Print 172 comment(s) - last by Black Rainbow.. on Jul 4 at 5:34 AM

AMD's Hector Ruiz tells what it's like to compete against an "abusive monopolist"

AMD CEO Hector Ruiz took center stage at the American Antitrust Institute National Conference in Washington, D.C. to express his disdain for Intel’s business practices.

“I want to give you an idea of what it’s like to do business day in and day out when you are competing against an abusive monopolist,” Ruiz told attendees. “How it makes no difference whether you are just as efficient – or even more efficient – than they are.”

“I do not need my fortune teller hat to tell you one truth about which I am absolutely certain,” said Ruiz. “There is no proper or defensible place for illegal monopolies in the 21st century global marketplace... My purpose is not to argue for competitive advantage - we know how to compete. My purpose is to lay out the facts so that law and economics can do their job to protect consumers."

Ruiz did not immediate call out Intel, but rather stated his case first by naming several related companies made possible by the allowance of new entrants. “Google, Microsoft, and computer manufacturers like HP and Dell all owe their existence to the simple fact that competition replaced forced exclusivity and allowed a variety of players to compete and succeed,” he said.

The AMD boss then called out its arch rival, boldly stating, “Intel uses illegal tactics explicitly aimed at preventing customers from doing business with AMD.”

AMD has been battling with Intel in the U.S. courts over what it believes to be anticompetitive practices. Ruiz presented the example of his company’s efforts with HP, where the systems builder feared retribution by Intel if it chose to use AMD processors.

Dell is facing a class action lawsuit from its own investors over “secret and likely illegal” kickbacks by Intel to ensure the exclusive use of its chips inside Dell computers. “Computer manufacturers are dependent upon Intel's ‘rebates’ for a large portion of their razor-thin operating margins and must sacrifice their brand in favor of promoting Intel,” Ruiz adds.

“The IT industry is being held hostage by Intel – a fact that has detrimental effects across the board, and it has gone on for too long,” continues Ruiz. “Customers get hit by less choice and PC manufacturers depend on rebates and "must sacrifice their brand in favour of promoting Intel.”

“I think that is a vision we share, as business leaders, regulators, economists, lawyers, and others dedicated to ensuring fair and open competition in the market. And I believe it is our responsibility – not just to the global economy, but to society as a whole – to make that happen.” Ruiz later concludes, “In an IT industry without an abusive monopoly, computer manufacturers are empowered to flourish because innovation and differentiation are rewarded – rather than be obligated to a single supplier. The benefits are passed on to consumers through lower prices and greater choice in the marketplace.”

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I've seen this first hand
By 91TTZ on 6/25/2007 12:47:30 PM , Rating: 5
I used to work at a motherboard manufacturer about 10 years ago. Intel was doing it then, too. The motherboard market is extremely competitive with very thin profit margins. If you can't get a board out the door in a timely fashion, your business goes out the window.

During this time, we made Socket 7 motherboards. We had to include AMD and Cyrix CPU support as an "undocumented feature" because if we advertised the fact that the board supports Intel's competitors, Intel would play VERY dirty. They'd run into "chipset shortages" and withhold shipments of chipsets to your company while your (Intel-loyal) competitors get their chipsets and ship product out the door. They'd also be late in delivering specifications for reference boards to you while your competitors get theirs on time and get a jump on engineering new boards while you have to wait.

This was an open secret at the time, so it's not really going to surprise anybody in the know. Intel broke the law and they should pay. Their size and clout should not buy justice.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By bldckstark on 6/25/2007 12:56:17 PM , Rating: 5
Just a minor point, but rarely is justice bought. Usually IN-justice is bought.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By Polynikes on 6/25/2007 1:22:09 PM , Rating: 5
I think this is the point some people on here are missing. Intel has played very dirty. It's not about AMD's lack of competitive products at the moment.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By RogueSpear on 6/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: I've seen this first hand
By omnicronx on 6/25/2007 2:05:10 PM , Rating: 5
AMD never made anyone buy the FX models that were 'overpriced'
The Fx was the enthusiast model with an unlocked multiplier etc... etc.. I have always found the price of AMD products really good, heck i bought my opteron 170 for 300 bucks over a year ago before the price drops and it was still cheaper than a so called equivalent Intel cpu that did not perform at the same level.

i am not an fanboy of any chip manufacturer btw, i always buy a cpu that has the best for buck, and in the past 10 years.. this happens to usually be AMD

RE: I've seen this first hand
By TomZ on 6/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: I've seen this first hand
By Spoelie on 6/25/2007 5:00:51 PM , Rating: 5
Setting the price as high as possible for all the volume you can sell is NOT abusing your market position, at least if you're not a monopoly. In fact, in a capitalist market, it's stupid not to do so.

Coercing partners into other terms and agreements that have nothing to do with trading goods, in order to trade those goods, that my friend, is abusing your market position, and forbidden by law.

AMD and Intel are both 'guilty' of the first one, but this is only 'annoying' for us, not illegal. Intel at least is supposed to be guilty of the second point.

Also, the accusations and lawsuit are in regard to past and current(?) behaviour, not to any declining market share. In fact, market share has nothing to do with it. If AMD's market share were not particularly held back during those actions (which would be kind of illogical, but suppose), Intel would still be held liable for those actions.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By TomZ on 6/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: I've seen this first hand
By Oregonian2 on 6/25/2007 6:31:04 PM , Rating: 4
Even when AMD's products were both better and lower priced, Intel still had at the deep depths of their marketshare something over 70 percent. Not exactly a minority share during bad times, and it's now going back up.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By Andrwken on 6/26/2007 2:31:56 AM , Rating: 5
But when AMD had the superior product, they did gain marketshare. Is there a rule that says the marketshare must become lower than your competitor just because your not the best choice. You are leaving out the mindshare advantage Intel had leveraged through the time when AMD was playing on top.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By dever on 6/26/2007 1:14:14 PM , Rating: 3
Plus Intel out-classed AMD on marketing exponentially. Marketing alone could account for the difference in market share.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By Oregonian2 on 6/26/2007 8:05:48 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sure all of those things that some folk are complaining about would just be called "superior marketing" by Intel.

Intel's biggest advantage isn't that though. It's their manufacturing that's a one or two years ahead of AMD as well as being tremendously larger. Their long years of huge capital investments pays off. When Intel came out with Conroe to turn around the tide, it was in 65nm rather than 90 which AMD was using. That undoubtedly was part of their product's superiority, not just a better design.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By KnightProdigy on 6/28/2007 8:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
When AMD had the better products at a better price(I still feel their architecture is far superior to Intel) Intel's marketshare was ONLY residual marketshare from the monopoly they created 20yrs ago.
The fact that AMD gained a lot of ground in the last 5 yrs shows MORE than what people are willing to admit to. The numbers may be somewhat small and many Intel fanbois will judge based on this, but they do not realize the older and saturated intel market that the "marketshare" numbers are pulled from. Not to mention, most of that is based on businesses that were polled. Not consumers or enthusiests that are able to make an educated decision.

Many new buyers are like sheep. I know and deal with many workers for computer companies and they all have the same stories... people goto dell because someone they know owns a dell. people use intel in their 10+yo desktop at work so they will buy intel.

The marketshare numbers are BS.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By Spoelie on 6/26/2007 11:50:57 AM , Rating: 2
You are severely oversimplifying matters, and using only 'logic' instead of any knowledge of actual laws.

The fact if Intel is a monopoly is entirely defined by its definition in law, so even during its lowest amount of market share, it could still be termed a monopoly if it fulfills all the requirements. The fact that AMD did have and improved market share, is no basis for discounting any monopoly accusation. I do not know the US law definition for a monopoly, so I cannot tell if Intel is considered as such.

Second is that the law that forbids those extra arrangements, as far as I know , does not state the requirement that the company doing them, is a monopoly. The company needs to be in a position where it can enforce those terms on its partners, that's all. Saying that Intel is not a monopoly and thus allowed to exert such practices, would, by my understanding of the law, be incorrect.

Also, the fact that AMD increased market share, is not a basis to completely discount the accusations. Intel could have used those practices on only one company, without severely impacting market share. As long as Intel did it, they can be sued for it.

Lastly, it could very well be that Intel didn't do those things during the K8 era. Intel can be sued as long as they did it once during any past time period where the crime hasn't legally "aged" yet.

AMD needs the evidence to support all those accusations of course.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By TomZ on 6/26/2007 2:43:51 PM , Rating: 1
You are severely oversimplifying matters, and using only 'logic' instead of any knowledge of actual laws. ... I do not know the US law definition for a monopoly

OK, so let me get this straight - you're saying I don't know and/or are not applying the law, and then you admit to now knowing the law yourself? That's priceless.

Anyway, I've never heard of tying being illegal for non-monopolists. In fact, tying is pretty common in all areas of commerce today, and it seems to pose no legal problems for anybody else. Maybe you can reference the law where you think it is generally prohibited?
Also, the fact that AMD increased market share, is not a basis to completely discount the accusations. Intel could have used those practices on only one company, without severely impacting market share.

You're missing the point. In order to go after a company for anti-trust violations, you have to show they are in fact operating a "monopoly." There are different definitions of "monopoly," and some of them involve marketshare, while others refer to having the ability to set prices in a market. During the time in question, AMDs marketshare went to between 20 to more than 50% marketshare, depending on the area you look at. In addition, AMD also deprived Intel of the ability to set prices how it wanted, since clearly they had to set prices based on AMD prices. Those two things, in my opinion, undermine an argument that Intel was operating as a monopolist. This, in my mind, undermines the credibility of Ruiz' complaints (whining).

No, I'm not an attorney - so that's the best I can do is to apply common sense and logic and see how far it gets me. Anyone with more knowledge (that excludes you, Spoelie!) please feel free to explain if I am wrong.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By Spoelie on 6/26/2007 3:17:57 PM , Rating: 3
OK, so let me get this straight - you're saying I don't know and/or are not applying the law, and then you admit to now knowing the law yourself? That's priceless.
Your statement is completely devoid of any logic. How does not knowing the precise formulations of a single law imply that I do not have any understanding on how (some) law(s) work(s). I never did claim to be a lawyer in this field, nor do I even live in the US, so even then it wouldn't interest me all that much. All I was saying was that your deductions are not based on laws, and the issue in this article is about legality, not about being fair or nice.
No, I'm not an attorney - so that's the best I can do is to apply common sense and logic and see how far it gets me. Anyone with more knowledge (that excludes you, Spoelie!) please feel free to explain if I am wrong.
Common sense and logic will get you nowhere in a court of law. Real mature, that personal comment.

Intel can commit illegal, anticompetitive acts from a "position of power". Whether YOU have heard of it or not is irrelevant.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By TomZ on 6/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: I've seen this first hand
By TomZ on 6/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: I've seen this first hand
By Spoelie on 6/26/2007 4:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I actually had one or two courses on law, the thing is, those were on European law, anticompetitive laws are similar tho. Today was the first time I "opened" a US code book, so forgive me if I have a little trouble finding the right sections. is not really that small. Chapter 2 might be more appropriate then, if it is not only limited to export trade. The title is a little ambiguous.

