Intel Warns Asia Over Linux Plan 432
rimbaldi writes "Intel's CEO, Craig Barrett recently warned the Chinese government that their attempt to create regional standards for computers and communications, including standards using Linux-based software, may be doomed to failure, since 'such a strategy might protect local companies and markets in the short term, [but] it would make it more difficult for Asian companies to participate in world markets.' This is in reaction to earlier Slashdot-covered stories about an Asian software consortium and China disallowing foreign software."
You've got to keep her in your pocket. (Score:4, Funny)
Or maybe Intel is worried about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or maybe Intel is worried about... (Score:5, Interesting)
With Linux, all they have to do is write a good compiler.
Re:Or maybe Intel is worried about... (Score:3, Interesting)
Intel has been one of Linux's greatest supporters. It has helped Intel break into the risc dominated unix field with cheap lintel servers.
Infact all the recent Itanium and Pentium4 chips were designed using Linux.
Intel has its own internal LUG that numbers over 10k. They have been working hard to gnu-ify and change the kernel so it can compile on intel's compilers.
If anything this should give Intel an advantage because proprietary chips are more expensive or slower because they can not be produc
Article is BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Intel has been one of Linux's greatest supporters. It has helped Intel break into the risc dominated unix field with cheap lintel servers.
The problem is that the original article had a significant slant, and the Slashdot post warped this entirely out of context. Look at the original quote. Barrett is simply warning China that trying to *deliberately* produce incompatible systems to protect local tech companies is a bad idea. (If the only computer you can use in China is Chinese-made, it helps
Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to agree; the only possible reason for intel to take this stance is money from M$. Otherwise, they only stand to gain by other countries embracing the first *nix to be specifically designed to be compatible with Intel chips.
Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket. (Score:3, Insightful)
well, there is intel's profits to be concerned with. if china rolls out it's own chipset, national protectionism and government consumption will make it a non-trivial contender.
of course, this will almost assuredly never happen because this is exactly the sort of thing the wto has been working on abolishing. setting up national tariff and subsidy barriers to protect domestic industry is much "worse" for the economy than allowing fle
Personally, I'm glad to see an unbiased, .... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You've got to keep her in your pocket. (Score:3, Insightful)
Intel has other problems with china trying to build its own OS for its own CPU chip. Its the CPU chip if they really have one.
This is all part of an even bigger picture. Corperate america is hitting a wall and hitting it hard. I saw the same thing at Motorola. The Asain market has been the next big thing for close to 10 years now an
Intel Loves Microsoft? Hardly (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel has been / is mad at Microsoft about:
- Constant attempts over the years to generalize their OSes to other processor archectures (NT on Alpha/MIPs, Pocket PC on all sorts of non-Intel (non X-scale) cpus and, of course, x86-64 and the eventual cpu independent version of
- Blocking Intel [informationweek.com] on hardware standards and initiatives
- Microsoft dragging it's feet about supporting new hardware features in the OS (eg USB on NT (never really), Hyperthreading (2 years) and Itanium Architecture (Linux had IA64 up and running 3 years before Ms)
-Microsoft's attempt to position Intel cpus as just another processor they support.
Microsoft has been / is mad at Intel about:
- Intel's general support of Linux in general including founding and funding the Open Source Development Lab (where Linus and Andrew are employed now)
- Intel's support of HP in running HP-UX on Itanium and Intel's historic support for Novell Netware, Solaris, Unixware and other Unices
-Support for OS-independent management and other hardware APIs that let other OSes get parity or better with Windows
-Occasionally making end-users aware of the prickly truth that the cost advantage of "Wintel" vs big RISC UNIX is all Intel hardware economics which makes the solution cheaper in spite of the greater cost of the Ms software
-Intel's attempt to position Windows as just another OS they support.
Huh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Really going out on a limb at this point for Intel to criticize China. The Dragon chip is one thing. I think the bigger issue that we're just starting to hear bits and pieces about over at eet is immersion lithography.
