backtop


Print 56 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Jan 29 at 8:13 AM

Newest Reuters wire claims IBM is considering a purchase of struggling AMD

Few will argue that AMD’s image and profitability are not what they used to be. AMD was having issues prior to its purchase of graphics maker ATI and things have only worsened since the ATI purchase.

DailyTech reported last week that AMD posted a massive loss for Q4 2007 of $1.72 billion while rival Intel posted significant profits across its operations. Between new architectures and aggressive pricing, a shakeup in the microprocessor arena is almost certain for 2008.

Reuters now reports IBM is possibly considering a buyout of floundering AMD and some say this would be an ideal time for the buyout with AMD stock prices at a low. IBM and AMD currently have a research and development expense-sharing deal in place. This is not the first time rumors of an IBM buyout of AMD have circulated.

Other companies have their eye on AMD as well. Texas Instruments and Freescale have both expressed interest in turning AMD around. 

Analyst Ashok Kumar from CRT Capital Group claims, “[IBM buying AMD is] a pretty low-probability event because IBM is moving away from hardware and manufacturing and moving to software and solutions. I don't think IBM wants the bragging rights to go up against Intel."

IBM sold its hard drive making business to Hitachi in 2002 and sold its PC business to Lenovo in 2005. According to Kumar an IBM purchase of AMD would “destroy shareholder value for IBM.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Texas Instruments
By pauldovi on 1/24/2008 3:55:41 PM , Rating: 3
TI has always challenged Intel. They challenged them a while back to becoming the semiconductor leader. I see TI as the most realistic buyer.




RE: Texas Instruments
By jbzx86 on 1/24/2008 4:00:08 PM , Rating: 3
Someone needs to turn AMD around and kick Intel in the nuts again.


RE: Texas Instruments
By iGo on 1/24/2008 4:20:56 PM , Rating: 5
Basically, I wouldn't want AMD or Intel kicking each other in the nuts... What I would prefer both of the companies churning on great products and creating challenge to each other. Either of them going down is ultimately loss for us, consumers. We need great products and we need options to choose from.


RE: Texas Instruments
By AnnihilatorX on 1/24/2008 6:27:18 PM , Rating: 5
That's why you need cycles of each other kicking nuts.
Competition drives innovation.


RE: Texas Instruments
By HaZaRd2K6 on 1/24/2008 9:45:49 PM , Rating: 4
Give this man a six. Now.

I'd vote you up, but you're already a five ;-)


RE: Texas Instruments
By MrPoletski on 1/29/2008 8:13:11 AM , Rating: 2
Mainly so we can flame people for choosing the wrong pr0k :D


RE: Texas Instruments
By pomaikai on 1/24/2008 4:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
AMD needs to get up from getting kicked in the nuts several times from Intel and start kicking back. Instead it punched itself in the face with the TLB bug.


RE: Texas Instruments
By Aquila76 on 1/24/2008 7:46:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
... Instead it punched itself in the face with the TLB bug .


I read that as 'teabag' the first time and LOL'd. Pretty accurate, though: AMD is basically getting 'TLBagged' - especially by the 45nm parts.


RE: Texas Instruments
By DM0407 on 1/25/2008 1:38:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
... Instead it punched itself in the face with the TLB bug .


I think its more like running at full speed, jumping and spreading your legs like a flying V right into a telephone poll. Completely self inflicted and needless.


RE: Texas Instruments
By rebturtle on 1/24/2008 9:10:32 PM , Rating: 4
If anyone's been kicking AMD in the nuts, it's AMD (interesting visual, eh?). Their crazy business practices hurt them over and over again, regardless of how well or poorly the guys in R&D are doing at any given time. I mean really, go ask someone on the street if they've ever even heard of AMD.

Would it kill them to spend a few bucks on marketing to the general public? Maybe a commercial here and there? I know that they never really cared about the desktop market, it's the server market (and OEM's) that's profitable. But they alienate potential customers while still trying to sell them chips. That and the "we're king of the world!" when they succeed and, "Nobody loves me," when they don't really puts me off.

It's a shame, because I've always really loved (and built with) their hardware. Maybe all those great engineers can get entry-level jobs over at Intel once Hector is done driving the company into the ground while taking a record paycheck.