The Wikipedia article give a general look on a monopoly, more out of an economic point of view then justice, so still a tough pill to swallow ;). Tying product isn't really what we're looking for, out of this list:

Refusal to deal and exclusive dealing may be more appropriate, but the articles themselves are not that useful.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By Ringold on 6/26/2007 7:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
Single Seller: It's not even close
Barriers to Entry: It'd require a lot of capital, but these days there's lots of capital available. Zero legal barriers.
No Close Substitutes: AMD and Intel are fully interchangeable as far as software goes. IBM also in theory makes chips, as does VIA..
Price Maker: This is what happens when wikisocialists write wiki entries instead of actually going to class. Correct theory (I love how they came up with a chart intentionally made to maximize the appearance of producer surplus and deadweight loss, I bet it took them a little while to tweak it to get it just right), but almost every significant firm in every industry can exert pricing power.

I don't know about the Sherman Anti-Trust law, but we look askance on a multitude of monopolies and near-monopolies across the country. The correct term for both in an economic sense would be oligopolists. If we're going to cry because AMD gets pushed around how can we in good conscious allow Boeing to continue to exist? What about local utilities? What about local cable firms?

Do I feel bad for AMD? Yep. Can we really call Intel a true monopoly? Not at all, not even close, for it fails every major benchmark.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By Spoelie on 6/26/2007 3:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
I was so kind to look it up for you:

Sections 1, 2, 13 and 14 are of particular interest (probably even more articles, but I'm not gonna go through all of them)

An excerpt of 14 reads like this:
"It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale [..], or fix a price charged therefor, [..], on the condition, [..] that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, [..] of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such sale [..] or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce."

Can you indicate where the requirement is made to already be a monopoly?

RE: I've seen this first hand
By TomZ on 6/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: I've seen this first hand
By Spoelie on 6/26/2007 4:32:20 PM , Rating: 2
As outlined in the other post, maybe chapter 2 then. But, just to be sure, isn't that title just an indication on what the content of the sections are about? I interpreted it as 'laws regarding the subject of monopolies and regarding the subject of combinations in restraint of trade'. It would be a bit strange that the paragraph is implicitly dependent on the wording of the title. In section 8 and 12, they give definitions of how to interpret "Person" in other sections, and there's hardly any speaking of a monopoly.

You see that I'm a bit careful in my wordings, since I'm not too sure about it all, a real lawyer would be coming in handy right now.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By Mk4ever on 6/26/2007 3:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
No, I'm not an attorney

And yet you are still talking.

It's nice how whenever I read an article I see you posting and my eyes see your name as "Mr.Expert"

Mr. "not a attorney", You say that AMD is no better than Intel. Well as far as I know no one could prove that. I would like to see a law suit soon with your name in it against AMD proving that.

Anyone with more knowledge (that excludes you, Spoelie!)

Sorry Mr Expert for all those people standing in your face or arguing with you. After all, you are truly the smartest person ever of all time and no one should argue with you.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By TomZ on 6/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: I've seen this first hand
By mars777 on 6/27/2007 2:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know their points, but mine is:

Stop trolling this site, 'cause I'm trying to read constructive comments and not sh*tload a of trolling posts.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By InsaneGain on 6/27/2007 2:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
TomZ, honestly , do you have any personal interests in Intel? Or do you have a tendency to always cheer for the biggest, most advantaged team with the highest chance of succeeding? I find issues like this interesting more for their revelations of how biased and unobjective people generally are how desperately they will ignore or dispute facts that don't support their biased position.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By TomZ on 6/27/2007 3:24:29 PM , Rating: 1
No, I have no personal interests in Intel. I just think that AMD is trying to blame Intel for its problems that seem to be mostly self-induced.

I spent the first 10 years of my professional career supporting and being an advocate for the "underdog," e.g., AMD instead of Intel, Borland instead of Microsoft, etc. But I realized that most often the path of least resistance, and where the greater effectiveness is, lies with being where the masses are, i.e., siding with the dominant player. In other words, most of the time that a product is popular, it is because it is good.

I also believe that while Intel, Microsoft, and companies like this have made some mistakes along the way, that they have improved in their behavior, and that they are not deserving of the blatent bias and hatred against them that I see often expressed here in the comments section. I believe that some people always root for the underdog, thinking that the dominant player is somehow "evil." This causes people to react beyond logic (as you say) and put forward really biased opinions.

Regarding AMD, I was a fan of AMD, and used their processors in several machines a while back. Then Intel came out with better products, and I switched over to buying those. My bias is with the better product, and also against what I perceive is mostly PR BS like what Ruiz is spewing forth as described in this article. I'm not saying that Intel is an innocent angel in all this; I'm just saying that Ruiz is taking zero responsibility for the relatively poor performance of the company he leads. Instead, he just blames the it on the "abusive monopolist." I don't buy that.

By Crank the Planet on 6/26/2007 6:34:16 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah and all you dupes are missing the point. Intel has flagrantly strong armed companies into using only their products, or to use mostly their products. That is a violation of the law. This means Intel has FLAGRANTLY VIOLATED THE LAW for business gain. This is what Intel has done and what they are continuing to do. This is ILLEGAL.

AMD is not strong arming any company to sell only it's products. They may have overpriced some products but they never forced anyone to buy them.

That is why I will never support Intel until they change and I just don't see that happening. So I don't care if Intel comes out with the one chip to bind them all, I will never support them and I actively persuade others to do the same. If AMD decides to do the same then I guess I will be relegated to the lesser of two evils. Besides wait until Fusion comes out- hehe :)

RE: I've seen this first hand
By just4U on 6/25/2007 3:24:55 PM , Rating: 5
So is AMD the text book example of a warm, fuzzy, fair playing company? I can't imagine that they've never tried to get an unfair advantage somehow..

Amd has never been in a position to try and gain a unfair advantage. Doing something like that would definitely kill them. They are involved in open source projects and are "known" to bend over backwards in the being "helpful" department. Atleast this is the perception I've gained of the company over the past 10 years.

As to your comment about price gouging.... I've never seen it with them ever. Even when they can command the highest prices overall (and they have at times) they have always tried to stay competitively priced.

They have played the good guy role for a long time and I think that's part of the reason they are still around. If David was some jerk no one liked Im sure going up against Goliath just wouldn't be a story anyone was interested in.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By DallasTexas on 6/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: I've seen this first hand
By ebakke on 6/25/2007 6:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
Strong global competitor = Above the law? Above ethical behavior?

Before you try to hum and haw your way through a response - don't bother. You made it perfectly clear that you (like the operators of the company you own a part of) are interested solely in increasing your wallet and will find a way to justify the means to that end.

CPU prices, release schedules, product specs, market share, etc are all out of the scope of this article and of AMD's legal battle with Intel. How are so many people unable to see that?

RE: I've seen this first hand
By Justin Case on 6/25/2007 6:54:15 PM , Rating: 4
For someone who claims to have "specified which chips to buy in an aerospace company", you seem to be seriously (I daresay dangerously) misinformed.

First, AMD actually helped Intel with the (physical) design of the x86 (which is why Intel let them have an essentially "free" license to make x86 chips - it wasn't exactly out of the kindness of their hearts).

Second, AMD has been using completely original designs since the K5 (developed in 1994, 13 years ago).

Third, AMD never intended to make a Pentium Pro clone (a very niche market), the K5 was designed to compete with the mainstream Pentium (and it was, in many ways, a superior design, although poorly executed).

Fourth, HT was introduced with the K8, and was definitely not "licensed from Compaq" (Compaq wasn't even part of the HT consortium). You might be thinking of the EV6 bus, but that was actually licensed from DEC, and used in the K7 (a.k.a. Athlon).

Finally, pretty much all of Intel's current designs came from Israel (so much for it being "an American company"). Not that that's a bad thing, mind you; Intel USA was the one that kept flogging the dead Netburst horse.

Could you please let us know which aerospace company you worked for? I for one would like to avoid flying on anything they made. Thanks.

Regarding this article: the issue isn't which companies are "nice", it's which ones comply with the law and which ones don't. AMD (or Intel) is free to price their CPUs at a million dollars each. But they are not free to say to motherboard companies "if you buy from our competitors, we'll screw you". If it's confirmed that Intel did that, I hope they're forced to pay at least twice as much as they profited. Anything that reduces competition hurts consumers and slows down innovation.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By copiedright on 6/25/2007 8:18:41 PM , Rating: 1
Could not have said it better myself!!!

RE: I've seen this first hand
By DallasTexas on 6/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: I've seen this first hand
By TomZ on 6/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: I've seen this first hand
By Ringold on 6/26/2007 7:12:29 PM , Rating: 3
Likely a low popularity rating due to him being silly enough to register with the same name here as he as at HardOCP. I haven't looked through the forums there in a while but the names of the most shrill trolls can never be forgotten.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By DrMrLordX on 6/26/2007 6:34:56 AM , Rating: 4
Several statements of yours are factually inaccurate.

1). AMD stopped "copying Intel's socket" when they released the SlotA Athlon. And, no, SlotA was not the same as Slot1.

2). If you examine the K5 microarchitecture, you will find that it was quite different from the Pentium and Pentium MMX. In fact, take a look at this:

"The K5 is not a Pentium "clone" in the traditional sense of the word, because it is a totally different internal design. It is also not 100% Pentium compatible because it is not an exact clone. However, it is a very close approximation, and suffers from fewer compatibility problems than the 6x86."

So far as I know, they designed the K5 in-house without copying Intel's (or anyone else's) design.

3). AMD does invent things. Here are a few of their better-known inventions/innovations that they neither acquired nor licensed from others:

K5: see above
3dnow!: Not like it mattered . . .
K7: The Athlon was a 100% original in-house AMD design. EV6 was DEC's design, but the Athlon was not.
K8: Just like the K7, the K8 was AMD's baby. They also engineered the K8's memory controller all by themselves. Several variants, in fact. In the process of inventing the K8 processor, they also invented Hypertransport and x86-64.

Yes, that's right, x86-64, the instruction set that Intel was eventually forced to copy (Intel's version is EM64T).

In a few months, we'll be seeing another one of their inventions. Several of them, in fact. We should all hope that they work out better than did 3dnow! and the K5.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By Targon on 6/26/2007 6:43:38 AM , Rating: 2
Since Athlon FX processors are and were never intended for the general consumer, saying they would "gouge their customers" is really not correct in any way. AMD has stayed price competitive, but in general, even when they were on top, never set the prices higher just because of their position.

Now, keep in mind that there is a difference between operating as a large company and using bullying tactics in order to sell their processors. Playing fair means they will supply product to the customers at the agreed on price, and will not delay or limit delivery of the product(s) just because of actions of the customers.

I remember the Asus A7M motherboard, which came in a plain white box, with NOTHING to shout that it was an Asus motherboard designed for the AMD Athlon, simply because they were afraid that Intel would get upset if Asus made too much "noise" about their AMD focused products. Why should a company need to be concerned about selling a non-Intel motherboard if there was no threat, real or implied?

