Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Jun 2012 20:54 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless JLG (we can suffice with his initials on OSNews, right?): "Nokia, once the emperor of mobile phones, shipping more than 100 million devices per quarter, is now in a tailspin, probably irrecoverable, taking its employees into the ground. And there is Nokia's chosen partner, Microsoft. What will Nokia's failure do to its future? Ballmer knows Microsoft can't be relegated to a inconsequential role in the smartphone wars. Will this lead to Microsoft going 'vertical', that is buying Nokia's smartphone business and become an vertically player, as it already is in its Xbox business?" Microsoft will eventually buy Nokia's smartphone business. I mean, it's not as if they have any other serious WP7 OEMs they can piss off with such a move.
Thread beginning with comment 522842
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: This was obvious trap
by galvanash on Tue 19th Jun 2012 07:54 UTC in reply to "This was obvious trap"
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

Hi! Remember this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Belluzzo

You should, because it's a triple-A case what happens when Microsoft and Intel start pulling strings behind the stage. We probably won't have to wait long that Nokia will announce their plans to use Intel chips for their next devices whenever they are tablets or smartphones. Of course these devices will be running Windows NT or Windows CE.

We can compare the actions of the Steven Elop and Richard Belluzzo and probably find more similarities than there are differences. The Script of this play was written long time ago.


I can't say I am a fan of either of these guys - but let me play devil's advocate for a change. What if maybe, just maybe, instead of these guys being hell bent on destroying the companies they ran they simply saw the writing on the wall before everyone else did...

I won't speak about Elop because frankly I know almost nothing about Nokia - but SGI I do know about. Yes, Richard Belluzzo steered SGI away from MIPS - but I have to say that for the most part MIPS was dead already - SGI needed to be steered...

In hindsight, I think the smartest move in the early to mid 1990s would have been a merger/partnership between DEC and SGI (imagine O2s with Alpha CPU boards and RealityEngines in them - the best of both worlds) but that was never in the cards. SGI's core competency was 3D - they should have never been in the business of designing CPUs. They were also without a fab, relying on Toshiba and NEC to fab their chips - this bit them repeatedly throughout their history. It is _really_ hard to compete as a fabless chip maker when there is someone like Intel around who can just swop in and manufacture you into oblivion. Ask AMD...

The Pentium Pro in 1995 changed the game. It was not the Itanium boogieman that was the writing on the wall for MIPS (unlike Alpha), it was the lowly Pentium Pro - a real, available, ultra-cheap, mass-produced, $400 chip that frankly blew the doors off of everything on the market at the time short of Alpha. MIPS never had an answer for it, except the R1000 a year later (at $3000), but it was only a tiny bit faster and was never widely available because of production problems. That was also SGI's last MIPS chip.

All I am saying is that yes, Richard Belluzzo may have been a Microsoft Mole, but any competent CEO running SGI in 1996 would have had to run screaming away from MIPS in some other direction - it was a total and complete dead end. But he didn't do that, because he didn't become CEO until 1998 - in other words he came along way too late to right the ship, he was just desperately bailing water for those before him who didn't see the inevitable coming 2 years earlier.

He may have done everything for the wrong reasons - but at least part (if not most) of what he did were the right things...

ps. The one thing he did that was completely and utterly wrong had next to nothing to do with Microsoft - he settled with nVidia and agreed for SGI to exit the high-end graphics market. That I agree whole-heartedly was stupid. But abandoning MIPS was not.

Edited 2012-06-19 07:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: This was obvious trap
by joe_tester on Tue 19th Jun 2012 16:18 in reply to "RE: This was obvious trap"
joe_tester Member since:
2011-08-16

There is nothing wrong with a company without their own fab. AMD, Nvidia, VIA... Not to mention ARM.

I think you forgot about Itanic ;) That was the death of SGI.

Lets be honest. The only real reason they steered away from MIPS was not the problem with MIPS but false promises that Intel was making with their "revolutionary" new architecture (I think latest example of such crap from Intel was larrabee).

R10k was announced as last MIPS chip from SGI, because SGI belived Intel and their fantastic new architecture will deliver great performance. And commodity CPU (used by everyone) would be a lot cheaper than investment in MIPS.

When they realized that Itanium will be very late and very far from promises they quickly released R12k and R14k and some new workstations. But it was too late. PC market was going crazy fast with Moore's law. It had no sense to pay 3-4 (or more) for SGI when you could get similar performance from commodity PC.

I think MIPS had great future. SGI stopped investing in new products while the rest of the world continued race forward and that killed them. There was no problem to take MIPS and make CPU with 3-4 times higher clock (r16k went up to 1GHz).

In addition their management didn't want to bring their technology to PC market. This market was quickly conquered by Nvidia.

Edited 2012-06-19 16:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: This was obvious trap
by matako on Tue 19th Jun 2012 19:50 in reply to "RE[2]: This was obvious trap"
matako Member since:
2009-02-13


I think MIPS had great future. SGI stopped investing in new products while the rest of the world continued race forward and that killed them.


MIPS is actually still going strong in the embedded market. SGI was never really that important for the proliferation of the MIPS architectures since it has found its way in so many high-volume products already in the early 1990s. It is a mature architecture that is also making a bit of a come back in a more visible computing segment. There is renewed interest in MIPS for Android devices and such.

Besides being a widespread architecture, MIPS has two major advantages going for it today:


a) Unlike ARM it has industry-proven mature 64-bit variants for quite some time.

b) It makes _true_ high-performance, low-power computing look easy. Take Ingenic Semiconductor JZ4770 SoC for instance - a 1GHz part drawing 0.25W under 100% CPU _and_ GPU load. Beat that.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/mips-architecture-crashes-arm-x86-party...

Edited 2012-06-19 19:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: This was obvious trap
by zima on Mon 25th Jun 2012 23:59 in reply to "RE[2]: This was obvious trap"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Even if they would push high-end MIPS, they would probably at most just match what x86 (that turned out to be the high-perf thing, not Itanium) would soon offer ...and even if ending up somewhat better, then at ridiculous cost; not much point to it.

Now, the times are different, with focus on perf per Watt and lesser dependence on Windows / x86 binary compatibility (still, where MIPS will probably primarily really live on, long-term - Chinese Loongson has hardware-assisted x86 emulation)

Edited 2012-06-26 00:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2