Intel is the lone voice of dissent swearing it's not going to work while IBM and Infineon keep coming up with reports on how great it is and how quickly ASML, Canon and Nikon are going to be bringing tools to market.
Meanwhile Infineon is getting all cozy making deals all over the place.
Re:Huh (Score:3, Interesting)
China has been looking for ways for a decade now to stick it to the US economy. Someone over there must think that they can have a measurable effect on world PC standards.
Re:Huh (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Huh (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/~Stargoat/journal [slashdot.org]
Re:Huh (Score:3, Insightful)
I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords.
Re:Huh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huh (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, at what point would the people stop being walked all over? Once China has a huge economy, capitalist, communist or otherwise, if the wealth is not spread a bit more than now (which has gotten better than ten years ago), the people just might wise up.
Re:Huh (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Huh (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Huh (Score:3, Funny)
I am not a crook!
At long last, sir, have you no decency!?
- Jack Comics
In other news, (Score:5, Funny)
It makes sence.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It makes sence.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It makes sence.. (Score:5, Interesting)
"They'll be unable to interoperate with the reat of the world, just like Europeans can't watch American TV shows because they use PAL and not NTSC.
Oh, wait..."
It's quite shocking to me that the top guy at Intel is so fundamentally ignorant of the realities of modern computing and communication.
Re:It makes sence.. (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't an attempt to put china off directly, it's an attempt to put western companies off working with China and lending weight to China's approach (which would surely be disasterous for Intel and Microsoft if it encouraged more countries to implement home-grown hardware and software rather than Wintel supported systems).
Re:It makes sence.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It makes sence.. (Score:4, Interesting)
In addition, U.S. firms will have to be interoperable with AFTA if we hope to continue trading with them. As such, I would assume that U.S. firms would demand that vendors supply equipment interoperable with AFTA standards. If MS is not able to supply such an OS, then the firms will just have to go elsewhere.
Re:It makes sence.. (Score:3, Informative)
1/5 is the closest single digit fraction. 1.3 billion Chinese/6.3 billion people in the world. India would hold the 1/6 spot.
Intel Scared? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Intel Scared? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't see any real alternative for SE Asia. They surely don't want to be utterly behold'n to Microsoft/Intel. Two companies that seeming lie outside the reasonable care, custody, and control of the US's own Government let alone SE Asia.
Choosing WinTel isn't a features based purchase decision. It is a LONG term decision akin to choosing your nation's telephone standard. It *IS* a national security question, and its not just about worm 'o the day and "NSA" keys. Why, in all that is, would ANY country choose to pay a such long term economic tax to a foreign corporation that is above its own law? Worse, both Intel and Microsoft have PROVEN themselves uttery untrustworty.
So SE Asia buys into WinTel, they rend their US style path of death and destruction, and when China moves to stop them.... US Trade sanctions.
Yea. I'm sure they're lining up.
Computers/Software are THE core infrastructure of the modern economy. How would you the US would fare if every drop of oil was bought and sold by a single, say Iraqi, company? Secure? I think not, execpt for the fact we can, and will, bomb the S**T out of people to further our agendas.
Yet that is what WinTel would have for SE Asia. Every data bit locked into Wintel DRM and annual program rental fees. Effectively forever.
> You have to ask yourself this: is there an advantage to having a proprietary standard in your country?"
As always, the narrow edge is in the implementation. Linux is NOT a "proprietary standard" by any means. It could be made into one, in a defact sort of way, but Intel has assume a good deal in painting this as pure "protectionism" so soon. Yes, it may turn out that way.
Or not. Linux could be made better into what it aspires to be. A critical infrastructure on which ALL markets can communicate, troll free. Who better than the Asians to contribute their needs to such a platform?
Re:Intel Scared? (Score:5, Interesting)
China already have the manufacturing infrastructure to do all this. They just need to develop their own IP. It's a no-brainer for them.
Let it be also known to the poor Chinese that (Score:5, Funny)
this isn't about why intel being MS's bitch (Score:2)
I'm all for voluntary adoption of Free software, but legally mandating it is utter bullshit.