If you are trying to imply that AMD would push companies not to use Intel processors, you really can't know that. It's fine to encourage increased sales of YOUR products, just not with implications that you must also limit sales of your competitors. That is what makes the Intel actions illegal. Intel has enough advantages in terms of marketing, size, manufacturing capacity, and in budget where they should never have needed to use threats to keep their marketshare. That is the whole point of the lawsuit.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By Samus on 6/25/2007 4:05:17 PM , Rating: 4
Right, because quite obviously Intel DOES make a better CPU right now. It's about how AMD had made such a great product the past few years, just leaps and bounds better than NetBurst, and they couldn't even break 25% market share. Seems a little strange.

It also seems strange how Dell didn't use AMD processors until Core 2 was released. As a big company, Dell had samples of Core 2 months before it was released, knowing it was going to be a hit, then decides to use AMD processors? It's all in their favor, even now, because they still have Intel in their back pocket. Their stock holders are pissed, and they should be. Everyone was forced to buy Dells with Pentium 4's from 2000-2005, when AMD, during the entire time, made a better product with the Athlon, Duron/Sempron and Turion.

It's hard to believe how Dell got away forcing all that NetBurst crap on their customers, when they knew all along AMD was a better choice for many of them, but didn't offer it as an option anyway.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By TomZ on 6/25/2007 4:18:40 PM , Rating: 1
It's about how AMD had made such a great product the past few years, just leaps and bounds better than NetBurst, and they couldn't even break 25% market share. Seems a little strange.

There are a bunch of factors that you're ignoring.

1. Momentum. It takes a whole market some time to switch over to something better.

2. Choice Criteria. People don't always buy the thing with the best engineering specs!

3. Brand/Marketing. Intel's branding and marketing were always much stronger.

4. System Approach. Intel's being able to supply processor, chip-set, integrated graphics, and even motherboards is an advantage that AMD never really enjoyed (prior to the ATI acquisition, at least)

So, to me it is not surprising that they just cracked 20-25% market share (which is very good, I think), despite having a "better" product.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By just4U on 6/25/2007 4:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
You can't deny tho that they'd most likely have enjoyed even more success with the big oem's all on board and fully co-operative.

I mean they'd sell more intel anyway but if your main supplier is playing games these oems are less likely to take as much of a chance on Amd Product (or as in dells case ... ) I think that is what is at the heart of all of this.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By TomZ on 6/25/2007 4:30:22 PM , Rating: 1
You can't deny tho that they'd most likely have enjoyed even more success with the big oem's all on board and fully co-operative.

No, I don't think so. It is pretty well known that AMD was running at 100% manufacturing capacity during that time period anyway. For them to have supplied more parts, they would have needed to started building new fabs 5-10 years earlier, which they didn't. There's no way AMD could have supplied even a fraction of Dell's business.

Now that AMD has better manufacturing capability, they lack competitive products. Sounds like mis-management to me.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By just4U on 6/25/2007 4:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm... there's something to be said about that as well (naturally there are many factors that play a role in why amd is currently in the state that it's in)

BUT.. I disagree with you on the 100% capacity. I mean there was allways Amd cpu's in stock everywhere I looked. From low to highend. I don't ever recall a time where I went to shop for a cpu and Amd was sold out.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By TomZ on 6/25/2007 4:40:03 PM , Rating: 1
You were looking at the retail market that buys 1000 pieces at a time for end users 1-2 at a time, compared to a Dell which would order tens or hundreds of millions of pieces at a time. Big difference there.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By just4U on 6/25/2007 4:50:13 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I know, but given the "what if" scenario having the huge oem contracts in play would have meant ramping up more production (which has been a hurdle for amd). Considering the fact that they always hit a brick wall where dell was concerned it was a non issue. Opening the door leads to those opportunities.

I mean really.. Amd doesn't advertise enough, they don't have the facilities to produce what Intel does, or the funds, Nor do they have the brand recognition. All of these things work against them but having Intel stack the deck even further as AMD contends just makes you think uh .. wow!

RE: I've seen this first hand
By TomZ on 6/25/2007 4:54:19 PM , Rating: 1
I see what you're saying, but you can't just immediately offer to sell hundreds of millions of units. You have to have the capacity first, then sell it. You can't sell the units and then scramble to build the capacity. Fabs take many years to build.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By just4U on 6/25/2007 5:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
Nope that got them into trouble already as they had to take from the retail space to supply the oem's. (after dell came on board)I seem to recall people saying that Amd angered the retail segment that has supported them for so long.. (don't know much about it really) BUT not having the product because it's always sold out seems to me to be a much better scenario.. overall that is.

By Performance Fanboi on 6/26/2007 12:47:25 AM , Rating: 2
Yep - lots of people were trying to buy 5000's when they came out. The backorders were so bad a couple of retailers I deal with started offering 5200's for the same price if you'd wait for the 'indefinite' delivery. Problem was (for AMD)if you didn't already have the AM2 board it was a simple choice to go with a C2D (and save a couple of bux in the process). I, and many others, felt screwed over by AMD - Dell snaps thier fingers and gets CPU's - I support AMD since Athlon days and get "No soup for you"!

RE: I've seen this first hand
By Ryanman on 6/25/2007 8:33:51 PM , Rating: 1
You forgot that the vast majority of people who buy dells are idiots. They don't care if it runs well, has good customer support, or has crap shoveled on the hard drive. They see the price tag and thing "Pentium!I've heard that before! and dell says it runs good! it must be amazing."

RE: I've seen this first hand
By Parhel on 6/26/2007 1:50:16 AM , Rating: 2
I'm replying to you from my Dell, which I purchased a year and a half ago. It was under $500 shipped and included a 20.1" LCD @ 1600x1200 in addition to a fully functional computer. Try putting together a deal like that on Newegg or wherever you buy parts. Even today, it wouldn't be easy.

I bought it because it was a good deal, not because I care what company assembled my PC. But I have no problem with it's quality, and it happens to be one of the quietest system I've ever used, probably due to the microBTX form factor.

Dell's customers aren't idiots anymore than people who assemble their own systems are. Not everyone is a gamer or cares if they have the latest and greatest, and Dell has some pretty good prices from time to time.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By darkpaw on 6/26/2007 2:03:28 PM , Rating: 2
Most dell users are idiots, but people that know what to look for can also get some pretty good deals.

If anyone asks me to build a low level pc for them, I tell them not to bother just buy a dell on sale. I can not touch their prices on the low end (especially including a display and OS).

Now if you want a gaming machine thats a whole nother story.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By Black Rainbow on 6/25/2007 2:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
That is exactly the problem. If companies like Intel would stick to making a single prodct, there would be no issue at all, but because they fabricate chipsets and stuff too, they have some tricks up their sleeves if they want to start playing dirty.

RE: I've seen this first hand
By vignyan on 6/28/2007 8:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
So Intel gives the OEMs gifts on their "only INTEL" campaign. So whats wrong with that. Let AMD do the same. If Intel offers 20% discount, let AMD offer 21%. How can this be anything other than Bussiness. If Dell offers a similar configured computer to you at $100 lesser than HP or IBM, why would you not buy it? And as per the OEM orders, its actually the other way around. If you think OEMs are at the mercy of the chip companies, think again. Intel faced heat from HP and channel partners and AMD faced heat from Channel partners. Its because of the OEMs and channel partners that the chip companies make money.

So ultimately what i want to say is that, business is competetive. Intel or AMD, everyone has to run the business. stop cribbing and start performing! :)

RE: I've seen this first hand
By nah on 6/29/2007 12:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
this is interesting---just the other day i spoke out against intel's plan to dominate the market with RDRAM and the i820 chipset and got voted down

the attitudes of DS readers are interestingly refreshing :)

Not a lot of details
By Puddleglum1 on 6/25/2007 12:31:02 PM , Rating: 1
The AMD boss then called out its arch rival, boldly stating, “Intel uses illegal tactics explicitly aimed at preventing customers from doing business with AMD.”
70 MPH on the highway is an illegal tactic. Ruiz, what exactly has Intel done? Not that I don't doubt that Intel may be completely in the wrong for some cases, but Ruiz needs to be more specific if he wants his words to carry any weight.

RE: Not a lot of details
By Goty on 6/25/2007 12:51:02 PM , Rating: 3
If you look up some of the articles on DT about the lawsuit you'll get all the details you need. The people Ruiz is speaking to here probably already know everything they need/care to know.

RE: Not a lot of details
By oTAL on 6/25/2007 1:27:00 PM , Rating: 5
Yup... like another poster said, this is very typical. Yes, Intel has the best technology and yes they deserve being in front these days. But AMD's accusations have been confirmed by other people in the industry. I remember that AT or DT posted an interesting piece when this story first started.

The truth is that in the P4 days AMD produced very competitive products and maintained a better value than Intel for a long time.
So why were they doing badly in the K7 days? Because Intel would force builders to sell low quotas of AMD processors or loose marketing dollars and discounts. They would have to sell a certain number of Intel systems for each AMD system, independently of the market demand, or they would be unable to compete on the Intel front.
As for mainboard manufactures those were also bullied into a quota system in which they would either produce X Intel boards for each AMD board or face the wrath of intel, including delays in chipsets, loss of marketing and promotion money, etc.

AMD does have a point here and they deserve to be taken seriously. Monopolies harm the consumer!
On a side note, my new notebook is Intel powered, and I own Intel stock since I believe the giant is now awake and they have the potential for great things in the near future. I'm just glad AMD is around to keep them in check and I hope they can handle the beating they're taking until they come out with something good.

RE: Not a lot of details
By jacarte8 on 6/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not a lot of details
By Black Rainbow on 6/25/2007 3:01:25 PM , Rating: 5
The harm will be done when AMD goes bankrupt. Let's see how much Intel processors will cost then, when they don't have to compete on the price-front anymore...

RE: Not a lot of details
By TomZ on 6/25/2007 4:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
A reminder: AMD started the current pricing war. They made the strategic mistake of picking a fight they couldn't possibly win - and one they really can't afford to lose.

RE: Not a lot of details
By Phynaz on 6/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not a lot of details
By Samus on 6/25/2007 4:12:14 PM , Rating: 3
Right, the reason its great for consumers is because AMD is keeping it that way by eating billions in losses.

They are trying to get around the chipset monopoly power Intel uses by having an exclusive chipset of their own (the goal of the ATI/AMD merger) but even thats costing them billions, and it still wont completely eliminate the chipset pressure Intel puts on vendors.

With fair competition, the prices would still be where they are now (or close to it) but both Intel and AMD would be doing well because AMD would be selling more chips, and more chips means higher profit margin. Intel would at the same time be selling less chips to account for AMD's better sales, but then again, Intel can afford to turn over a quarter of their market share, they did NET almost a billion dollars profit last quarter. AMD's NET was a almost a billion in losses.

RE: Not a lot of details
By TomZ on 6/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not a lot of details
By Phynaz on 6/25/2007 11:47:23 PM , Rating: 1
Good observation.

RE: Not a lot of details
By Black Rainbow on 7/4/2007 5:34:48 AM , Rating: 2
Not really, what AMD does is make sure that they at least have something, even if they lose the lawsuit. Furthermore, I don't believe AMD's goal is to attain a monopoly, rather to make the market division more equal.

