I think AMD pulled out first to confuse intel of the direction AMD is heading or wants to go (Rory Read is a smart guy). clearly AMD is at an disadvantage against big Intel and its underhand tactics.. By Doing this, AMD has become a moving target for intel and its monopoly/money/customer links advantage. little stuff like this matter allot when you are up against intel (intel has been known/caught to play shady).
I am not entirely sure how relevant the SIA is anymore. A lot of this uncertainty of the relevance of the SIA came about with the advent of the super-fabs and the fab-less semiconductor companies.
The model is a lot different now than it was in the 1980's
I agree with Dylan 100% about AMD instigating this matter. Why should intel report if all they are doing is practically giving the competition monthly sales data. I understand they don't qualify for an associate membership, but there is a lot of press each month on results, plus you can purchase it.
A well thought out article. However, since the largest companies already know how much of which products they are selling, and they can readily find out how many end products are being sold, it becomes relatively easy for them to determine what part of market share they do and do not have. If you then throw in some product teardowns to determine the component mix, the industry status becomes pretty apparent.
For the smaller companies, this is not so easy, but at the same time, they can readily determine where they need to place more product in order to continue to grow.
That said, that makes it much more difficult for the rest of us to determine the state of the industry and where it is going relative to the economy as we see it at any point in time. IMHO, chip orders appear to be a good leading indicator in general and that is going to be very difficult to see without the participation of the larger companies.
So, the question of whether we need WSTS or not depends largely on how much you really need the data they supply, and whether or not there is another way to readily get that data.
It's unfortunate for the other players and will come back to bite them both when there are more frequent supply chain hiccups.
ROI for membership is impractical if not impossible to determine and is best just assumed worth the cost (within reason, of course).
I believe that both AMD and Intel should continue to participate in the WSTS. But this does raise an interesting question? Why? What's in it for them specifically? In my opinion, Intel and AMD participating in WSTS serves "the greater good" for the industry as a whole, and a rising tide lifts all boats. But I can understand why some business leaders would ask how this participation is helping their bottom line. It's an interesting thing, to me, how companies choose between doing the right thing to help the community, when in some ways they wish some members of that community would die off completely.
In this case, I personally fault AMD. I can see where Intel is coming from. If AMD left the WSTS first, what is the value of Intel's participation? I hope that both firms will reconsider this matter.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.