Re:this isn't about why intel being MS's bitch (Score:5, Insightful)
The government is doing what governments are supposed to do. Serve the interest of all, not just the interested few. By doing this, they will obviously boost their own IT sector, and free it from ruthless exploitation by a runaway US monopoly.
Remember, Microsoft no longer operates in a free market. It is a monopoly, which means it owns and controls the market, no matter how you wiggle around the term "owns".
China, it can be argued, is just leveling the field. Too bad for Bill.
The US has always used government fiat to boost its own businesses. We ignored copyright laws of other countries until the 20th century. The guv built a highway system to crush the railroad companies, build the auto giants, and create massive susburban growth to the detriment of the cities and public education therein.
It chooses winners and losers by awarding defense contracts. It controls interstate commerce. Regulates imports to benefit American interests. It now chooses who can and cannot run foreign countries. In Iraq, the administration has now served notice that the nation MUST permit foreign interests to control their public and private companies.
In comparison, China telling MS to take a hike ain't so bad.
huh (Score:5, Interesting)
Intel > procs and chipsets > DRM > MS Windows
Re:huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Intel > procs and chipsets > DRM > MS Windows
Propably not. They're just trying to prevent the dragon chip from becoming de facto standard for that marketplace.
Re:huh (Score:3, Informative)
Re:huh (Score:5, Interesting)
"proprietary standards"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"proprietary standards"? (Score:5, Insightful)
China has no copyright/patent/licensing treaties with the rest of the world.
They have as much respect for the GPL as they do the Windows EULA.
You call Bejing and demand that they make they're changes available via CVS. Remember, these are the same guys who ran kids over with tanks in Tiennamin square.
Who's got less of a clue? Submitter or FT? (Score:5, Informative)
Mr Barrett's comments come two weeks after officials from China, Japan and South Korea agreed to co-operate on the development of software applications based on the free Linux computer operating system
Barrett's point wasn't about Linux. The FT just threw that angle in to get the suckers riled up, and it worked.
The FT could have said that Barrett warned against "proprietary" standards based on binary arithmatic. Note it's not the technical details of the implementation he's concerned about, its their proprietary nature.
Andy Grove delivered a very simmilar speech to European bigwigs about a decade ago and he was right.
Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone suprised?
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM means all kinds of money for lots of people. They are going to fight tooth and nail to make it ubiquitous. Think of the domino effects. You'll need DRM TV to work with your DRM this and your DRM that. DRM chips up the wazoo. There will be different competing DRM standards. Whoever wins, wins big.
(Unless DRM gets the big boot it deserves.)
If Intel has no (non-DRM) competition, this might just come to pass. OTOH, a chip company with a concience selling a non-DRM alternative could make significant inroads - or at least help keep Intel honest.
Welcome to the Wintel nightmare! (Score:2)
Last time it was M$ not getting its share with the OS consortium, now it's hardware. Soon they'll have a complete system...
Article: -1 troll (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore,
Re:Article: -1 troll (Score:5, Interesting)
> He's talking about chinese plans to try to grow their own (non x86) chip market through protectionist policies
> The high costs of such a two-pronged approach would make it difficult to compete. "You have to ask yourself this: is there an advantage to having a proprietary standard in your country?"
First, protectionism is everywhere. It is very hipocritical of the US to protect its agriculture and job markets, and then expect everyone else to continue to either import or pay royalties on its chips and software.
Second, this particular piece of protectionism could actually lead to something. If one takes a potentially more efficient and cheaper RISC system, and uses it to run GNU/Linux, he can makes dirty cheap, open systems accessible to millions. One could even see this as a linchpin for the end of proprietary systems dominance, both software and hardware -- yes, x86 is proprietary. In this case, China and its partners in potential would be protecting not a closed market, but a nascent, open industry from dumping, IP claims and similar anticompetitive tatics from US companies.
Now, how MIPS is anymore proprietary than x86 I fail to see. Quite to the contrary.