RE: Texas Instruments
By killerroach on 1/25/2008 8:54:16 AM , Rating: 2
Kicking themselves in the nuts, huh? Maybe their future is not in semiconductors, but in yoga. :)

Seriously, though, I've said for a while now that the most logical buyer for AMD (in my opinion) is Samsung, who has the capital and resources needed to make AMD quite scary indeed.


RE: Texas Instruments
By qwertyz on 1/24/2008 5:53:32 PM , Rating: 1
If there is anyone that really wants to buy them now it's really the time I don't know what they are expecting for only if they really don't wanna buy them that explains all.


RE: Texas Instruments
By murphyslabrat on 1/24/2008 6:22:10 PM , Rating: 3
No, no, no, no. You have it all wrong. The only one who kicked Intel in the nuts, has been Intel itself.

We could have been where we are with the Core 2 at least a couple of years ago, if Intel hadn't bet what it did on Netburst scaling to 10 Ghz.

So far, Intel's biggest malefactor has been itself.


RE: Texas Instruments
By StevoLincolnite on 1/25/2008 3:47:28 AM , Rating: 4
Well Netburst was actually late to the market, It was being designed in the Pentium 2 days and was going to be the "Pentium 3". But the competition from AMD was rather fierce with the AMD Athlon at the time, that is why we saw the Katmai and Coppermine. - The Tualatin was basically a test shrink which would be used in the Northwood.

The Netburst wasn't really a flop, Intel's Aggressive marketing made sure of that.


RE: Texas Instruments
By murphyslabrat on 1/28/2008 9:52:00 AM , Rating: 2
However, was an avid fan of Intel's Pentium III, but netburst ensured that none of my dollars have gone to Intel for the last 7 years.


RE: Texas Instruments
By jconan on 1/24/2008 8:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't Nvidia stand a chance against Intel? The Nvidia+AMD/ATI... Wonder what they would call it afterwards if such a thing did happen...


RE: Texas Instruments
By kilkennycat on 1/24/2008 11:41:00 PM , Rating: 1
nVidia has no intention of buying that debt-ridden sorry mess called AMD. The best that AMD could do for itself is to reverse their catastrophic mistake of acquiring ATi, dump that part of the company and get back to what they do best - building processors. Should be no problem dumping ATi, since AMD have written down (or are still in the process) a total of about $3 billion associated with ATi as a combination of "good-will" and asset declines.


RE: Texas Instruments
By Penti on 1/26/2008 9:10:49 AM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? nVidia is neither a semiconductor company or a big company that can buy AMD. They got 4000 employees AMD got 16700. Sure they make profit, but they still got less revenue then AMD. But i understand you only did speak hypothetically.

And no they wouldn't stand a chance since only AMD is a semiconductor company of those and the GPUs would still be manufactured by TSMC. I'm sure they would like access to ATIs line there though. IBM on the other side could manufacture the GPUs however they did a some what poorly job on that for nVidia when they used IBMs foundry.


RE: Texas Instruments
By crystal clear on 1/25/2008 6:27:23 AM , Rating: 2
Intel is not responsible for AMD's disasters or problems.

AMD management is the source of the problem- They have to be fired ,that only the shareholders can do.

The share holders themselves are to be blamed -they allowed the management to go ahead with plans/stratergies that turned a profitable company into All Made of Disasters company.

The shareholders are themselves responsible for not having acted decisively when it should have at the right time-the board of directors are equally to be blamed.

Intel bashing does not serve any purpose !

AMD is a classic case history study for MBA schools - mismanagement at its best.

Someone needs to turn AMD around(as you say) is the job of the shareholders to appoint a new management team made up of outsiders(not current AMD employees) including the board of directors.

and kick Intel in the nuts again .....thats wishful thinking....easily said than done ! ...if anybody deserves the kick in the nut it is the AMD management ... NOW
really fast before its too llate.

To conclude-

"It is not who is right, but what is right, that is of importance."


RE: Texas Instruments
By AlphaVirus on 1/24/2008 4:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
TI would be a good choice to purchase AMD. I am specifically thinking of how this would effect the hdtv market.
With AMD:ATI as one, we have seen better output of both since they are able to put both technologies through a single think-tank. If we had both AMD:ATI and TI together, could you imagine how nice DLP's would turn out.
Maybe I am thinking unrealistic but sure does sound nice.