RE: Not a lot of details
By crystal clear on 6/26/2007 1:35:25 AM , Rating: 2
There are already prospective buyers in the waiting for such an opportunity to BUYOUT AMD !

Just that you dont hear/read about them.

AMD is here to stay-you can be rest assured.

RE: Not a lot of details
By crimson117 on 6/25/2007 4:09:11 PM , Rating: 3
Even if a company has stopped committing a crime, they still have to pay for when they committed it in the past.

RE: Not a lot of details
By TomZ on 6/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not a lot of details
By Oregonian2 on 6/25/2007 6:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
There have been many articles listing alleged things iNtel has done. Seems like there's such an article every few months that I see, so they must be very much more numerous than that.

RE: Not a lot of details
By Puddleglum1 on 6/25/2007 7:43:47 PM , Rating: 3
I understand that there is a lot of tension with this current price war with AMD. However, Ruiz doesn't once mention [i]how[/i] Intel is acting anti-competitively. My reaction to Ruiz's comment is precisely that there are no anti-competitive [i]crimes[/i] with Intel currently.

FTC doesn't have a case against Intel since 1999.

The industry is lucrative, margins are low, and AMD will not stay afloat using unsupported claims. In my opinion, if AMD has a legit claim, we will soon find out. Until then, I'll just continue to wonder about the meaning of life outside of Moore's law.

RE: Not a lot of details
By TomZ on 6/26/2007 1:14:17 PM , Rating: 1
There have been many articles listing alleged things iNtel has done. Seems like there's such an article every few months that I see, so they must be very much more numerous than that.

The OP talked about "crimes" - so far I haven't heard about any crimes. Everything I've seen are civil suits. Have you seen otherwise?

RE: Not a lot of details
By Oregonian2 on 6/26/2007 8:11:25 PM , Rating: 3
True in the sense that O.J. was subject to a civil suit for wrongful death of his former wife. The suit was civil, but the action he was accused of was murder. Call it what you will...

RE: Not a lot of details
By Phynaz on 6/25/2007 11:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
But crimes can only be decided in criminal court. There have been no criminal charges filed against Intel.

There have been accusations made by AMD in a civil matter.

Please take the time to understand the difference.

RE: Not a lot of details
By ZmaxDP on 6/25/2007 4:11:55 PM , Rating: 3
Think about it this way - why has AMD fallen down over this last year? Is it because their engineers suck as one person claims? If that is true, then I guess Intel hired all new engineers when it created the Pentium M and then transitioned those lessons learned to Conroe, it probably hired all new engineers again right? Wrong. I think part of the reason Intel is kicking AMD's butt is that AMD has not spent enough on R&D on its new processors. Why? Well, it can't spend nearly as much as Intel because it has a lot less money. Why do they have a lot less money? Because they have a small part of the market share. If AMD had 45% market share, they'd have a hell of a lot more resources to devote to R&D on their processor lines even if they maintained the same % of investment. Why does the current situation in terms of performance not matter much? Because inlike you personal bank account, financial decisions at large corporations take years to have a direct affect on the market. So, if K7 was hampered by Intel's monopolizing, and that prevented a 5% market share growth, that's a lot of money AMD didn't have for R&D and Manufacturing growth that it should have had. Perhaps if it got it, then we'd have seen Barcelona last year instead of this year (hopefully).

Then there is another issue - because of their limited capacity, AMD has alocated a lot of resources to growing manufacturing capacity, and in business an increase in investment in one area equals a decrease in investment in others. AMD had the performance crown for so long, and three years ago it didn't look like Intel would have anything competitive as Core2 turned out to be, so they invested heavily in their capacity to keep up with their market share growth. There is no doubt that part of AMD's problem is self inflicted. Decisions of where to invest are not something Intel can directly influence (or be blamed for). AMD has also invested heavily in ATI, which I still think is the right long term move. Hopefully that will prove itself out in the coming years.

Point being, though this talk of Hector's certainly had publicity, anyone that thinks this discussion is a short term finger pointing to distract from the relatively poor performance of AMD's processors is just missing the point. The level Hector is playing at is three years out. The battle he's trying to win here will have a major impact on the future of the industry in one of three ways. 1. He'll loose and Intel will keep squelching competition using means that aren't technically illegal, but aren't exactly legal either. 2. He'll win and AMD will receive a substantial settlement from Intel and be able to immediately invest the money internally where it is needed. It won't make up for the years of revenue and research lost, but it will bolster the books short term and allow some readjustment of priorities for their budget. 3. He'll win and these kind of practices will be banned, thus making the market behave a little more fairly for us consumers.

Now, in response to the comment: "I cannot possibly imagine how the current state of the processor market has hurt consumers... a $240 Athlon 6000? That's fantastic! Market pressures are killing AMD right now."

Considering that in a better market without Intel's monopoly we might have a Core2 competitor already out and thus an even lower priced Athlon6000, lower priced Core2's Intel rushing out their 45nm die shrink to compete ahead of schedule, and AMD readying their tape out for 45nm in response... I'd say your perception about the market not being hurt by Intel's practices are wrong. The entire point Hector is trying to make is that anti-competitive practices hurt in ways you'll never know. Sure things seem good now, but they could always be better - and these kind of market pressures from a company with such a strong market share majority are the kind of things that hold smaller companies back. Given, all this is obviously speculation. AMD could have screwed up just as badly without Intel putting on the pressure (the idiot engineer scenario). But, it is just as likely that AMD's slow time to market is a direct result of the monopoly pressure exerted by Intel over them. I'm pretty sure that Intel has been behaving inappropriately, and these kind of stumbles are exactly what that kind of pressure is meant to induce...

(Since disclaimers are popular at the moment, I own both Intel and AMD stock, and Intel and AMD computers.)

RE: Not a lot of details
By masher2 on 6/25/2007 4:21:33 PM , Rating: 4
When Ruiz says, "this is what it's like to compete against Intel", he's focusing on Intel's effects on AMD. But the mantra of antitrust law is that it exists to protect the consumer, not the competitors. AMD has still failed to demonstrate how Intel has hurt us, rather than them.

Your argument is that, had AMD gained more market share, it would have spent more on R&D, and possibly brought out a better chip. Maybe. But every dollar AMD takes from Intel is one less for Intel to spend. A larger AMD doesn't seem to imply that the combined R&D budget of both would be likely to increase.

In fact, history shows us just the opposite is true. Agressive antitrust action usually gives smaller firms at least a temporary guarantee of share, sales, and/or profits. With the monkey off their backs, those firms tend to compete less hard. They introduce fewer products, cut prices less agressively, etc. So while government action is certainly good for their bottom line, it hurts the consumer more than it helps them.

RE: Not a lot of details
By Goty on 6/25/2007 4:48:34 PM , Rating: 1
How have Intel's alleged anti-competitive practices hurt the consumer? How about a lack of choice?

RE: Not a lot of details
By TomZ on 6/25/2007 4:52:49 PM , Rating: 4
How do you figure you have a lack of choice? You have two big companies to choose from, and a small number of "fringe" companies doing x86. You also have such an array of current product offerings that it boggles the mind. Low power, high performance, single core, multi-core, enterprise, etc., etc. Lack of choice is hardly a problem.

RE: Not a lot of details
By Goty on 6/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not a lot of details
By masher2 on 6/25/2007 7:34:14 PM , Rating: 4
> but, lo and behold, there aren't any big companies out there carrying AMD processors?

You mean, besides HP, Lenovo, Acer, and NEC?

RE: Not a lot of details
By Goty on 6/25/2007 8:24:24 PM , Rating: 1
Alrigh, fine.


RE: Not a lot of details
By TomZ on 6/25/2007 10:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
What's he supposed to do?

It's called "marketing," something AMD knows nothing about. In order to get Average Joe to choose an AMD processor over an Intel, he needs to see Superbowl commercials, pass by billboards on the way to work, see AMD product placements in movies (kidding on that one)... you get my point. AMD has to execute a marketing campaign to get AMD to be a household brand name.

RE: Not a lot of details
By TomZ on 6/25/2007 10:18:46 PM , Rating: 2
I should also add that I don't recall ever having seen an AMD ad - never.

RE: Not a lot of details
By RubberJohnny on 6/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not a lot of details
By TomZ on 6/26/2007 1:08:01 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Not a lot of details
By crystal clear on 6/26/2007 1:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
An example on what you say-


The semiconductor maker is spending $8 million on movie tie-in marketing and advertising promotions in hopes that the film's slick graphics and cool animation effects will inspire consumers to expect a similar high-end multimedia experience at home on their Intel-powered computers. Intel rival Advanced Micro Devices saw breakout success in 2001 when it partnered with Hewlett-Packard to promote DreamWorks' animated comedy "Shrek." Intel is hoping for the same. The difference between then and now is that while AMD wanted to prove to the IT community that it had first-class server processors, Intel is focused primarily on consumer products.

Intel's "Ratatouille" campaign will consist of online, print, and retail display advertisements including presentations of the movie at Circuit City as well as demonstrations on Toshiba computers.

"Disney allows us to use the content, characters, and brand of the movie to leverage our visuals and our brand," Heather Dixon, Intel Digital Home & Mobility Manager told InformationWeek. "We've partnered with OEMs, national retailers, and studios before, but this is the first time we are promoting a movie from awareness to preference at purchase."

Opening this weekend, the latest Pixar/Disney creation centers on the story of a French rat that helps whip up fantastic creations behind the scenes of a Paris kitchen. Intel is telling a similar story about how it is helping Pixar behind the scenes. The difference though is that while the cartoon rat throws in a pinch of oregano here and there, Intel supplied Pixar animators with enough hardware support and software tools to launch a rocket to Mars.

RE: Not a lot of details
By theapparition on 6/26/2007 10:15:47 AM , Rating: 2
Completely correct.

Intel's "Intel inside" marketing program was a stoke of genius. Those ads with the Blue Man Group, the catchy logo jingle (ta-da-da-da)........all seems stupid to us (us being the computer savy community). But we are so in the minority (guess at less than .1%). The average buyer purchases complete systems at B&M stores or through on-line retailers (such as dell, HP, etc). Their campaign to change comsumers minds that what was inside the computer was important was brilliant.

Proof of sister wanted a computer. She's quite a bit older (by 20years) and knew nothing about computers. Her only requirement. She wanted Intel, because of the ads. Its about perceived quality. At that time, Athlon64's were overall better performing than Pentiums, but she didn't care.

The only commercial I've seen for AMD was a houky gameshow eske contest where a train had to be stopped by using a computer (either Intel or AMD). The contestant used the Intel machine and it wasn't fast enough and the train crashed. What message does that send to consumers that the first choice to use during an emergency is Intel? Yes it failed, but AMD's public image is that they are not "fully compatible" so the guy trying to stop the train went with the more reliable system. Sorry for the commercial analysis, it was just plain bad.

Now, for even better marketing.......see Apple. They've even made a new marketing catagory, Applenomics. Flat out lie, but make it look cute and you've got a winner.

RE: Not a lot of details
By TomZ on 6/26/2007 3:54:22 PM , Rating: 3
Regarding Apple marketing, have you heard of this before?

