Re: Nobody has yet
"Explained the benefit of revealing the fault as soon as it was discovered."
Here's the alternate universe timeline that I think should have happened:
1. Intel and AMD announce that they have discovered some flaws in their CPU design that could lead to "side channel' attacks, something that is difficult to anticipate, and NOT disclose the details.
2. Intel and AMD work out fixes for this problem, and share 'mitigations' with all operating system vendors.
3. Intel and AMD release new CPUs that are designed NOT to have these flaws, and provide well tested working microcode for older systems.
4. After all of the fixes are in place, the details are released so people understand what happened.
This would result in Intel and AMD looking VERY good. Initially they get a small hit, but being THAT HONEST about the cock-up will eventually turn around to help them. And NOT disclosing the details helps prevent 0-days from emerging.
The thing about Meltdown and Spectre is that it's not intuitively obvious since they're side-channel attacks [for the most part]. So exploiting them without a really good explanation of what the flaw is would be "hard to guess", a sort of 'security by obscurity' that can last long enough to patch it.
So if Intel and AMD had simply bitten the bullet and and admitted the existence of the flaw the moment it was discovered, they MIGHT have INCREASED THEIR SALES overall as a direct result, as people replace old hardware [which was previously considered 'good enough'] to avoid any slowdowns or potential un-patched vulnerabilities.
In any case, this "alternate universe" scenario didn't happen. That made the original cock-up WORSE.