MacBidouille claims that IBM is charging Intel more for SOI (Silicon on Insulator) technology licensing then other companies
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
IBM vs Intel and SOI
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just hope that IBM gets a head start on Silicon-On-Penicillin for the G6. Man will that chip cure what ails ya! 
This isn't news. Of course Intel would pay more than AMD or nVidia... They sell a lot more units.
Even if the charge were more per unit, it isn't surprising. When you are number 2 or 3 in a market, you won't sell the number 1 guys your technology for as little as you would to other people.
Even if the charge were more per unit, it isn't surprising. When you are number 2 or 3 in a market, you won't sell the number 1 guys your technology for as little as you would to other people.
Also, I believe AMD and Nvidia do a lot of manufacturing with IBM. Intel would probably never manufacture with IBM because they have considerable investments in their own plants. Therefore, IBM has a vested interest in increasing volume of these products and royalties propably remain scant in comparison to manufacturing earning.
Bubba
Bubba
$45 per chip seems a bit much. IBM would probably earn more per Intel-made chip than its own chips. Strange.
har good boy
big blue is bag in biz, big time.
now lets hope someone will disturb ibm in other market segements, like notebooks and low and midrange servers...
we dont want ibm to be that monopoly it was back in days, right?
big blue is bag in biz, big time.
now lets hope someone will disturb ibm in other market segements, like notebooks and low and midrange servers...
we dont want ibm to be that monopoly it was back in days, right?
Your the first person who commented who I think gets it
. The point of such an expensive agreement between IBM and Intel would be to secure IBM's rights to the technology. Right now for AMD & nVidia, IBM is providing their expertise and facilities to churn out chips, and for that I'm certain that IBM makes a healthy per-chip profit that is completely undisclosed. Intel however would want to not manufacture with IBM, but take the actual process home with them, and as such IBM has to protect it's investment in developing SOI.It's like the difference between selling someone a fish, and selling them a fishing pole. Sell them the fish and they will come back tomorrow for another, but sell them the pole and you may never see them again. I can't see IBM as wanting to give away what amounts to their crown jewels without some major profit coming back to them.
I think this is an awesome move. It adds a lot more competition to an industry which Intel dominates in the consumer sector.
I find this very interesting. Is there any posibilty of this being illegal? As in making life very hard for a competitor? I dont pretend to know much about the laws on this issue, anyone have any input?
Man, I think this is totally EXCELLENT! I mean, M$ is dumping intel for x2 (or whatever), and now intel has to pay IBM for their technological innovations? And what processors do Mac's run? Anyone?
All I remember is all this fud coming from intel 'Apple has made the wrong choice in processors all along - RISC is unamerican' (or whatever, I'm paraphrasing from memory, you get the idea)... More shades of gray, no? They teach in comp school about 'standardization'... Reality is, the more diverse a network or system setup is, the less it'll have trouble when these nasty infections pop up... Overall good news for Mac users, and more proof that we've chosen the right path all along.
All I remember is all this fud coming from intel 'Apple has made the wrong choice in processors all along - RISC is unamerican' (or whatever, I'm paraphrasing from memory, you get the idea)... More shades of gray, no? They teach in comp school about 'standardization'... Reality is, the more diverse a network or system setup is, the less it'll have trouble when these nasty infections pop up... Overall good news for Mac users, and more proof that we've chosen the right path all along.
The other side
In the long run, this is good. Intel will be forced into a)funding IBM which supports apple or b)Innovating, and innovation breeds innovation - over the years.
In the long run, this is good. Intel will be forced into a)funding IBM which supports apple or b)Innovating, and innovation breeds innovation - over the years.
Re: IBM vs Intel and SOI
Shouldnt this title be reworded since it hasnt happened yet? It should say IBM will or may charge Intel if they decide to use this process shouldnt it?
You are free to make life hard for a competitor. How about this for an analogy:
Apple would have had to license the Mac OS (or at least the GUI part) to Microsoft or Dell or ... from 1984 to 1995.
Look at it this way: they (Apple or IBM) made the product, they don't have to license it if they don't want, and if they decide to do so, they can under whatever terms they want since it is there discovery.
It would be like forcing Coke to license its formula to Pepsi (or the reverse if you prefer Pepsi).
It is there property and they can use it as they see fit.
Oooh - Looks Like Ramsey Pricing......
This looks rather interesting if it is all true... IBM - holder of the technoloyg looks like it is pricing the technology on the basis of ability to pay - which isn't a hell of a long way from ramsey pricing...
Its an economic theory of pricing, but if I says anymore I'll bores ya ta sleep!!
Becuase Intel are the 64,000lb gorilla (not 64 bit chip gorilla) in the processor space they are going to have to pony up... probbaly to the point where they save $1 by not developing the technology (or something similar) themselves...
This looks rather interesting if it is all true... IBM - holder of the technoloyg looks like it is pricing the technology on the basis of ability to pay - which isn't a hell of a long way from ramsey pricing...
Its an economic theory of pricing, but if I says anymore I'll bores ya ta sleep!!
Becuase Intel are the 64,000lb gorilla (not 64 bit chip gorilla) in the processor space they are going to have to pony up... probbaly to the point where they save $1 by not developing the technology (or something similar) themselves...
Invested billions
All those latest problems of Intel (lack of 64bit proc; lack of SOI) make me wonder where the hell do they spend all their R&D billions? AFAIK they spend more on chip R&D than IBM. By a far margin.
Maybe the old truth is working again - it requires one smartass with enough resources in your competitors company to ruin your business. And all your investment dollars mean nothing.
All those latest problems of Intel (lack of 64bit proc; lack of SOI) make me wonder where the hell do they spend all their R&D billions? AFAIK they spend more on chip R&D than IBM. By a far margin.
Maybe the old truth is working again - it requires one smartass with enough resources in your competitors company to ruin your business. And all your investment dollars mean nothing.
Be careful you don't take those R&D numbers too literally. For example, Microsoft spends half their R&D budget on Stock grants, not actual R&D. So much is classified under R&D that strictly is not R&D.
Anyway, Intel is stuck in a vicious cycle of extending a legacy ISA. There attempts to break free from it, the iTanium 1&2, have failed miserably because of Intel's reliance on Windows and Microsoft. Microsoft is dead in the water and can't innovate, leaving Intel with no new software for their new Itanium architecture. So their screwed. In the meantime IBM catches up and now starts passing Intel, which finds itself a few years and Watts behind.
Anyway, Intel is stuck in a vicious cycle of extending a legacy ISA. There attempts to break free from it, the iTanium 1&2, have failed miserably because of Intel's reliance on Windows and Microsoft. Microsoft is dead in the water and can't innovate, leaving Intel with no new software for their new Itanium architecture. So their screwed. In the meantime IBM catches up and now starts passing Intel, which finds itself a few years and Watts behind.
Nope. Even if IBM was in a monopoly position, it wouldn't be an anti-trust violation for them to refuse to license patented technology to a competitor.
Strictly speaking, Intel cannot "develop" the same technology, as it is patented by IBM. Even if they were to develop SSOI, if the SOI component fell under the claims of IBMs SOI patent, then they could not produce chips using that technology without licensing SOI technology from IBM.
This is GREAT news!
The article was good news for IBM, but with this being the case, IBM is even better off. I'm sure IBM will start to open up a lead over Intel since Intel is close to being stalled development-wise. Surely the SOI technology and subsequent SSOI technology will help IBM deliver better POWER and PowerPC chips than Intel's Pentium and Itanium chips.
The article was good news for IBM, but with this being the case, IBM is even better off. I'm sure IBM will start to open up a lead over Intel since Intel is close to being stalled development-wise. Surely the SOI technology and subsequent SSOI technology will help IBM deliver better POWER and PowerPC chips than Intel's Pentium and Itanium chips.
Possibly. But in the rarified air of anti-trust law what's "illegal" and what's "legal" is generally determined by who can bring a winning lawsuit.
Monopolies that are competing unfairly can be forced to license technology. Look at what happened to Microsoft. They are being forced to license their IP because they unfair acted to maintain their monopoly.