RE: Not a lot of details
By crystal clear on 6/26/2007 1:57:24 AM , Rating: 4
What's he supposed to do?

Handover his resignation letter & go into retirement.

Write/publish a book or two & play the guitar !

RE: Not a lot of details
By Amiga500 on 6/26/2007 4:06:21 AM , Rating: 3
How do you figure you have a lack of choice?

Alot of big companies (and especially public organisations) have purchasing contracts with the bigger manufacturers.

For instance, our university has contracts with Dell and Siemens.

Unfortunately, that means we cannot buy outside of those two vendors. Nearly 3 years ago, I was looking to get a desktop PC - and of course was looking for a Socket 939 AMD (as I knew of the dual core upgrade path in the pipeline). Could I chose one? Nope, not a chance. All Dell offered was the shitty P4, and I can't recall Siemens offering Athlons either - so I ended up with a shitty P4.

I think it wasn't until 2004 and Siemens introduced the Celsius v810 that it was possibly for the university to buy an AMD machine.

That kind of approach from Intel killed AMD in both workstation and desktop markets.

RE: Not a lot of details
By TomZ on 6/26/2007 2:48:33 PM , Rating: 2
AMD didn't have the manufacturing capability to supply Dell, HP, or the other box builders. They didn't have that manufacturing capability because they didn't invest in fab capacity 5-10 years ago as they would have needed to. In addition, they've done a poor job marketing their brand, to where they created practically zero awareness for the vast majority of purchasers. These are the real reaons for the lack of choice that you describe.

By the way, now that AMD does have a bit more brand awareness due to the success of X2 et al., and because they now have much better manufacturing capacity, you can pretty easily purchase AMD-based machines from most of the box builders. This is the case even though Intel's marketing payments, etc. haven't really changed AFAIK.

RE: Not a lot of details
By Amiga500 on 6/27/2007 5:57:18 AM , Rating: 3
AMD didn't have the manufacturing capability to supply Dell, HP, or the other box builders.

Due to the anti-competitive nature of Intel in the past (K6 etc).

In addition, they've done a poor job marketing their brand, to where they created practically zero awareness for the vast majority of purchasers.

Complete, pure, utter rubbish. Are you really trying to say that IT purchasers are not in tune with the market? Unfortunately, those in the know often have to operate within company contracts set by management. For instance, as soon as Siemens started stocking AMDs, every computer that came in here was an AMD (either opteron or athlon) until the Conroe cores were released.

Who really cares though.
By sobad on 6/25/2007 1:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
Our country is trying to kill capitalism. Intel is using every tool in the shed to kill their competetion. AMD is super heavy into debt and Intel has a large margin of cash in its name. AMD is just using the last of its voice before its death.

RE: Who really cares though.
By RogueSpear on 6/25/2007 1:34:58 PM , Rating: 4
Our country is trying to kill capitalism. Intel is using every tool in the shed to kill their competetion.

Ummm.. yea. I dunno, sounds like capatalism to me.

RE: Who really cares though.
By Oregonian2 on 6/25/2007 6:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
In capitalism, you're allowed to kill your competitors. However it's claimed that Intel was having contracts put out on AMD, not something legal. To legally kill your competitor you need to do it yourself.

Enough already
By cheburashka on 6/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Enough already
By just4U on 6/25/2007 4:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
Cheburashka most of us are going on what's been posted previously on the web. From all reports AMD has one helluva good case.

As to the consumer and this part of your post ...

No one has forced anyone to buy Intel products. Yet the masses bought so many of these "inferior" products. Who made them do that? Are consumers dumb?

Consumers are NOT dumb, but many are uninformed. They do not follow trends that Enthusiasts do which means they tend to go with options that are presented to them. So, lets say they are buying a dell... and Dell only offers Intel based setups (as they did for a long time) .. they go with it, If they were presented with more options chances are ...

RE: Enough already
By masher2 on 6/25/2007 7:42:11 PM , Rating: 4
> "Consumers are NOT dumb, but many are uninformed"

You're forgetting the power of a brand name, combined with simple inertia. Most people hate buying non brand-name big-ticket items. And large companies have a lot of inertia. My own firm-- one of the largest in the world-- didn't even approve AMD-based machines for purchase until 2005. That's why trademarks are protected. Brands are valuable property.

Once AMD had established a brand name, and was seen as more than a fly-by-night flash in the pan firm, it began to garner market share extremely fast, especially among those "uninformed consumer", who wound up giving AMD more than a 50% market share in the retail market. In the corporate world, however, wheels turn a bit slower...and by the time they finished turning, Intel was suddenly selling faster chips at a cheaper price again.

RE: Enough already
By just4U on 6/26/2007 1:34:07 AM , Rating: 2
Well said and I do agree with all you have said here. But the point I was trying to make (perhaps poorly) is that Amd contends that "part" of it's problem is the strong arm tactic's Intel has used in the past to keep them from getting that needed brand recognition.

I mean looking at it in a different light, it's like you got this champion runner who wins every race he's in but at the same time he sees this other runner about 200 yards back and decides to trip him up into stumbling.... and oh while their at it tell Nike and other's that if they endorse the poor fellow then their star will walk... You know?

(grin) dunno why I typed it out this way but ah hell hitting the post button!

missing the point
By omnicronx on 6/25/2007 12:59:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think you guys are missing the point. All amd is saying is everyone should be playing by the rules. having no competing product out right now is besides the point, the point is intel has been known to use scare tactics to making certain manufacturers do what they want. this could mean they wont sell to a certain manufacturer at a lower price point than other 'intel only' manufacturers, or it could mean a variety of other things.. AMD in a bad position right now or not, they still have a very valid point. Just look at a64 products, even when amd was whipping the floor with intel products, intel still managed to be the main supplier for manufacturers like dell.. this can not be overlooked.

one other thing.. i think now is the good time for him to speak up, as if he was doing so when amd was the performance king people asked why they are complaining.

RE: missing the point
By 91TTZ on 6/25/2007 1:09:27 PM , Rating: 3
This has been going on since AMD was selling their K5. You're just hearing about the case now, but it's been in motion for a while.

RE: missing the point
By Oregonian2 on 6/25/2007 6:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
btw -- didn't Microsoft get away doing all these sorts of things by just saying that they promise not to be illegal thug maniacs anymore? Maybe if iNtel just apologizes, AMD will be in a happy mood?

Image selection
By vijay333 on 6/25/2007 12:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
great choice...he should try a fiddle for his next piece :)

RE: Image selection
By Master Kenobi on 6/25/2007 12:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking worlds smallest violin.

RE: Image selection
By Black Rainbow on 6/25/2007 3:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe a balalaika.

most are right
By sprockkets on 6/25/2007 12:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
You can say right now that AMD does not have a competitive product, but look at how many people bought the prescott p4. It doesn't matter even today if they still sold that crap, they still would have more market share.

The key is, when Intel was behind AMD, they used their position to make sure AMD didn't make any headway, like in the Athlon days.

What they are doing now is pricing themselves very low right now to recapture market share as well, even if it means profit margins are way lower than they are used to.

For example, AMD could have had good PR when people heard that an AMD chip was in the original XBOX. It wasn't a matter of profit to Intel to undercut AMD with a cheap "celeron" processor for the XBOX, it was to make sure AMD didn't get any headway with market share and market presence. Intel can afford to do this since they make billions.

The bottom line is by the time anything is done about all the things Intel did in the past, AMD will not benefit one bit by it.

RE: most are right
By sandpa on 6/25/2007 2:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
Actually AMD did make quite a headway in the Athlon days. They took away a considerable market share in the years 2005-2006. The problem for AMD is that Intel took it all back in one quarter after releasing C2D. AMD may make some headway with Barcelona but now they are starting to sense that the window of time where they will be at the top might be becoming too small in order to make any impact on their MSS and hence the rhetoric. Plus consider the venue where he was speaking, it was expected of him to say such things.

RE: most are right
By theapparition on 6/26/2007 10:39:47 AM , Rating: 2
You can say right now that AMD does not have a competitive product, but look at how many people bought the prescott p4. It doesn't matter even today if they still sold that crap, they still would have more market share.

AMD doesn't have the brand image that Intel does. Would you rather have a Hyundai Azera or a Lexus/Mercedes (forget which models the commercial was comparing too). Even though the Hyundai was better in most catagories, and was ALOT cheaper, You'd find most going for the "premium" brands.

Also, there is quite a lot of consumer preference for the premuim brand, as they perceive increased value. Does the 2000 clothes washer do that much better at washing clothes than a Lowes special $300 Maytag. Yet they are selling quite well. This happens all the time, for a variety of reasons. That is why brand image and loyalty is so important. I've personally been burned several times by Maxtor hard drives (never had failures in any other drive), so will never buy one of their products (now Seagates value line) again. How does Maxtor (Seagate) win my business back? Now imagine I'm Dell, and AMD is not guaranteeing me shipments because of capacity issues. See where I'm going.

By crystal clear on 6/25/2007 7:54:30 PM , Rating: 1
I do not need my fortune teller hat to tell you one truth about which I am absolutely certain,” said Ruiz. “







"I do not need my fortune teller that to tell you one truth about which I am absolutely certain,” that its high time I must go" said Ruiz. “

By TomZ on 6/25/2007 10:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more - he'll be out of a job by the end of the year.

By crystal clear on 6/26/2007 1:01:52 AM , Rating: 2
A CEO resorts to such tactics as a last desperate offensive,
before everything starts crumbling & falling apart.

I have a strong feeling that Barcelona is NOT what all expect it to be !
(a strong competitor to Intel offerings.)

But lets give AMD the benefit of the doubt & wait till Barcelona is offered to ANAND SHILPI for testing & benchmarking.
His results & analysis is considered an industry standard & " a must read for the industry".

We need AMD, let that be very clear to all-its good for everybody including Intel !
A market share ratio of (Intel)60 to 40(AMD) is a healthy benchmark for a healthy competitive market.

A quote from Anand tech-

AMD simply hasn't gotten the process under control yet and after hearing our friends at the motherboard companies talk, AMD is close to near/total panic mode right now as the Q3 Barcelona product launch schedule rapidly approaches.

I think he should step down.
By Roy2001 on 6/25/2007 12:37:59 PM , Rating: 3
When AMD has better product, it grabs MSS. When Intel released better product, it loses. So what he want to say about that?

If he stayed as CEO in AMD, it would be another motorola style 68000.

Share Market AMD
By keeghi on 6/25/2007 10:57:52 PM , Rating: 3
I think 1 reason that AMD didn't have good market share when they have Athlon as superior product from Intel is their price. When they have Athlon X2, their prize also crazy. Consider Intel market share that time, I think AMD should take care their price carefully. I believe if their Athlon X2 price competitive with Pentium D, lot of people wanna buy it. I myself can't pay that high for X2, i prefer $120 P D with good overclocking.

I think AMD strategy is over confidence.

He's right
By Polynikes on 6/25/2007 1:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
Although AMD isn't competitive with Intel right now, Ruiz's claims are right on. Intel's strong-arming PC makers like Dell and HP is wrong.

