Comment Re:Talking Out my Ass Here... (Score 1) 466
I spent several years working for gfx chip companies that were jacked around to various degrees by MS. I was also involved in an abortive deal to supply the chip for a console. That was half a decade ago, but I suspect some things are still true:
1) MS tolerates h/w vendors only when they are numerous and fighting each other (as opposed to s/w vendors, WHO MUST DIE). Thus they love to play h/w vendors off against each other. The DX group would routinely ask us about our future features "to see where they would fit in the next DX release" and then selectively beam telepathically to competitors to keep the playing field level.
2) MS gets jealous when it perceives other hi-tech companies getting too much "buzz". To this day I'm convinced that the entire Talisman/Siggraph 96 assault was mainly motivated by a desire to put sgi in their place (turned out sgi managed that feat quite nicely all by themselves, but still...)
3) you are correct that executing a console project is incredibly defocusing and can steal resources from other projects. Unlike an OEM, who will just blow you off if you miss their dates, the console customer will hound you to hell and back again... there is no escape.
4) gfx chip biz has historically been punctuated equilibrium (remember Western Digital, S3, 3dfx?), the ATI-nVidia duopoly of the last couple of years has been the aberration. But with MS getting active with gfx research again, and presumably desiring eventually to turn xbox into a profit center there may be turmoil ahead (Intel never completely gave up on gfx either).
No doubt ATI went into this deal with their eyes open, and there are lawyers who specialize in negotiating MS contracts (an experience worth a separate topic). ATI probably found the opportunity to recapture some of the glory lost to nVidia and at least the perception of parity worth the dangers of dealing with the devil. For MS, it's the typical multiple agenda deal: put an uppity supplier in their place, learn more about a technology it may be able to leverage in the future, and reduce the present per-box subsidy.
1) MS tolerates h/w vendors only when they are numerous and fighting each other (as opposed to s/w vendors, WHO MUST DIE). Thus they love to play h/w vendors off against each other. The DX group would routinely ask us about our future features "to see where they would fit in the next DX release" and then selectively beam telepathically to competitors to keep the playing field level.
2) MS gets jealous when it perceives other hi-tech companies getting too much "buzz". To this day I'm convinced that the entire Talisman/Siggraph 96 assault was mainly motivated by a desire to put sgi in their place (turned out sgi managed that feat quite nicely all by themselves, but still...)
3) you are correct that executing a console project is incredibly defocusing and can steal resources from other projects. Unlike an OEM, who will just blow you off if you miss their dates, the console customer will hound you to hell and back again... there is no escape.
4) gfx chip biz has historically been punctuated equilibrium (remember Western Digital, S3, 3dfx?), the ATI-nVidia duopoly of the last couple of years has been the aberration. But with MS getting active with gfx research again, and presumably desiring eventually to turn xbox into a profit center there may be turmoil ahead (Intel never completely gave up on gfx either).
No doubt ATI went into this deal with their eyes open, and there are lawyers who specialize in negotiating MS contracts (an experience worth a separate topic). ATI probably found the opportunity to recapture some of the glory lost to nVidia and at least the perception of parity worth the dangers of dealing with the devil. For MS, it's the typical multiple agenda deal: put an uppity supplier in their place, learn more about a technology it may be able to leverage in the future, and reduce the present per-box subsidy.