Re:Article: -1 troll (Score:2)
something just occured to me -
ofcourse Linux is open standards - but what is stopping the Chinese from changing the source, not rereleasing it, then forcing out binaries to its public? (ie forcing everyone to use RedArmy Linux, or whatever its called...)
what are the ramifications of this? and if this isnt possible, why not?
Clearly? (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if you didn't read the rest of the article, it's clear he's talking about "proprietary standards," which linux clearly is not.
Here, however, I'm not so sure. Just because something is "clearly" true to you, me, or anyone else capable of handling a dictionary a
Re:Article: -1 troll (Score:2, Insightful)
Of COURSE this is a bad idea - because it means competition and potential loss of revenue for Intel.
Geez - what if the proprietary standard chip in China is better than Intel's prorietary standard chip in the US?? If you didn't have to worry about backwards compatiblity, and started with a clean slate could that be possible? That would REALLY suck for Intel - especially if all Orac
Re:Article: -1 troll (Score:2)
- Premise 1: a chinese processor will fail in the world market
- Premise 2: linux will run on a chinese processor
-
Conclusion: Linux will fail
In fact, the correct conclusion is more likely to be of the form Linux on a processor which fails will be a failure.--dave
In other news (Score:3, Interesting)
I know, Linux machines use intel processors, too. But unless I'm mistaken, intel and MS are pretty closely aligned. It doesn't seem like a very unbiased party, hence the analogy.
Can you say FUD? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can you say FUD? (Score:2)
You mean, like the metric system? (Score:2)
Hmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you skip the "Intel inside" you can double that savings easily.
Yet again more asian long-term thinking at work.
Does this have anything do with Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, that's my two cents. You can go back to running around in circles while waving your arms and shrieking about Microsoft now...;-)
Oh stop it... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Great Thing about Standards (Score:5, Insightful)
The great thing about standards, and having "open" systems, is that everybody is on fair ground. Why does Red Hat and Suse outsell their competition? Is it because they have some "secret extra" that locks in their customers?
Well, no (at least not for the most part). It's because of the other things they bring to support the standard, such as service, support, upgrades, developing to add to what has been done to make the "standard" easier to use.
So if China wants to base their software on Linux, more power to them - as long as they obey the GPL. If they make an improvement to make it easier to use Chinese characters on the command line, great - release it to everybody else. If they make a processor that works like Intel and they want to make it public, have a good time.
So I disagree with Mr. Barrett in principle that using regional standards is a "bad" thing - as long as those standards are published, realized by everybody, and don't have any hidden "gotchas".
What China will have to remember is the great thing about standards - there are so many of them. They (and by this I mean China's oppressive communist government) might think of some great standards, like "electrocute religious dissodents if they touch a computer". Or "file encryption systems must have a government backdoor at any time".
Because the rest of the world might not want to use that particular standard in their stuff. And if you have 75% of the world not using your standard, you either have to a) say you don't care (and make Mr. Barrett right), b) modify your standard, or c) join the rest of the world.
And if it turns out they're just taking the intellectual property of others - including Linux and yes, Intel - and not returning it to the group, they'll find that people will not be as interested in playing in their sandbox.
So have fun, China, and I hope to see some interesting new standards. I actually wish you luck if you decide you want to make your own processors and software, and if you truly want to make both open for all to use, have a good time.
It's this kind of crap (Score:3)
Pretty big market.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Would it not be prudent to have technology that works the way they need it to, instead of accepting whatever multinationals decide is good enough for them?
And anyhow if it's based on open standards, will it not be easier to interoperate with them anyhow??
I think the statement is more about protecting Intel's interests (i.e. selling chips), then what's "good for asia"
Rest of the world??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Europe = 200-300 million people (approx)
China = more than 1000 million people
So, who is the "rest of the world"?
Linux: Intel's friend and foe (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, Intel has much to fear from Linux. If there were a large enough market that didn't care about Windows, then it would become practical for Linux users to question whey they should run on an expensive Intel chip instead of a cheaper non-x86 CPU from another vendor. The lock-in to the instruction set would be gone. Intel would have to compete head-to-head with MIPS and the likes in the desktop market, not something they want to do.
Cheaper non-x86 CPU? Which one? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just curious, what would be the name of that cheaper non-x86 CPU? As for now I see all non-x86 personal computers and workstations are more expensive than same performance x86 ones. Or did I miss some one?
Little wonder, with Intel in (Score:2)
Gate$ must be nervou$ over thi$..
Too bad Billy boy. Your evil plan for global domination and en$lavement of every living creature on earth has been exposed.
You will fail. Linux will exterminate your filthy grip on the throats of freedom loving people everywhere.
DEATH TO M$ !!
Missing the Point (Score:5, Interesting)
Or it would be, if nobody like the Chinese got uppity. Planning to go with non-TCPA software is certainly Not Part of the Plan, and could derail all of Intel's plans.
That just can't be allowed now, can it?
FUD, see DVD vs VCD (Score:3, Insightful)
Today, the majority DVD player now support VCD, SVCD (which have NO DRM whatsoever) and MP3s (bonus). DiVX;-) support is just starting to appear. I betcha by XMAS the 'de facto' player will list DVD,SVCD,VCD,DiVX,WMA,MP3 compatibility (and OGG too hopefully).
Simple marketing: Q: "How do we get all those people with DVD players to spend money on a new one this Xmas?" A: Release a new line with new ATTRACTIVE features.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing really to see here (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. This is the only reason Barrett has taken this position. This has nothing to do with Intel's worry about "proprietary" anything or their concern for Asian software markets. Intel is only worried they will have to adapt to the (massive) emerging market in Asia.
shakin in their cubes (Score:2)
Language (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You craven anti-Americanism has no place here! (Score:2)
FUD: Intel scared (Score:3, Insightful)
In the short-term it may be good for Asia, in the long-term it will be good for Asia, because instead of Asian companies trying to be compatible with US/European standards, it will be the other way around.
Even with a measily 10% of population using computers in China (if in the future that should happen), it would larger then the WHOLE U.S. population.
200lb gorilla indeed.
short vs long term... (Score:3, Interesting)
middle term : West is implementing trusted,drm compliant, whatever systems. China cannot sell (unlawful material, because open)
long term : illegality considered illegal barrier to trade by wto. West can use free chinese programs/systems. Intel & Microsoft become irrelevants
One can always dream...
Short-term AND long-term thinking (Score:2)
Um, yeah, I don't think that the purpose of the Dragon chip is to participate in world markets, mmkay?
This is an empty threat. (Score:2)
The worst possible outcome for Asia
Hardware versus Software (Score:3, Informative)
Barrett is an executive at Intel. His primary concern is whether the Chinese or the Indians will succeed with localizing microprocessor design. Needless to say, he is predisposed to believe that these efforts should not be undertaken.
Here on Slashdot, the primary focus is the various attempts taking place in Asia to standardize around Linux. From my own perspective, I don't think that this effort is logically equivalent to the Barrett's hardware example. I don't see the effort at promoting Linux as an attempt to fork the code base, but rather an effort to unify the development community around a single standard. With luck, this effort will result in better contributions to the core Linux code base.
I think what Intel is saying (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course Intel welcomes the Chinese production of high-quality, low-cost computer chips.
Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is working very hard to keep there from being a "critical mass" of people using alternatives, so that everyone "muat" buy Windows/Office because that's what everybody else uses. Once people start expecting compatibility with "everyone", where everyone includes Linux, the game is already half lost. Regardless of whether they actually use Linux at that time, Microsoft doesn't want to give that alternative, simply because it hurts those running Linux who can't communicate properly with Windows users far more than the other way around.
Kjella
China = 12% of Intel's Revenue (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh.
Heh-heh.
So, Mr. Barrett, was the last time this sort of thing has been tried in a locale of 1.2 billion people?
Basically, Intel is scared. If this takes off, Intel will suffer dearly in a market that currently generates 3.2 billion dollars of revenue for them [intel.com]. Roughly 12% of their total revenue comes from China alone.
You'll forgive me, Mr. Barrett, if I have trouble keeping a straight face.
Re:China = 12% of Intel's Revenue (Score:5, Interesting)
If you dig a bit deeper into Intel's financials, you'll find that China represents a huge chunk of Intel's growth since 2000--while their total revenue has dropped from 33.7 billion to 26.7 billion, revenue from China has increased from 2.15 billion to 3.2 billion.
In 2000, China was about 6.3% of Intel's total revenue. Today, it's nearly double that. If China's plans succeed, Intel loses both a sizeable chunk of their revenue and one of their biggest growth markets.
Sorry, did I say 'one of their biggest growth markets'? I meant 'biggest'.
Is that why apple does fine. (Score:3, Insightful)
If china wants to develop for a different platform. Its their choice. If they also want to develop on a different processor then what intel offers then that is their choice. Personally I like it. If china/asain succeed's not only will they have a nice platform (hopefully) They will have a cpu that isn't pulled down by all hacks to make it modern.. I Say 'Hey china go ahead'.
Why should china put money into other country's when it can put it into their own.
Really I think intel just wants money. But their solution is just a hack for backword compatibilty.
Theres really a point where backword compatbility stifles things.
(the itanium is nice tho, since its not x86 based.)
I will shutup before I get too offtopic.
You know... (Score:4, Insightful)
Intel does not like Chineese manufactured CPUs (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for writing my new book (my publisher supplied me with Word macros that I must use), I find this $199 PC with SuSE Linux to provide a super productive environment! When I get time to get back to work on my own products next December, my cheap Chineese PC meets all my needs (in my case, this is running Java JDK, ant, IntelliJ, Tomcat, Joram JMS, JBoss, etc.) I have to love low overhead and a $199 computer is a sweet price point that an Intel based machine would have a difficult time meeting.
Off course I expect noise like this from Intel!
Intel likes globalization when it favors them :-)
-Mark
Regional Standard Hardware or Software? (Score:3, Insightful)
But, even if China does create new silicon and computing hardware, the input data and output information can still conform to international standards (ASCII, HTML, etc.) Just because the information was created without profitting Intel or AMD hardware sales does not make the information bad.
I understand he wants to protect potential profits from selling $billions of Intel hardware to China, but this FUD about incompatible standards doesn't cut it. Even if China were to make their own silicon, I'm sure a few patches to gcc would make their C++ code compile just fine for their new hardware. If China finds a way to make it (faster, cheaper, better; choose two) than what is available from current vendors, then they should make it.
One of the reasons that Open-Hardware is not generally available is the large cost of generating the silicon, and the logistics of distributing the hardware worldwide at a reasonable price. But if China is funding the fab factories, a key barrier is removed; and that should scare the beancounters at CPU manufacturers.
How can he say this? (Score:3, Insightful)
It worked nicely for Intel and Microsoft. This is exactly why these companies dominate their markets. They have forced standards. They are doing the same thing now by forcing DRM on consumers (and YES, DRM will be forced..just watch).
So instead, Barrett expects Asia to allow Intel and Microsoft to create standards for them? Zzzzzt.
It is absolutely clear why Barrett is taking this position: "By 2010, Intel said, China would be the single largest market for its PC and communications chips." If Asia goes off, builds their own OS to their own standards, Intel and Microsoft will be threatened.
Build away Asia! This will force change and flexibility on the industry. Stagnation only benefits those that are intrenched.
So XML, XSL and Linux are strategies for losing? (Score:2)
Next: Like there are no other CPU architectures?
Hey, maybe the Chinese would like to buy licences for the right to build Macs and use OS X, as long as they promise to keep them over there...
Did anyone actually read the article (Score:3, Insightful)
strategy (Score:2, Insightful)
Why Intel is doomed (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, I suspect that at first, this new Asian/Linux standard won't be markedly higher p
Intel Warning (Score:4, Insightful)
You better not let prevent us from taking over your markets of 3 Billion people, or we won't allow you access to our 400 Million....
Errr...yeah riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggghhht.
Fact is, like it or not, China could build its own products, and all of its own technology, and completely shut the West out and make one hell of a killing.
They do not need us.
If you ask any Chinese technology business over there, they do not like the fact American companies think they can't do anything worth while in computing, space, science...etc unless western companies invade their markets.
I think during the next 10 years we are going to have one hell of a surprise in store for ourselves as China tells us where to stick our computers and our software.
-gc
Hey... (Score:2)
As to who can make the better chip, well China has a workforce of a billion people to draw on. The USA has a workfo
Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
such a strategy might protect local companies and markets in the short term, [but] it would make it more difficult for Asian companies to participate in world markets.
Given the size of China, Japan and Korean markets combined, I'd say that statement could be turned on its head.
The World markets might find solutions based on the Asian standards to be perfectly adaptable to simpler Western alphabets and to be less expensive, too.
I see... (Score:3, Interesting)
And then Intel start lecturing Asian countries about being obediant little consumers, and buying Windows, and not cutting off their nose to spite their face by investing in Linux.
What was the first bit again? Oh that's right
What if we changed a few words around? (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, China has over a billion people. Add in other parts of Asia that would like to participate and you've got a market that is something like 4 to 5 times as big as the US market. And then consider
that most of the European governments will probably be adopting Linux over the next five years... And then we'll see Barrett's quote being made by someone else in either Europe or Asia that goes something like:
'The strategey of sticking with Windows might protect local companies in the US (like Micro$oft) in the short term, but it would make it more difficult for American companies to participate in world markets.'
Actually, Barrett doesn't care much at all about Windows (he only cares as much as it promotes Intel CPUs) - he's most worried about China's own CPU (Red Dragon, or whatever it's called) improving to the point where it can be produced competitively with Intel's own CPUs. When that happens, Intel probably won't be selling too many units in China.
Was there talk of proprietary standards? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does Intel know something about these local developments that we're not aware of?
Another good question is who decides on what becomes a global standard. It most certainly isn't Intel. This just boosts the need to have an international organization that is open to ALL countries without prejudice. So that countries like the aforementioned can participate in open standards development, yet not remain reliant on foreign software developers.
Intel's real concern... (Score:3, Informative)
There is Intel's only real concern. I hardly think that Intel gives a rip about which OS China chooses to run as long as China uses CPUs made by Intel.
That warning makes no sense. (Score:3, Informative)
The masses that use Linux aren't locked out of MS file formats anymore since years, and Microsoft file format users aren't tied to their lock-in files as much anymore either.
The open sourced alternative ways of loading and saving foreign format files bypass problems of the past with elegancy that is unmatched in the commercial world (where is dead project won't rise from the ashes without money involved).
The "scratch your own itch" way works out neatly. Whoever feels the desire to do so canl pick whatever _they_ think is best for them. Craig's warning is unnecessary and feels a little out of place.
Let's bung it through the universal translater.... (Score:3, Insightful)
We're helping to bring in Palladium and we won't tell you how it works unless you play the game our way.
That means if you want to compete with the rest of the world you have to do your local standard here, and then work on an all-new set of development" to meet standards used in other markets
How dare you set up local standards that aren't OUR local standards particularly if your local standards happen to be open and available to all because they're based on Open Source.
You have to ask yourself this: is there an advantage to having a proprietary standard in your country
Unlike our free, open and totally honest and democratic standard as presented by Microsoft
rival standards co-exist, although he predicted that a single technology would eventually win out
If Microsoft can have a monopoly I see no reason why we at Intel can't have one of our own.
Mr Barrett's comments come after a visit to several Asian countries and the opening of an Intel research and development centre in Taiwan. By 2010, Intel said, China would be the single largest market for its PC and communications chips.
There's a billion of you and 250,000 of us and unless we can screw your embryonic chip and Linux based software market we expect to be saying "but I can't send you a
One OS ought to be enough for anybody (Score:3, Funny)
" One OS ought to be enough for anybody "
- Craig Barrett, Intel, 2003