By perpetualdark on 6/25/2007 1:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
These issues must be old.. I have purchased 6 Dells in the last 2 months for workstations and they are all AMD based computers.. Dell wants too much for the core2 based machines.. and they offer killer deals with the AMD stuff..

Sounds to me like they are just whining about Intel kicking their butt in the last year with the core2 processors.

AMD has gone from a small company that sued Intel to allow them to copy the 486 cpu exactly, to a player with a substantial percentage of market share, and then got it handed to them when Intel released a processor with 40% more performance than AMD's top performer at 1/2 the price. Sounds like healthy competition to me. The whole reason to compete is to be the winner.. some people just can't lose graciously.

And what the heck is with investors filing a suit against Dell? Let's see.. investors buy stock in Dell, sue Dell, lawyers get most of the money, Dell stock drops from huge hit to bottom line, investors lose money.. WTH are they thinking?

Isn't this similar...
By Durrr on 6/25/2007 2:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
to what Intel did when AMD was gaining a ton of market share? They started complaining about patent infringement, or something of the like? Seems like whoever is on bottom seems to get whiny instead of getting tough and doing something about it.

btw, I just bought a very nicely priced Athlon X2 3600+ from a major e-tailer :). 62.99 retail product. I love competition

PR stunt...
By Regs on 6/25/2007 3:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't this announced time and again? Hector was the one that said "promoting a product is expensive", yet he seems to be more than willing to commit his time to promote Intel as the bad guy when ever a chance arrises.

Though I do give him credit, at least he addressed the issues to his stock holders why their revenue fell short. Though he didn't admit Intel simply has the better product and AMD is a generation behind in all segments (video cards, mobile, desk top, server, etc.. etc..) It's obvious. It's like a 2 ton elephant sitting in your family room and no one pointing it out.

Intel's monopoly
By gnp421 on 6/25/2007 7:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
During the Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 days, AMD grew in market share. The average consumer would of went with a name the knew so whether it was Dell, HP , Gateway etc. The average consumer would base the decision on what they know and at that time would of been a Pentium. Intel "threatening" motherboard makers that if they support AMD that Intel would cancel a contract is well within legal limits. Companies use Market presence all the time to keep competitors down and it is not the first time in history that something like this has happened. People stating that customer would of chosen AMD if the had a choice. The average consumer back when Dell just started AMD processors, how it compared to the Pentium 4. They always mentioned that. Intel utilized its marketing dollars to basically overshadow AMD. AMD needed to market better, go out on a limb and put everything they had into marketing, which is why the very gaining market share but not much.

By xeutonmojukai on 6/25/2007 8:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the law:

You *cannot* use threats to gain an advantage over every other major competitor in your company's market.

Now, let's apply the situation to this:

It is *illegal* for Intel to use threats to gain an advantage over AMD (the only other major competitor in the CPU market).

Now, where have we seen this done anyway?

Just do some research, instead of using your stupid fanboy BS to try and make yourself look clever.

I use a frickin' iBook, so if you think I'm a hypocrite, you're sadly mistaken.

~ Xeuton

By n7 on 6/25/2007 10:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
Most of you guys posting don't quite have a clue what you're talking about, eh?
I don't even know specifics, but at least i'm not as dumb as those of you blabbing about how this has anything to do with AMD's current chips vs. Intel's current lineup.

If your memory was a bit better, you'd remember the lawsuit AMD has brought against Intel is comprised of events that happened long before C2D.

This isn't about C2D vs. A64 X2!

This was annouced long before C2D was out, as a lot of the case is based on events from many many years ago.

I have no doubts Intel utilized illegal strong-arm tactics.
It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Can this can be proved & punished adequately to AMD's satisfaction?
That remains to be seen.

By SavagePotato on 6/26/2007 10:37:29 AM , Rating: 2
What I would almost like to see, and really only for my own personal gratification in watching the results. Would be for AMD to actually go under. JUST so I could see the reaction from all the "go Intel the real American company" and AMD detractors jaws drop in dismay when they realize their shiny new Intel processors now start at 500 bucks and top out at over 2000 because there is no competitor any longer. Then we go back to the days of $3000 computers. Remember those?

Seriously though, I guess my own gratification isn't worth that but I must say it seems like thats what it would take to get through some peoples heads what it would be, and WAS like.

By clinnenb on 6/26/2007 2:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
Ruiz sure sounds an awful lot like the kid who just lost his little league game. It's amusing to watch the loser's talk go from, "I'm better!" before the game to "Well, I lost because THEY CHEATED!" after the game. I was hoping to find some video of him covering home plate with dirt and dragging the bases to center field.

AMD has many excuses left in the bag to explain their inferiority to Intel. We’ve already heard the, “We did good in the 4th inning” (K7/8), “Cheater!” (C2D), and “Wait till next time!” with Barcelona. Like everything in life, winning takes many successful elements. In AMD’s case, they have a long way to go to improve their overall game to beat Intel, but they still have their admirable strong points.

Two positive comments for AMD.
1) At least they’re trying. AMD alone brings Intel some competition, and that’s a lot more impressive than some commentator writing their ‘armchair’, “I would have” comments.
2) AMD has improved the market place by keeping Intel accountable.

Until next time, good try Ruiz, maybe next time you’ll do better.

A smear campaign-is it ?
By crystal clear on 6/26/2007 7:35:19 AM , Rating: 1
AMD CEO Hector Ruiz took center stage at the American Antitrust Institute National Conference in Washington, D.C. to express his disdain for Intel’s business practices.

What did he gain by doing this ?
Nothing !
What does he want ?
Your sympathy !
Why was Intel not invited at this conference to give its response?
Thats plain BIAS !
Is this an attempt to divert attention from the real problems of AMD?
YES indeed !
Is he trying to cover up his own failures as CEO?
YES indeed !
Is this a calculated/intentional SMEAR campaign directed at INTEL?
YES indeed
Do you expect people to believe all what he says?
NO ! definitely not
How can he accuse Intel of any wrong doings when the courts have yet to decide on this ?
He is desperate thats all!
What are buyers to gain from this PR war
Who decides what to buy or choose?
The buyer ofcourse!


Start talking about Barcelona !specifications/benchmarks/launch dates/prices.
Give atleast an engineering sample to Anandtech to independently TEST & VERIFY your claims.

Why this secrecy ?(now dont! again blame Intel)

Blah, Blah, Blah
By Phynaz on 6/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By James Holden on 6/25/2007 12:29:23 PM , Rating: 4
How did DT get a picture of him to play the blues like that?

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By GeorgeOrwell on 6/25/2007 3:16:58 PM , Rating: 3
The unfortunate thing about AMD is that they spent a long time as buskers playing Intel hits. AMD has never been a hardcore technology company, usually buying technology along the way to make their products (Nexgen for example).

The original Opteron team is long gone and the design vision that inspired Opteron had no input into "Phe Nom". I have said it elsewhere, but will point out for new readers that the design vision of Opteron came from outside of AMD.

So AMD is going a hard road, especially after they had some success with the Opteron design (and spin-offs such as Athlon x64 etc).

But making a new chip, in tough circumstances, without key resources, is a very very hard project. This is why the "Phe Nom" will be shipped this year but is being redesigned for next year.

AMD as a company is not good at designing complex chips. They are no IBM, even though they get help from IBM. It is the hope that AMI can help AMD build more complex chips. But it is something that will need to be tested in the market. So far this core weakness of AMD is coming through and is very visible to many. AMD has not shipped a brand new chip in over 5 years. That is reality.

In many ways, Hector Ruiz would be a good Chairman. But he has never come across as someone who knows -- and talks -- about all the hardcore details of making chips. And it is very hard to compete in the chip business if you are not a chip guy. As tough as it might be, AMD should hire a few ex-Intel execs to form an "Office of the President" and get AMD back on track making chips. Hector could be part of this "Office of the President", but mostly Hector would be leading the anti-trust efforts as Chairman.

Anyway, about the guitar. It all comes back to being a busker, doesn't it? It looks like Hector is getting back in practice.

busk. To play music or perform entertainment in a public place, usually while soliciting money.

[Earlier, to be an itinerant performer, probably from busk, to go about seeking, cruise as a pirate, perhaps from obsolete French busquer, to prowl, from Italian buscare, to prowl, or Spanish buscar, to seek, from Old Spanish boscar.]

busk'er n.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By Performance Fanboi on 6/26/2007 12:49:49 AM , Rating: 2

Reminds me of Bill Clinton.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By rushfan2006 on 6/25/2007 12:34:57 PM , Rating: 5
How about Hector ships a competative product instead of flapping his lips for a change.

Typical. That's what your comment is - typical for the times in which we live. Uninformed, quick to bash - quick to appeal to the crowd that is more popular at the moment (ie. Intel is all the rave again lately).

If you read the legal documents on the case, its quite extensive and slamming against Intel and what they did.

Meanwhile Intel while calling most of AMD's claims - bogus...still some they don't argue against.....

Now I don't know where you come from, but when I was growing up we learned that if you didn't deny guilt -- it was damn close to admitting it.

Bottomline: Not saying AMD is a saint...but the guy has a right to voice out.

Oh yeah -- my current machine btw.....Intel.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By Smurfer2 on 6/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By lufoxe on 6/25/2007 2:09:40 PM , Rating: 5
This is what I don't get, this lawsuit started before the core 2 came out. Why does everyone seem to think that this lawsuit is athlon vs. c2d. The lawsuit involves tactics that were used with suppliers like Dell, (who until recently was exclusively intel) Toshiba (ditto), sony, Acer, etc... during the Pentium 4 era and before. If you actually stop, and read the court documents you'll see this.

I do agree the timing is something that might seem like AMD is bashing to rain on Intel's parade, but he has said them since the start of the lawsuit.

So for all those who think this is all about c2d, and "my processor is better than yours at them moment", think again. Before up or down rating, do yourself a favor and look a little deeper and (as boring as it may be) read the complaint filed in court. One never knows who is spouting crap, and who is saying a legitimate argument till one sees the facts for oneself.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By TomZ on 6/25/2007 4:49:50 PM , Rating: 1
I think the public perception would have been more interesting if such accusations were made at the time they allegedly happened. I also see motive on the part of Ruiz to exaggerate and to blame Intel for all of AMDs woes in order to deflect responsibility for the recent poor performance of AMD. I think he is a desperate man making desperate statements.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By encryptkeeper on 6/25/2007 5:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
I think the public perception would have been more interesting if such accusations were made at the time they allegedly happened.

Boy that would be nice if things worked that way. Seriously, it would be. But companies like AMD and Intel are slow like bureaucracies when it comes to getting something done outside of the normal business plan (or even in the norm). Besides, this case was pending long before C2D came out. I don't know about the HP claim, although since they aren't in court Ruiz is certainly not showing all of his cards yet. The claim that Dell was receiving illegal kickbacks from Intel is completely believable, and I'm going out on a limb and say that they are guilty on that one (mainly because there are almost ALWAYS shady sounding kickbacks in purchasing). AMD took a long time to put things together, for years their product was almost always better, even if it was only slightly. Their market share didn't extend much, and it was always rumored early in the PC revolution of the mid and late 90s that AMD processors wouldn't run the same programs Intel CPUs would.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By TomZ on 6/25/2007 10:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
There have been no public accusations about the payments ("kickbacks " as you call them) being illegal. AFAIK, the only thing that is wrong with those is that they were not accounted for properly.

