14 Classic Tech Rivalries

Intel vs. AMD

Intel engineers createdthe first microprocessor, the 4004, in 1971. The rest (the part where Intel-powered PCs took over the world) is history. Amazingly, Intel's recent CPUs remain backward-compatible with software designed for the benchmark 80386 processor introduced in 1986. On the green side (ecologically speaking), the company's newer, smaller chips use silicon and other component materials more efficiently, require less power, and support dramatically faster speeds. And the company had the brilliant idea of branding its work: Remember the"Intel Inside" ad campaign, anyone? Competitors, including AMD, have tried to carve a little slice out of the Intel pie by reverse-engineering x86 processors of their own. So far, they're just playing catch up.

For much of the early part of this century, Advanced Micro Devices enjoyed great success by producing processors that outperformed comparably priced Intel chips. Its earlier Athlon CPUs were performance champs, and they usually sold for less than comparable Intel products. But AMD stumbled when it tried to produce an immediate competitor to Intel's latest quadruple-core processors, and the company's purchase of graphics hardware maker ATI imposed a serious burden on its finances. AMD's plans to jump to12-core processorsby 2010 are interesting. And the prospect of success in anantitrust lawsuitalleging anticompetitive sales practices by Intel may be a source of optimism at AMD in 2008. Luckily, the company has some of themost loyal customers in the business. In any event, a serious competitor to Intel (especially one willing to go after it in court) is the surest way to guarantee better, less expensive products for consumers.

Microsoft's success has earned Bill Gates$58 billionso far. Okay, so the prosecutor in the antitrust caseUnited States vs. Microsoftwould say that some of the business practices that generated that fortune were unethical, but business is business, right? This summer the former evil-software-empire chairman begins his new full-time job with theBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, giving a big chunk of that money away. Thanks to matching contributions from Bill's even richer card-playing buddy Warren Buffett, the foundation is currently endowed with nearly $40 billion, which it uses for such laudable activities as fostering globalagricultural development and financial services for the poor; fighting HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, and malnutrition; improving women's and children's health; and promoting literacy in the United States and abroad. Does the end justify the means?

Steve Jobs is the rock star of the tech world, and (reportedly) an insufferable egomaniac. He's a billionaire too, though nowhere near as wealthy as Bill Gates. His vision of what a computer or a gadget could be, starting with theApple Iin 1976, has always been way, way out there. He foresaw that a lot of people would pay extra for a phone or a laptop that was not merely functional but a work of art, with the result that now we have engineering marvels likethe iPhoneandthe MacBook Air. For more than 30 years, Steve has been really excited about this stuff, browbeating and cajoling his people into make cooler devices, and then convincing the buying public of how insanely great these products are. And they are great (he says as he sips his Kool-Aid).