IBM, I dont think they want to be bothered with a war between Intel and NVidia. The only thing I can see IBM bringing to that war is money which Intel can match easily.

Also the gaming market would help them profit seeing how the 360, PS3 and Wii have hardware from IBM/AMD. That would = 100% profit for them.

Perhaps they dont mind sleeping together but I dont see them getting married.
One night stand ftw.


RE: Texas Instruments
By murphyslabrat on 1/24/2008 6:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
IBM, I dont think they want to be bothered with a war between Intel and NVidia. The only thing I can see IBM bringing to that war is money which Intel can match easily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER6
Go take a look at that. There's a reason why IBM has the money it does, and it is not entirely due to them almost being the oldest player in the IT industry.


RE: Texas Instruments
By othercents on 1/24/2008 7:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt that is going to happen especially since they don't have the capital to do this type of purchase. I wouldn't want to see them go the way of AMD by stretching themselves too thin. TI downsized by over 50% in 98 when they moved away from the memory market, and their core business has been DSPs.

There might be some cross design in DSP, Processors, and Video Cards, but realistically DLPs are closer to monitors than video cards and I wouldn't expect anything major unless they do something special with the video cards that connect to DLP screens to get higher performance. Keep in mind that would still be a niche market.

The only added benefit for both parties would be the ability to increase production in the TI FABs and bring the Video Card and chipset production in house. I think TI still owns a non functioning FAB in Dallas that was built, but never brought online. They use it for storage.

If anything happens I really expect AMD to close their doors and sell their knowledge to another company for cut rate prices. This is what 3Dfx did when they couldn't compete against NVidia.

Other


RE: Texas Instruments
By DM0407 on 1/25/2008 1:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, AMD graphics and processing chips in a DLP TV....... Would that be possible or is DLP processing a different beast?


RE: Texas Instruments
By Samus on 1/28/2008 11:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
They already have their Imageon (sp?) processor in set top boxes, cell phones and net appliances. It's basically a video chip to drive a screen. It has limited 3D capability (there are different variations of it, most obviously for cell phones) and ultra low power consumption.

I don't see why it couldn't be fitted to a TV, if there were a need. For now, there is no real need, unless you want a really fancy GUI/MENU.


Yes & NO
By crystal clear on 1/24/2008 6:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
These reports are a classic example of speculative forces at work for some quick profit taking,

The share markets are very voltile in an economic climate that shows all the classic indicators of recession.

Oil prices/energy cost are very high & will continue to be so,gold prices a safe haven in bad times,have skyrocketed,plus many more indicators that point to a recession by mid 2008 or 2H09.

AMD is one big box of problems from finance to technology,buying AMD is cheap but you take upon yourself a huge task of cleaning up the mess left behind by the current management-from debts to a product line thats looks good on paper but not yet ready to exploit its full potential.

Any company buying up AMD has to have the abilities to get it around back into black from red.

Yes IBM can do just that -they are capapble & very experienced at that.
They simply shift everything to INDIA from R&D to manufacturing.

Yes the other option being,IBM can take up the R&D/technology/personal/copyrights etc-in short intelectual properties & outsource the manufacturing to China.




RE: Yes & NO
By ranutso on 1/24/2008 7:42:06 PM , Rating: 3
x86 processors can't be manufactured in China.


RE: Yes & NO
By crystal clear on 1/24/2008 8:11:11 PM , Rating: 2

No problem - currently there are fabs like Dresden to N.Y. who take on the jobs temporarily.

In addition the IBM alliance for 32 nm R&D have also have fabs to take on the slack.

Once reorganization & restructoring goes into execution stage,IBM will have things sorted out.

Anyway its just too early to talk on such things,as there is no decision to BUY AMD.


RE: Yes & NO
By defter on 1/25/2008 3:31:14 AM , Rating: 2
Why not? Actually, some x86 processors are already manufactured in China, just not in the mainland China.


RE: Yes & NO
By Penti on 1/26/2008 9:16:17 AM , Rating: 2
And in Singapore (AMD64) for that matter (CSM).


