stranglehold on the market but also released the technical specifications for ISA to the industry. That paired wit hthe fact that the components were easy to acquire for other manufacturers resulted in the clone industry. IBM didn't like that so they created MCA, a patent-encumbered motherboard design that was used on their PS/2 systems. This was their downfall because nobody really embraced it, instead preferring to follow the path of the rest of the industry- the clone manufacturers- who had created, along with Intel, the open EISA standard. This continued pretty much to the present day. the documentation and technical specifications for things such as PCI, PCI-E, AGP, etc. are all open and they do not require licensing to use- (unlike, for example, HDMI). So to say x86 is not "open" is a bald-faced lie. Further still I find it difficult to ignore the presence of IBM in this- remember that they lost control of their own platform, tried to tighten their grip and found they had basically alienated what was LEFT of any form of consumer loyalty. The claim that Google- with IBM- will spell trouble for Intel Also ignores the fact that Intel has not in fact been the sole provisionary in creating new standards. The standards for Processors and Motherboards are set by groups of manufacturers- the entire x64 architecture is based entirely on technology designed by AMD- not Intel. So to come into such a discussion with the implicit assumption that Intel has any sort of stranglehold or control over the actual specifications is to completely forget that the very reason Intel has such a good position is because they aren't IBM and they don't try to control the platform. The additional irony is that we should assume that IBM won't try to do the exact same thing they did 30+ years ago and control the platform. Fool me once, shame on you- (MCA & PS/2) Fool me twice, shame on me. The entire purpose of the motherboard is entirely for Servers. It is not applicable to any Consumer desktop system and the fact is that this only changes what IBM is doing. IBM sold their x86 Server properties to Lenovo, so of course they aren't dealing with x86 anymore, instead they are focussing on their PowerPC stuff. And those are already doing just fine- it's not like this is something completely new that will destroy x86, it's an established Architecture that is already in use. The brutal irony of it all is the assessment that somehow IBM leaving a market means that suddenly it's unprofitable, while at the same time ignoring that a market being commoditized is not a bad thing either. Where once a IBM PC cost something like 10,000 dollars, now we can buy a system for significantly less- in fact paying that amount for a new Consumer System is unheard of. To argue that IBM leaving a market means a decline in that market is to ignore the history whereby IBM's departure from a market actually meant that customers would be treated more fairly and not overpay because of the branding of a single over-confident Tech company who has a history of making poor business decisions. (yeah sure you can keep the rights to MS-DOS, hey let's completely recreate a new patent-encumbered motherboard Bus, let's sell off our top-of-the-line and extremely successful brand of laptops to a chinese company)... All this adds to that list is "Let's team up with a dominant internet superpower who dwarfs us in consumer goodwill. If anything goes wrong, or it turns out the system is not as great as Google is promising I guarantee IBM will get the blame. |
|