IMO it's competition that makes better products in the end. If either party becomes a full monopolist the progress will stall (as already happened with Intel I guess)

▲

jbstack 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> as already happened with Intel I guess

In which sense? Intel is neither a full monopolist (AMD, ARM) nor has progress stalled (we're still getting a regular cycle of new generation CPUs which improve on the previous).

▲

ahartmetz 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Intel didn't do much to improve their CPUs while AMD was out of the competition with the Bulldozer disaster.

	▲	c0n5pir4cy 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It was a pretty bad time - ARM wasn't really encroaching on any of their markets in the way they are now & AMD was struggling. Intel basically just left the engineering to rot & the business people to try and gouge consumers with things like the Intel Upgrade Service, low power CPUs that were essentially just normal cores but less rather than optimized, inflated prices etc. It also allowed AMD to completely blindside them with Zen - so we're in a situation where AMD now dominates consumer desktop and arguably a lot of enterprise/DC instead of it balancing towards a more competitive centre.

▲

PowerElectronix 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Intel had a monopoly on bleeding edge cpu for a long time until they got stuck on 14nm for years, allowing TSMC to catch up and providing AMD the means to compete.

In a the best of timelines, intel, tsmc and samsung (and glofo maybe?) Would all have competitive fab nodes.