RE: Yes & NO
By Penti on 1/26/2008 9:23:15 AM , Rating: 2
China if your not meaning Republic Of China - Taiwan (ROK) those not have any large semiconductor foundrys. IBM does have it own large foundry in Fishkill NY, US though. And AMD have manufactured some AMD64s in CSMs facility in Singapore. I would say they would ship anything regarding semiconductors outside the US.


RE: Yes & NO
By Penti on 1/26/2008 9:31:38 AM , Rating: 2
Correction forgot the not i would not.


Kind of reminds me of what happened with 3dfx
By EglsFly on 1/24/2008 4:13:34 PM , Rating: 1
I remember when 3dfx was a successful chip company until they bought STB Technologies so that they could sell a complete video card package, instead of just GPUs. They got bogged down with costs of integration, issues with producing PCBs, competition issues with other OEMs etc...

AMD should have never purchased ATI! It has done nothing but suck AMD time, resources, and cash dry. At that time they should have been focusing on getting their next CPU out the door, instead management was tied up with the ATI purchase.




By hemo200 on 1/24/2008 4:25:09 PM , Rating: 4
I disagree with you.IMO buying ATI is a technical move.
3dfx bought STB to grow,but AMD bought ATI to survive.since they need to fight Intel's platforms with platforms.As you may know AMD doesn't have much knowledge in GPU designing.As I know AMD is planing to create a hybrid processing unit,which is a combinational between a GPU and CPU


RE: Kind of reminds me of what happened with 3dfx
By mindless1 on 1/24/2008 4:35:02 PM , Rating: 5
The ATI purchase is not the problem. As a processor company, AMD was doing fine. They had made technological advances, had a strong architecture, and performance increases over time.

Unfortunately, this is a two horse race and everyone flocks to the winner regardless of any sound judgement. Everyone declared AMD in a losing position even when the truth is, Intel didn't even have a competitive product in the low end market where most systems are situated.

Blame irrational geeks for AMD's problems because their sentiments about the midrange and higher end parts ended up devaluing AMD's perfectly adequate offerings in the mid and low end - offerings that were price competitive too, except for an overclocking aspect which the average PC owner never even considers.

This latest Phenom bug was sort of like a validation to shallow thinkers that "AMD can't compete, is struggling", when actually AMD's only problem was they made a mistake while in the catch-up position in what has been a leap-frog event for years now.

The remaining factor is an odd one, Intel's revolution of the transistor. This shift may be a one-time event, or at least this way of thinking with technology to back the change is just giving Intel a few quarters lead. IOW, all AMD really needs to do is repeat past results while keeping costs low while they ride out this momentary market setback.


By JAB on 1/25/2008 5:05:51 AM , Rating: 2
Much truth to that post mindless1 for some strange reason people have a overpoweringdesire to be on the "winning team" If you have a Xbox Sonys are crap and if you have HD DVD Blu Ray is an evel conspiracy.

AMD is doing better than most people realize they simply dont have the size to ofset the R&D and fab costs to stay compeditive unfortunatly buying ATI doesnt help that in any way we can see. There is a reason why intel goes for market share at whatever price.

An AMD buy out by IBM serves nothing when they can simply buy the processors and cross licence hardware as they already do.


Yea
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/24/2008 3:52:11 PM , Rating: 3
IBM dumped these sorts of endeavors because it's not part of their core business model. IBM is all about services, support, and research & development. The last thing they really want to do is go head to head with Intel and nVidia. IBM's shareholders would never go for it.




RE: Yea
By Mitch101 on 1/24/2008 4:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
How about those Rumors of AMD going fabless?

Anyone remember Cyrix?

Q. Are the Cyrix 6x86 and the IBM 6x86 the same chip?

A. The basis of the Cyrix/IBM relationship is that Cyrix provides the design and IBM provides the CMOS technology and fabricates the wafers . Cyrix gets roughly half the wafers and IBM gets the other half, but Cyrix owns the design. The idea of the partnership is that IBM and Cyrix each do what they do best and share in the proceeds. Cyrix has an excellent design team and IBM has world class fabrication facilities.

http://www.realworldtech.com/altcpu/subpages/6x86f...

They might not be acquired but with the AMD Fabless rumors who's to say that AMD might go the Cyrix route? IBM manufacturing on AMD Designs with split profiting?