Also, why is Ruiz bringing all this up today? He's talking about ancient history, and really it is AMD's fault completely that they gave away their hard-earned marketshare gains. They initiated the current price war, and then failed to deliver their new product architecture at a time when they could compete with Intel's new product offerings. So it seems to me that 99% of Intel's problem is of the "shot self in foot" category, with the remaining 1% being of the "Intel was naughty" category.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By Archmaille on 6/26/2007 2:50:21 AM , Rating: 2
Ok... AMD's fault? Maybe it's AMD's problem, but I wouldn't call it their fault, seems like the wrong word choice for me. As a small business owner myself that competes in a market much MUCH larger than my business could ever handle I understand where AMD is right now, and it sucks.

I don't think they had any choice in giving up their hard earned market share unfortunately. There are several times where with my business I've had to either make a product on time, or deliver late with the results I wanted. There's been several times where I've also had to pull advertising costs and reallocate them into supplies or something else then when I have the ability to make what I need to make I don't have the customers... it sucks being under any body as a business... and it really sucks if they're playing dirty.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By crystal clear on 6/26/2007 3:47:59 AM , Rating: 1
I think he is a desperate man making desperate statements.

Just like you need a ladder to climb up,the same ladder is needed to COME DOWN !(he uses the Intel stuff to climb down)

So draw your conclusions !

This guy is on his way out !He knows that !

Its just like in football, 2 mins before the finish or the final whistle.
The coach/manager of the lossing team is preparing his statements to read out to the press-

"Why we lost"

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By Cobra Commander on 6/25/2007 12:47:58 PM , Rating: 5
I think regardless of the validity of the statements this is showing some desperation on AMD's part.

These comments could be made 5 years ago, or 10 years ago. I cannot believe these comments are especially-relevant in the here and now.

On the other hand, AMD's woes ARE quite relevant in the here and now.

I think AMD ought to shut the mouth and twist their lawyers arms - the public forum is NOT the place to air legal matters in such a way. If Intel is wrong the system will punish them. Intel may have the Dells and whatnot by the nuts, but come on... they don't have the freakin' federal government...

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By Amiga500 on 6/25/2007 1:46:12 PM , Rating: 4
These comments could be made 5 years ago, or 10 years ago. I cannot believe these comments are especially-relevant in the here and now.

Are Intel not doing much the same when it comes to the OLPC initiative?

A quote from first site the google picked out:

Intel is using predatory tactics against the One Laptop Per Child project. In this CBS "60 Minutes" video, Nicholas Negroponte shows documents proving that Intel is pressuring certain governments to not sign with OLPC. Intel is dumping the price of the low volume order of Classmate PCs with Windows XP to prevent OLPC from starting mass production.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By jacarte8 on 6/25/2007 1:52:50 PM , Rating: 3
No, Intel's putting out a better product than the OLPC initiative. Do they not have a right to compete with AMD? Intel is a bigger company with more engineers. AMD is putting pressure on them but Intel has finally decided to use those resources effectively.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By Amiga500 on 6/25/2007 1:59:10 PM , Rating: 4
No, it is not a better product (considering the environment in which it will be used). Speed is not everything you know.

I guess you missed the bit where Intel are selling their things at a loss to try and generate sales (to prevent the OLPC organisation reducing prices through increased volume). Of course, the OLPC crowd don't have any such cash reserve to fall back on.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By TomZ on 6/25/2007 4:35:07 PM , Rating: 2
1. Better is in the eye of the beholder. It is up to the customer to decide what is better. If, like you said, the Intel product is inferior, then it will not be accepted by the customer. Problem self-solves itself - and it is not for us to worry about.

2. Since when is loss-leading illegal? Someone should tell Microsoft, Sony, etc. (I'm assuming what you say is true, although I don't know that for a fact to be correct.)

3. Maybe a loss-leader is actually better for the customer, because they get more value at lower cost, since Intel is effectively subsidizing the product (again, if your statement is correct) - they can get more value with an Intel solution

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By AmbroseAthan on 6/25/2007 4:46:42 PM , Rating: 5
with regards to loss-leading being illegal...

I don't have my business text-books anymore, but loss-leading becomes illegal when a company purposely uses loss-leading to drive a competitor out of business. This generally is only possible in a situation like Intel-AMD, where one company has a near monopoly and could survive basically a "Scorched Earth" policy which would ruin the competitor. Generally you have to go to pretty extreme measures for this to be the case, undercutting nearly every item/product of the competitor's with significant loss.

Its basically becomes illegal when you start to compete by selling something well below the consumer driven price points (as you are then purposely trying to hurt your competitor rather then go for profits).

With regards to AMD/Intel, I am not sure how it will play out; this was simply my overview from memory of Law/Ethics.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By JoeBanana on 6/25/2007 2:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think the point here is that when AMD had the technological lead over Intel(and it had in times of P4), Intel's monopoly politics prevented him from acquiring market share that they deserved. And I can totally relate to that. As it was shown even if AMD would have a better product in a short run it wouldn't get what it deserved.
I think this needs to be resolved with a law. In the long run costumers will be the one who loose the most.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By TomZ on 6/25/2007 4:44:52 PM , Rating: 1
As I said in other posts, AMDs marketshare was primarily limited by their manufacturing capability. They didn't invest enough money early enough to have gone beyond what they did, e.g., to pick up a large customer like Dell. 20-25% was pretty good.
I think this needs to be resolved with a law. In the long run costumers will be the one who loose the most.

What law? What law was broken? From what I can tell, the competitive market is working pretty well - maybe not perfectly well, but generally pretty well. Fierce competition has lead to dropping prices and improving and innovative prices. How is the customer suffering under the oppressive hand of a monopolist? I just don't see it.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By TomZ on 6/25/2007 4:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
"innovative prices" -> "innovative products"

Sorry for the typo.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By luhar49 on 6/26/2007 12:44:07 AM , Rating: 2
Fierce competition has lead to dropping prices and improving and innovative prices. How is the customer suffering under the oppressive hand of a monopolist

You are looking at current scenario. If you think long term, these low prices wont stay if AMD is driven out of business. Intel will be able to price its chips at any price it desires. It will also have no pressing reasons to innovate as fast as it is doing now.

To avoid such a scenario, all the anti-monopoly laws are in place. Its not relevant only to chip manufacturers, but any big business out there.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By TomZ on 6/26/2007 3:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
Anti-trust laws, however, aren't going to keep a company in business. They have to execute well, which is not the case at AMD at the moment. If they go under today, they have nobody to blame but themselves. See my numerous other posts, plus those of some of the others here, for why I believe that.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By TxJeepers on 6/25/2007 1:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
1. AMD having a competitive product (price/performance) to battle Intel in the marketplace.
2. Intel conducting illegal activities to limit competition.

Two different subjects. Don't mix them. Either way, we need AMD around and we need them healthy. The other players can't come close to doing anything to compete with Intel. Do you think we'd have Core 2 today if AMD wasn't around pushing Intel to invest in R&D to develop it?

I'm buying AMD based workstations, Intel based laptops and Intel based servers. With each its a matter of price, performance and configuration options.

Home system is currently built around a X2 4200, which plays all current titles without a problem and I must admit I pwn many of poser with their C2's.

RE: Blah, Blah, Blah
By just4U on 6/25/2007 3:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the first poster, AMD dropped the ball with having no answer to Core and I believe Intel to not take part in major anti-competitive practices today, but in the recent past, that is a whole 'nother story. :)

One has to wonder, tho if you put it all into it's proper perspective. "IF" Amd currently had the better product as they did with their K7/K8 lineup thru most of it's life (a brief stint with Intel's Northwood regained some ground)would they still not have the same argument?

Part of the problem has ofcourse been the peceptions of the consumer going with what they know. Also large ad campaigns from intel helped as well. That was all well and good but they also resorted to other tactics to keep front in centre and that's what Amd is going on about.

I mean really, who cares which cpu is on top. Even if C2d didnt currently exist Amd would have a uphill battle as Intel uses it's leverage against them.

No words to express
By Treckin on 6/25/07, Rating: -1
By Malikhan on 6/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: Waaaahhhh
By Goty on 6/25/2007 12:54:20 PM , Rating: 4
The Athlon64 and Opteron seemed pretty competitive for the three years that they were wiping the floor with all of Intel's offerings.

RE: Waaaahhhh
By Master Kenobi on 6/25/2007 1:00:05 PM , Rating: 1
Not all of Intel's offerings. They never did win in the Laptop segment. Side note, thats in the past. AMD hasn't proven an advantage in anything for a while now. Letting your competitor leapfrog you is never good, letting them increase that lead is even worse. Right now Intel is poised to meet the Bercelona offering (Pending it hits its rumored Christmas Release) with the 45nm shrink to Penryn. Effectively taking a lot of the wind out of AMD.

RE: Waaaahhhh
By FITCamaro on 6/25/2007 1:10:18 PM , Rating: 1
Below the $300 range for processors, AMD has a performance advantage and a price advantage. I mean you can get an X2 3800+ for $70. Intel can't touch the price/performance ratio of that.

And I also have a C2D for my main system. But I have an X2 3800+ sitting on my desk waiting to go into my server when I get around to putting the parts together.

RE: Waaaahhhh
By jacarte8 on 6/25/2007 1:43:16 PM , Rating: 1
True, they never won, but were still very competitive. However, AMD is getting beat up right now based on the strength of Intel's processors, not monopoly tactics. AMD is not on the ball, and hasn't been since Intel beat them to the punch with Dual-Core at lower cost.

(Disclaimer: I have 3 AMD machines and one Intel Macbook at home)

RE: Waaaahhhh
By scrapsma54 on 6/25/2007 1:53:16 PM , Rating: 1
How is it anti-competitive when Amd were basically pioneers at their own game, then intel found a way to provide cheaper hardware at critically better performance at the same price range and price range. Look at Amd quad core, it is considerably expensive, not even Quad core in an actual sense and the motherboard is Huge and Outrageously to expensive to even drop money for. Intel's considerably cheaper quad core and motherboards that support it even perform better than that. I think amd is just trying to cover up how much their engineers suck or they are covering up the fact that amd actually slacked off in their own department. Sure ati's branch out did them selves on the hd 2900xt, which I now own. Driver support is great. I think ati could do better on their own.

RE: Waaaahhhh
By Goty on 6/25/2007 4:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
You're just looking at the current situation. This lawsuit has almost nothing to do with how the Core2Duo is beating the Athlon64 into the ground right now. Sure, AMD is probably pushing it a bit more now because they're feeling the squeeze, but this lawsuit has been around for a long time.

Will Someone Please Shoot This Man.
By AllexxisF1 on 6/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: Will Someone Please Shoot This Man.
By johnsonx on 6/25/2007 3:40:48 PM , Rating: 1
But if Intel wasn't using it's market position to keep AMD out of key markets for the past 5 years, wouldn't AMD have captured more market share, made more money, and therefore had the funds to bring Barcelona to the market on time?

By just4U on 6/25/2007 3:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
In theory yeah, I think overall tho the lateness of their next chip is their own fault. BUT they'd most likely have had more money to weather the storm instead of being in the financial position they are currently in.

RE: Will Someone Please Shoot This Man.
By crimson117 on 6/25/2007 4:15:10 PM , Rating: 3
Where were you for the several years before Intel released its Core Duo processor, when P4's roamed the earth?

That hurt AMD. AMD had a much better product, at better prises, but still Intell illegally prevented them from entering the market.

Today, Intel has the better processor, but that's irrelevant. The damage has been done. Even if AMD released Barcelona tomorrow, and it somehow destroyed Core 2 Duo's performance, Intel would just force them out of the market once again with illegal tactics. So AMD has to make sure Intel's illegal activity is stopped and accounted for before they should even bother resuming competition.

RE: Will Someone Please Shoot This Man.
By TomZ on 6/25/2007 4:26:34 PM , Rating: 1
That hurt AMD. AMD had a much better product, at better prises, but still Intell illegally prevented them from entering the market.

How so? During that same time, AMD went from "low teens" marketshare to 20-25% marketshare, on good profit margins. They also supplied the market to their full capacity - they never previously even had the manufacturing capacity to have Dell as a customer, for example. There were doing pretty darn well considering they were "harmed."

I fail to see what Intel did wrong - do you think marketing promotion money paid to companies that help promote their products is illegal? I hope not, since that has been common practice in all industries for many, many years.

The only open question in my mind was whether the so-called secret payments to Dell were accounted for properly. The payments made there weren't illegal, but they way they were accounted for may have been wrong.

Ruiz is desparately trying to create a diversion to save his job. But the writing's already on the wall.

RE: Will Someone Please Shoot This Man.
By Darkskypoet on 6/26/2007 12:47:35 AM , Rating: 5
How many of you around here were actually building PC's, involved in the market, sales, technical, etc. professionally when Slot A Athlons hit? Please put up your hands....

Thank you.

How many remember selling loads of the new chips only to find that every single motherboard to support the Athlon was back ordered; week after week after week.


Now how many recall that among the first boards to ship were white boxed ASUS boards with the ASUS logo either missing, or covered with a sticker?

Good... good.

I for one was there in the biz, professionally during all of this crap. It wasn't that Athlon boards were horribly complex to make, or the chipset supplies were constrained, it was that Intel had a hit out for any Mobo manufacturer that released in Quantity Motherboards for this chip.

Plain and simple, ASUS. The largest mainboard maker at the time was afraid to leave their logo, or ship a god damn branded box for fear of reprisal. Do I need court documents to show this? No. i like many around at this time watching the original K7 wipe the floor with Slot 1 Intel solutions was a witness to it.

It took a while to be able to get steady shipments of these boards. We had chips in quantity, but no motherboards. If not by writ illegal, it sure as hell isn't the goal of capitalism.

It also sure as hell isn't a competitive market. Its a type of Market Power. As one firm has it, it can fairly legitimately be considered a Monopolist.

Price war:

for those aware of the massive stock of NetBurst CPUs Intel was carrying at the time it released C2D, a price war makes sense. Intel's manufacturing capacity far outstrips AMDs, this we all know. At the accelerated release date of C2D, Intel was still producing millions of NetBurst CPUs. So, by gutting the prices of much faster performing X2s, and utilizing the momentum of the brand, AMD made intel eat a hell of a lot of loss on their massive inventories of netburst chips. AS well as pulling the c2d prices down considerably.

How many Joe consumers are buying 500-600$ cpu's when a Dual core X2 can be had for under a $100? The same rules apply P4 vs A64, as do now with C2D vs X2, Joe Q public doesn't care. He wants a computer, doesn't know much, but remembers that those Athlon things were really fast. This is the momentum that helped intel for so long (along with absolutely massive subsidized ad campaigns).

Those that post about limited funds going to production and robbing R and D, etc. hit it on the head. AMD needs cash. Intel is ramping processes incredibly fast by using deep pockets, and that is killing AMD. AMD is lacking fluidity to the point where not only can they not match even a fraction of Intel's spending, but they can't even pretend to try. They have their funds tied up in ATI, and fab enhancements I believe to the point of having their hands tied so they can't simply 'use cash to accelerate product release'.

Regardless, this thread isn't about X2 vs C2D. This thread is about predatory practices. These Intel has committed, AMD simply (few years back) has gained the clout, and the relationships with the other manufacturers / etc to have finally pulled the case together. I believe Ruiz and AMD probably have a very, very compelling case against Intel. Especially considering that the Slot A mobo saga is just the tip of the iceberg.

Tactic comparison:

Case 1:
For the longest time almost every advert we put somewhere, for the many system integrators I've been a part of, was subsidized by intel. It was the time of the great intel inside push. If your adverts had intel systems listed, you got your money back. List an AMD system in the ad, no cashola. Is this illegal? I doubt it, any firm can chose to pay you back for spreading their name.

Case 2:
Intel constrained chipset supplies for any mainboard manufacturer that supplied AMD mobos for Slot A Athlon CPUs that were far superior in speed, at better price points. Is this illegal? I believe so, but that is why the courts will hear of it.

Both could be seen as horrid practices intended to thwart having to actually compete with Intel's competitors. Case 1 fought directly against AMDs strategy of letting integrators advertise for them. Case 2 hurt them because they did not manufacture main boards themselves. Both cases simply ensured continued dominance of a firm that by the very act of being able to spend the amount of money required by case 1, and having the leverage to orchestrate case 2, held MARKET POWER and is at some level a monopolist.

When a firm has such power, it hurts innovation, competition, and removes the passionate, intense, and ridiculously cool effects of survival R&D from occuring with the lions share of profit generated by that industry. The monopolist sits on it, and makes P4's. The hungry up and comer, if it lucks out, can scare the monopolist back into actually efficiently utilizing its resources.

However, if the monopolist keeps market power, and is continually allowed to use predatory practices on top of holding market power, we move back into a state of inefficiency when the monopolist goes back to sleep, or completely does away with competition (note this includes simply letting them sell their discounted wares in no real competition to the areas where monopolist enjoys economic rent) See AMD during 4x86, K5, K6 era.

Hector is right in attempting to do away with this extra external power Intel has leveraged in the past. Growth rates are a bitch, a few percent yes year over year make a massive difference down the road, even 5 or 10% can make or break an underdog competitor... And not having main boards makes it hard to sell chips.

RE: Will Someone Please Shoot This Man.
By TomZ on 6/26/2007 5:03:02 PM , Rating: 1
When a firm has such power, it hurts innovation, competition, and removes the passionate, intense, and ridiculously cool effects of survival R&D from occuring with the lions share of profit generated by that industry.

If you were right about this, we'd still all be buying crappy, hot, expensive Netburst CPUs from Intel, not Core CPUs, right?

I see no lack of competition or innovation - what I see are two fierce rivals working hard to gain marketshare at the expense of the other. I see a wide variety of processors at attractive prices, widely available in retail as well as complete systems.

Intel's actions may have hurt AMD, but clearly they did not hurt competition. The purpose of antitrust laws is to preserve competition, not to protect AMD. That is the key.

By tigen on 6/27/2007 4:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
But they DID hurt competition, as this guy clearly and lengthily illustrated for you. AMD didn't fail like Netscape etc. but they might have, and Intel's tactics ensured their inferior and/or overpriced products dominated the sales channels, hurting consumers. And the effects of these things linger on for years. AMD's financial and manufacturing situation directly affects its ability to compete, and hence affects consumer choice.

The law is there to prevent anticompetitive practices. It does NOT matter what the end result is: if Intel is found to have broken these laws then saying "but look AMD is still here" just isn't relevant at all. I don't see why you're arguing so strongly anyway, let the courts deal with it.

By keeghi on 6/25/2007 11:01:04 PM , Rating: 2
But still.. the price of P4 Netburst and Athlon64 that time are competitive. Consider Intel as brand leading.. yeah, much people will choose P4, right ?? (at least for people that don't read computer news/benchmark..)

RE: Will Someone Please Shoot This Man.
By Phynaz on 6/25/2007 11:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
"Intell illegally prevented them from entering the market."

Please link to a court decision showing Intel acted illegally.

RE: Will Someone Please Shoot This Man.
By TomZ on 6/26/2007 2:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
I predict you won't get a response to that challenge. Seems the MO for the AMD fanboys is to make up facts and statements that have no backing. When you call them on it, they mysteriously don't reply.

I also note that posts critical of AMD management, which IMO is quite justified, get rated down by AMD fanboys as well. Oh well.

RE: Will Someone Please Shoot This Man.
By Parhel on 6/26/2007 5:04:51 PM , Rating: 4
Problem is, he's acting like an ass by asking for something that he knows full well doesn't exist, and saying that it is the only evidence he'll accept. You're acting like that makes sense, although you know it's just childish flamebait, because it's another opportunity for you to bait AMD fanboys. You have to admit that, in the context of this discussion, asking someone to link to a court decision showing Intel acted illegally is beyond childish.

The question is "did Intel act illegally?" Hector Ruiz claims that they did. I, and many others on this forum, also happen to believe that they did. He didn't say that Intel has been convicted of acting illegally, and neither did anyone else. Their day in court will certainly come. CEOs don't make these types of accusations because they are acting from emotion, and don't intend to follow up. This was a calculated move by AMD, and is without question the predecessor to a major legal action.

How AMD has been managed is irrelevant to the discussion. But since you keep harping on it, my opinion is that they have been managed very poorly and have made some very bad and very poorly timed decisions. But, that doesn't address the question of Intel's possibly illegal monopoly.

By TomZ on 6/26/2007 5:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
I see your point about possibly asking for something impossible, but it does lead one to conclude that the OP is making baseless accusations. I mean, how does he/she know that Intel acted illegally? Because "it seems likely"?

Regarding the tie-in of this topic to AMD's mismanagement, it is not an irrelelvant association, since this is Ruiz' only (AFAIK) public explanation about why AMD may be struggling as much as it is. I don't think he has made any point to separate the effects of Intel's alleged actions and the effects due to the management issues. Instead, he seems to stir them all together, like a guy who is hoping nobody will be able to sort them out.

By 2ManyOptions on 6/27/2007 2:58:14 AM , Rating: 2
Just get the Barcelona out. Why doesn't he let the processor do some stuff rather than himself keep talking things which isn't fit for him or mainly AMD??!

And i thought it was the Core2Duos responsible for AMDs problems. I was so wrong .. :P

By Vanilla Thunder on 6/25/2007 4:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
I for one would be the first to shove that stratocaster right where the sun does not shine.

FYI-It's not a Stratocaster. It's a Gibson Les Paul Gold Top. A night and day difference.


By brisbane on 6/27/2007 11:31:43 AM , Rating: 2
I absolutely agree with you. This guy is a wimp. As someone said in an earlier post, AMD is 1/10th of Intel in size. It was smaller even during Jerry Sanders time. But he not only survived the odds, he managed to grow. Ruiz had an excellent chance to take it further, but look at the mess he's gotten the company into.
Hector Ruiz = DICKHEAD

"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki