I can't imagine Steve Jobs allowing this to happen at Apple. They have definitely caught people leaking things, and the consequences were swift and unpleasant for the leaker. Why can't AMD catch these people? Is there something preventing them from implementing the same kinds of measures to catch leakers as Apple?
(Using Apple just as an example, of course. I'm sure there are other companies who find leakers and make an example of them through the legal system.)
AMD's culture is just different than Apple's. For one, there are no "secret teams" like iPhone, iTablet, etc. (well, at least none that I knew about). For another, developers have real autonomy to make business decisions, something that would never happen at Apple. For instance, I, a lowly intern, redeployed software to the production line during an emergency. If something went wrong, chips would actually stop rolling out of the factory. I would imagine normal (non-senior) Apple engineers don't have that kind of autonomy.
The other major difference, which perhaps you caught above, is that AMD actually manufactures their own stuff. So, not only are there US engineers, but engineers overseas in the plants that AMD owns, engineers in Dresden, etc. Not to say that foreign engineers are somehow bad, but it is a lot harder to control leaks when you have engineers working literally 24/7 all around the world. And at the scale that you're making your own stuff, there are just more people than there are at Apple, and things are way harder to control. It's like herding cats.
> production line during an emergency. If something went
> wrong, chips would actually stop rolling out of the factory.
While I'm all for letting engineers react to things progressively, that you were in position where a screw up could have shut down a fab as an intern is nothing short of terrifying to me.
To me, the converse is a lot scarier: what if I, feeling no personal responsibility for yield, wasn't there after-hours looking for bugs in the first place? Or what if I did find the critical bug, but had to wait weeks for forms before it was pushed through? Or was blocked by office politics?
There's nothing more disheartening as having a fix for something serious that you can't push through. I've worked at companies like that: taking away the power to break something means taking away the power to make it better.
Not to say that I somehow dislike code reviews or generally fly by the seat of my pants: the situation really was a real emergency. I can't talk specifics, but the bug had already cost more than the damage it would do to if I broke something.
It seems to work for them...
It's less so with leaks between companies. A company that deals this way will never allow the information it gathers to show up like that. Even analysts who will examine the leaked materials will have little (not so little in the case of Intel - they have like two competitors) information about the origins of what they are looking at.
Indeed, you don't wanna mess with Apple: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10291701-37.html
Not sure what you mean by this statement. Should AMD get some sort of special consideration because they are smaller than Intel?
That's the point & that is arguably anticompetitive. IE, they are small and they have to spread wide to avoid being open to predatory pricing.
What is AMD's competitive advantage? The best I've ever seen is that they are cheaper than Intel for a given processor class/speed. However that doesn't seem to have gotten them much traction. Competing on price alone rarely makes for a successful company.
You sure?
This is even more significant when the competitive options are significantly limited (eg: processors). In larger markets (eg: automobiles) there is more room for low-cost competitors to make some money, but they are not often powerhouses of the industry.
If you have data to the contrary please post (and by data I mean more than just 1-off examples).
Anyway, since you say "it is fairly established" the burden should be on you to tell me where & by who. What I know is established is that internet marketing gurus speaking to small & micro businesses recommend finding non price differentiators. This arguably makes sense for small businesses where market size is not an issue. Most large companies however, need to go after large markets & that means lower prices.
My old marketing textbooks say that there are two broad positioning strategies & corresponding pricing strategies niche(differentiated) & penetration(low cost). The larger share of the pie usually belongs to the latter with high margins often going to the former.
I would argue that low cost strategies are probably more "stable" since they do not rely on innovation & other constant miracles. Even Apple may flop two or three major products in a row & die again.
Selling at low prices given the same cost structure is not a good survival strategy. "We lose money on every unit but we'll make it up on volume!"
That is a good example of manufacturing companies winning on cost.
Car companies that tried to deliver a low-cost product without the quality behind it (eg Yugo) ultimately failed.
PS: Don't forget the market decides price, you can only really control cost if you want to be more than a nitch player.
The thing to remember is that AMD is a small fraction of the size of Intel, and they have to cover the same market segments. If they try to specialize (say, servers, or notebooks), Intel will just sell that segment at a loss. AMD has to cover everything with only a fraction of the people to stay competitive, and it's really hard.
Even while I was there, we had what I suspect (but have no proof) were incidents of people leaking product plans, roadmaps, etc. (but no IP) to Intel. It's sad, really.