RE: Yea
By MatthiasF on 1/24/2008 5:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to agree these two rumors together make more sense then other theories.

AMD needs cash and sells the Fabs for another two-three years of float. IBM has a few Fabs of it's own already (including one also in Fishkill) and plenty of contracts to fill.

Shareholders of both firms would be happy, assuming AMD can keep the NY state grants it gained by building the Fab there and IBM can get the same preferential treatment in Germany on taxes and research grants.


RE: Yea
By ajfink on 1/24/2008 4:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
IBM is still fairly active in the CPU area. As you say, IBM does a significant amount of research, and much of designing CPUs falls right into that segment, so I don't see it as being much of a stretch. AMD and IBM already collaborate on process development, so they wouldn't gain much there. IBM would get some interesting things out of buying AMD, including their fabs - whether or not they chose to keep them - and AMD's intellectual properties.

An integrated IBM/AMD would be a far more significant force in the processing segments than they are now separately, I believe. For AMD itself, being bought by IBM is a far more palatable prospect than being absorbed by Texas Instruments. TI has cash and a limited amount of IP resources when compared to the R&D juggernaut that is IBM. If IBM were to buy AMD, they would be committing themselves to a solid presence in the x86 market and reallocate their current resources accordingly. Many, including stockholders, would probably see this as a folly due to AMD's current market position and how tough it could be to make solid inroads against Intel's current roadmap, but if AMD really does return to the black this year and their plans for Bulldozer and other integrated technologies do pan out, it may turn out to be not such a bad investment. Some sort of freakish stream-processing or Cell-utilizing x86-based servers could potentially pop up.

Whether or not it will or should happen, the prospect of ATI, AMD and IBM essentially becoming one combined corporation within the span of three years would be quite the change to the computing landscape.

On another note, Via looks like it might actually become a viable low-power alternative again with their new architecture....


Other Companies
By bribud on 1/24/2008 3:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
What about some other large companies like Samsung or Microsoft. I know Microsoft might be a reach to think about since they are also so software and solutions centered, but the affordability is there if they want to eventually get into that business. They can keep the current employees working, but change up the management a bit. Really, I think Samsung could possible make a run at it.




RE: Other Companies
By eye smite on 1/24/2008 4:14:13 PM , Rating: 1
God no, please don't let Bill Gates muck up AMD, it's trying to get better, not have drm incorporated in the cpu.........geez.


RE: Other Companies
By sweetsauce on 1/24/2008 7:31:27 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah god forbid microsoft makes amd profitable oh noes!!!!! Last time i checked, microsoft as a company was a little better off than amd will ever be.


RE: Other Companies
By hemo200 on 1/24/2008 4:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft and AMD
I hope it never happens
about samsoung I don't mind


RE: Other Companies
By bravacentauri83 on 1/24/2008 6:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
Samsung would make the most sense. They would definitely have the capital to take on AMD.


On another note...Via
By drinkmorejava on 1/24/2008 5:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
I laugh when we're talking about AMD losing billions of dollars in a quarter and then there's Via who just got a backpage article in the WSJ talking about their plight against intel and their total sales of $452,788 in revenues last year.




RE: On another note...Via
By wordsworm on 1/24/2008 7:11:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
total sales of $452,788 in revenues last year.

I think you need to add about 3 zeros to the end of that.


RE: On another note...Via
By winterspan on 1/25/2008 12:24:18 AM , Rating: 2
Where the hell did you get that number?
I just read their 2006 report.. they had about $21 billion (Taiwanese New Dollars) in revenue which converts to ~650 million USD.


It makes sense
By rupaniii on 1/24/2008 4:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
IBM could do it for little more than the need to keep competition. Also, IBM is a huge fab. Also, it would all but lock IBM in for the XBOX successor with ownership to all rights to both top tier x86-64 chipsets and ppc processors allowing them to make a unified xbox that plays xbox1 games better than xbox 360 does, and be compatible with xbox 360. IBM does maintain its hardware edge as a FAB and could also use the embedded division in its markets where embedded appliances are becoming increasingly popular to deliver services. Yeah, i see it. i was about to buy some AMD stock because it's low anyway. I doubt it will lose it's resistance far below $7. I'd love it to goto $35 again someday.




I wouldnt be opposed to this
By Oroka on 1/24/2008 4:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
Althought I am a AMD fan, I would not be opposed to AMD becomming IBMs commercial branch. AMD will win from getting tech help and $, IBM will win by getting a large consumer base.

This merger would really create a Intel compeditor to recon with. It was IBM who bailed AMD out and put them ahead with the A64 series.




Cross-License, anyone?
By MartinT on 1/24/2008 4:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
And what about the supposed clause in the AMD-Intel-cross-licensing agreement that allows either party to unilaterally void the license, if the other party is bought by a third party? If anyone buys AMD, it's supposedly bye-bye x86 compatibility for them.

In other words, who'd want to buy AMD for what is left of ATi and the 1 1/2 FABs in Dresden?




By crystal clear on 1/25/2008 7:06:41 AM , Rating: 2
These are the people who know how to turn a comapny around !

Don Lucas has been a self-employed venture capitalist since 1967. He was an associate, a general partner and a limited partner of Draper Gaither and Anderson. Early in his career as a venture capitalist, Lucas led the founding of National Semiconductor Corporation. He has served as a member of the Oracle Board of Directors since March 1980, serving on several committees and as Chairman of the Board from October 1980 to May 1990. Mr. Lucas currently serves as Chairman of the Executive Committee of Oracle. He also serves as Chairman of DexCom, Inc. and 51job, and as a director of Cadence Design Systems, Inc.


Gilles Delfassy, previously senior vice president of Texas Instruments Incorporated, has been at the helm of the company’s successful wireless terminals unit since its inception in 1995, growing it into a multibillion dollar operation. Under his guidance, TI became the world’s leading supplier of semiconductors for the wireless industry. He joined TI in 1978. Before his position in Dallas, Texas, he served as TI’s European Digital Signal Processing (DSP) Department Manager and before that he was running TI Europe’s Automotive Electronics business.
Delfassy added, “In my role at Texas Instruments, I worked closely with Spansion over the years through a strong alliance in the wireless area. I now look forward to joining the board and more directly participating in Spansion’s growth opportunity.”




There is so much more.
By Zoidberg on 1/25/2008 10:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
That analyst is an 1d10t! Making PCs is not the same thing as making CPU/GPUs. Margins on "making" PCs are much lower than on making&designing CPU/GPUs. Just look at Intel. Also that analyst didn't say that IBM is connected with AMD. So if AMD is dead costs for IBM will rise. So this makes AMD more valuable to IBM than to the company xyz.
about nV- if thay will do it they should better do it now becouse then they could fix GPU prices and make some serious cash before arrival of Intel GPUs. But there is much more to this(that i can't tell):
-TSMC vs Intel FABs vs (FAB30&36)?
-if nV has secret project x86(this is unlikely) how they can acquire licence to make x86 CPUs.
-Fusion- not just performance of CPU because Intel will win in that department. AMDs "old" K10@45nm will go against new Intel microarchitecture@45nm with IMC. How will sw use Fusion-basicly can ATI part of the Fusion save the day.
-nV could be in problems if Fusionlike solutions provide better performance because reduced CPU-GPU latency.

P.S. Dark humor: It is 1944 again in Dresden.
P.P.S. That analyst will make more money in a year than me in a lifetime. Although I am nobody special it just sucks.
I mean he should know stuff that i just wrote above. I surf the net and I know it. It is his job!




By ultimatebob on 1/26/2008 11:14:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, they're all hardware businesses that IBM has sold off over the past five years. If you go back even further, you'll see that they've sold off other hardware businesses like printers as well. They're trying to get OUT of the hardware business and focus on software and services, since their CEO seems to think that's there the best profit margins are.

Diving deeper into hardware product markets like CPU's, Video Cards, and embedded devices is the exact opposite of what IBM's game plan is. I'm not sure who started this rumor, but they don't seem to know much about IBM!




New Company Name Thread
By MrPoletski on 1/29/2008 8:12:10 AM , Rating: 2
Well, when AMD bought ATi, DAAMiT was flying around.

Now with IBM in the mix...

MAiDITBAM?
DIABiMMAT?

International DAAMiT Machines?




"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Related Articles
AMD Reports $1.72 Billion USD Q4 Net Loss
January 17, 2008, 7:20 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki