backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 119 comment(s) - last by utube545.. on Aug 10 at 5:38 AM
After years of accumulating evidence, the European Union sets its antitrust crosshairs on Intel

After years of investigating Intel’s trade practices against AMD, the European Commission officially filed formal charges against the chip-making giant, as detailed in a statement of objections (SO) filed to the company today. “I can confirm the statement of objections has been sent,” said European Commission spokesman Tom Van Lierop, offering no further comment.

The European Commission raided Intel’s offices in 2005 on suspicions of anticompetitive activities. In 1999, Intel settled charges with the US Federal Trade Commission, and a later investigation by the FTC in 2000 was dropped. In 2004, the Fair Trade Commission in Japan raided Intel’s Japanese office, and in 2006 the Korean Fair Trade Commission raided Intel’s office in Seoul. Both raids were conducted as part of antitrust investigations in their respective countries.

In the United States, AMD sued Intel in June 2005 on charges of coercion and anti-competitive practices, running full-page ads in several US newspapers. “You may not be aware, but Intel’s illegal actions hurt consumers – everyday,” read the ad, pointing to a 48-page complaint (PDF) on AMD’s web site.  Today the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts, with additional lawsuits pending in South America and other jurisdictions.

AMD enjoyed a surge in market share in 2005 and 2006 with its Opteron and Athlon 64 line of CPUs. However, with the launch of Intel’s heralded Core 2 line of CPUs in July 2006, AMD found itself losing much of the traction they had previously gained. At the end of 2006, AMD’s market share was 25% of all shipments for x86 processors, but by March 2007, that number slipped to less than 19%.

While AMD’s stock price has fallen, Intel’s has risen. Between slipping market share, the acquisition of Canadian GPU manufacturer ATI, and yet another round of substantial price cuts from Intel, AMD has found itself in a difficult place: while its most recent earnings report posted a 13% rise in quarterly revenue, those same figures also included losses of $600 million.

According to Intel’s Principles for Responsible Business (PDF), “Intel encourages competition, which benefits consumers by prohibiting unreasonable restraints on trade. Intel competes vigorously while at the same time adhering to both the letter and spirit of antitrust laws.”

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
It's about time.
By athlonxp2200 on 7/26/2007 11:56:13 PM , Rating: 5
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a "fanboy" or anything, but I'm so glad this is happening to Intel now. It's defiantly hurting AMD a great deal which is obviously bad because it seems like lately it's causing Intel to become a monopoly.

They had this coming with all the things I've read they've done. Not very good business practices bribing companies such as Dell not to sell AMD powered computers. Just image how much that "tactic" could help a company.




RE: It's about time.
By RyanHirst on 7/27/2007 12:20:02 AM , Rating: 2
... but it seems to me there is a much more straightforward reason that AMD is hurting right now:

Core 2.

If you're watching a boxing match, and your guy is getting turned into pulp, it strikes me as a bit myopic to say, "that divorce is really hurting Joe right now." I'd say that getting beat the f- up is hurting Joe.

Whatever it's done in the past, and whatever the ramifications continue to be to this day... getting crushed by the superiority of Core2 is what's definite about AMD's pain right now.

Considering the unresolved nature of the court case (and the impossibility of deriving a false conclusion from false data*), I would categorize the harm to AMD as both hypothetical and indefinite.

Liking a company doesn't suspend the ability to reason.
signed,
-an AMD fanboy

(* e.g.: "if Intel hadn't done X, things would be Y right now", where intel did X, and things aren't Y)


RE: It's about time.
By RyanHirst on 7/27/2007 12:22:57 AM , Rating: 2
by "whatever it's done in the past and whatever the ramifications....", I meant the postulated monopolistic practices.
Sorry. Grammar go kaboom.
P is for _____
and that is good enough for me.


RE: It's about time.
By Polynikes on 7/27/2007 12:50:48 AM , Rating: 2
While AMD's not doing well now is certainly very much due to the Core 2, Intel has been doing a lot of shady shit with the Dells of the world to make sure their product sells better. They've done a lot of stuff like withhold chipsets from motherboard manufacturers who weren't playing by their "lets kick the shit out of AMD" rules in order to make them later to market than the "good guys." Don't get me wrong, I was all about getting an AMD FX-60 until I saw the numbers for the Core 2s, but decided to wait, and now have a Core 2. I just think that Core 2 isn't 100% the reason AMD has been having problems for so long. They'd probably be much stronger if it wasn't for the stuff Intel did or is still doing.


RE: It's about time.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's about time.
By Phynaz on 7/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's about time.
By ZmaxDP on 7/27/2007 12:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
Hehe....

Seriously though, IF Intel actually bribed people to not use AMD proccessors, that IS also illegal. Most of the other stuff I could care less about. That one issue is legitimately worth investigating.

We can't say that practice hurt or helped consumers because we don't know what the outcome would have been had it not been done, or even if it was done at all. That's what an investigation is for. Perhaps we should wait to make up our minds until the evidence comes out. Too much speculation going on...


RE: It's about time.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/27/2007 1:04:36 PM , Rating: 1
> "We can't say that practice hurt or helped consumers because we don't know what the outcome would have been had it not been done"

You judge by the effects on the marketplace. By that touchstone, the effect on the consumer was nothing but positive. During the period in question, competition and product availability increased markedly, prices declined sharply, and new products were introduced at a dizzying pace.

Claiming it might have been "even better" is an argument that not only lacks any and all proof, but misses the point entirely. The CPU market during this period was arguably the healthiest, most vibrantly competitive in all history. Do you honestly think government action is going to help the situation, rather than hurt it? History demonstrates otherwise.


RE: It's about time.
By Oregonian2 on 7/27/2007 4:44:23 PM , Rating: 3
Hmmmmm.... if one steals from the wealthy does that make it "okay" if the wealthy is getting even wealthier during the time of theft?


RE: It's about time.
By TomCorelis (blog) on 7/27/2007 4:58:03 PM , Rating: 4
I disagree somewhat. I think it's very clear that Intel's pricing moves were direct attacks against AMD, and preparatory moves towards the eventual establishment of a monopoly. Sure, it was good for consumers, and right now it still is, but for all we know it's a Trojan Horse by Intel to get a lock on their market. Just because we're in paradise doesn't mean we shouldn't be aloof.

Case in point: EB/gamestop. In used games, the two used to compete fiercely with each other, and it was a boon to consumers. Games were cheap and plentiful! EB Edge card made them cheaper. The games were sold above cost and the two companies still made a ton of money. Now, after the merger, EB/Gamestop's used game pricing seems to be MSRP minus $5 for all but the worst-selling and most-traded-in titles. Trade-in rates have stayed the same, if not fallen. The Edge card now costs double, with the discounts not fully making up for the spike in used game prices, meaning that to break even on the blasted card one has to buy 50% used more games from the store.

Take a page from the drug dealers' tactics: give it to them cheap or free til they're hooked, then when you've got them under your thumb shaft em for all they're worth.

Textbook economics.


RE: It's about time.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/27/2007 7:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
> "Sure, it was good for consumers...."

And that's all that matters. Wild-eyed prophecies about some dim, misty future when Intel, gloating over having driven all other competitors at bay, begins rising prices without mercy are just that-- nonsense.

Modern history records no instances of predatory pricing being successful. Companies have often tried, none ever succeeded. They always wound up harming themselves more than their competitors. On the other hand, there are many instances of companies who, after driving out competition through low prices, KEPT prices low, to the long-term benefit of consumers. Only after antitrust legislators stepped in to "help" the situation and break up the firm did prices rise. Two famous examples here being Standard Oil and Alcoa Aluminum.

> "and right now it still is, but for all we know it's a Trojan Horse by Intel to get a lock on their market"

You don't convict someone of a crime based on "for all we know." The evidence here says otherwise. Intel's actions benefitted consumers, plain and simple. The EU spent several years and millions of Euros investigating...and in the end, even they admit their case rests largely on supposition and conjecture. You can always tell a weak, politically-motivated case by the actions of the prosecutors. Had real crimes been committed, there would have been swift, immediate action.

> "Case in point: EB/gamestop."

This is an extremely poor example, given the thousands of other competitors that exist, online, and locally in the form of chains such as Walmart, in addition to local, independent stores. If you're trying to suggest that game prices have risen because EB now holds a monopoly-- the attempt falls flat.


RE: It's about time.
By Hawkido on 7/31/2007 4:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry masher... I gotta disagree with you. Not so much out of principal but more out of differing economic philosophy.

<My Philosophy>
If the consumer benefits due to a specific practice then it is good for economic society. However if that benefit is temporary, and only used to eliminate the cause of the benefit (e.g. competition) which later leads to the follow-up practice that negatively impacts economic society, then the original practice needs to be stopped.
</My Philosophy>

If AMD fails and intel becomes the only supplier, they will develop a proprietary system, that you will not be able to break away from with out going into untested/unprooven territory. No business will do that, I know... I tried to get the USAF to more to 4 socket dual core Opterons instead of 4 xenon CPU's with hyper threading. The opteron system was cheaper, more powerful, and used less energy. The USAF didn't want to use a vendor that wasn't top tier. Why didn't Dell produce a AMD server (USAF had just went all Dell at my base, I personally didn't like them, they made horrible Exchange servers).

Now, Dell has an AMD line of servers, but only after Intel has a better CPU on the market. Intel says see we aren't keeping them out of the largest PC/Server maker's machines. True, but they did keep them out of Dell's machines while AMD had the best thing on the planet.

That's kinda like the Intel car in Nascar rolling out the spike strip on the track every time they have to pit. They fall behind so they work to take out everyone else till they can catch up. It is no longer who is the best at it. It about how much control Intel has over the market. AMD only has as much market as Intel wants them to have. That is when you know that Intel has reached a point of intervention.

The Intel View:
A bully keeps a kid from using the bathrooms at school, the kid still manages to complete highschool. The rest of the kids benefit because there is one less person in line for the bathrooms and the kid still gets a diploma, and the bully always gets to use the bathroom first. Everyone benefits.

The AMD View:
A bully keeps a kid from using the bathrooms at school, the kid still manages to complete highschool. However the kid's GPA is significantly lower so he can't get in an Ivy League School, and therefore doesn't get the fancy job with a view. He has to settle for the high competition jobs with the rest of the schulbs, and is always in danger of being replaced. Later in life he learns that holding it in during school has caused colon cancer and incontinent bladder syndrom. The bully is to blame because he had NO right to keep him from using the bathroom at school just because he was bigger. The bully is responsible.

How will the judge (or jury, if it is a jury trial) see it?


RE: It's about time.
By Oregonian2 on 8/1/2007 3:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How will the judge (or jury, if it is a jury trial) see it?


School's fault for not having two bathrooms such that the Bully could only be guarding one of them.

Note: must be a school with only two students else the bullied could have joined with other victims and jointly attacked the bully. Also I doubt the bullied could have been top notch university material else (s)he'd found a bush to use -- particularly available if there were only one other student (the bully) in which case even the bush would be optional.


RE: It's about time.
By nitrous9200 on 7/27/2007 2:37:38 PM , Rating: 4
AMD is a big American company too!


RE: It's about time.
By afkrotch on 7/27/2007 10:51:37 PM , Rating: 3
But not as big as Intel. You'll notice that the EU is trying to milk the large American companies. Like Intel or Microsoft, yet don't hit the smaller ones like AMD or Apple.

I wouldn't be surprised if AMD does the exact same thing as Intel and we know Apple does the exact same thing as Microsoft. Their OS is bundled with a browser and media player, yet they aren't sued for billions.

It's standard business practice, with what Intel is doing. If you sell A product, we don't want you to sell B product. You'll notice that large restaurant chains sell Coke, but never Pepsi. It's been like that for years, yet we don't see Coke being sued.


RE: It's about time.
By JoeBanana on 7/28/2007 3:17:54 AM , Rating: 2
EU hits small companies too. Like spanish telecom company Telefonica. And also they sue in EU as u can see. The fact is that in media you will only hear big news and big is american.

I have no problem with investigation as long as it is objective after all fair play is what brings prices down. But if it's not objective it's bad for competition.


RE: It's about time.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/28/2007 11:11:39 AM , Rating: 5
> "EU hits small companies too. Like spanish telecom company Telefonica..."

Err, Telefonica isn't a small company. Its a massive global conglomerate and the second largest telecommunications company in the world. And you know who its biggest shareholder is? JP Morgan Chase-- a US-based company.


RE: It's about time.
By wordsworm on 7/28/2007 9:01:14 PM , Rating: 2
I believe it's because they're not large enough entities to be considered monopolies. Even so, I do believe Jobs' Apple was on the line over iTunes.
quote:
You'll notice that large restaurant chains sell Coke, but never Pepsi.
Good point. But maybe this is something that should be investigated as well. After all, these practices must hurt competition quite a bit. Not so much from a Coke/Pepsi standpoint, but from, say, an RC (et al.) standpoint. Maybe if these practices weren't allowed, other companies could compete on a product vie product level rather than having the big guys use big leverage on the vendors.


RE: It's about time.
By Spivonious on 7/30/2007 9:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
It could be viewed as anti-competitive, but I see it more as a business agreement. McDonalds wants all of their restaurants to offer the same product so consumers know what to expect and Coke wants to sell some soda. Pepsi does the same thing with Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut, etc.

What the EU wants Intel to do is like Coke offering a coupon for a free Pepsi with every Coke bottle. It just doesn't make sense from a competition standpoint.

If I make a superior desktop processor, I need to find a way to compete with the big boys to get Dell, et. al to want my product. AMD was the underdog for so long, I highly doubt that Dell wanted to make machines with them. They only switched over once they realized that there was a demand for AMD-based machines. Notice that pretty much every system maker offers AMD machines now.


RE: It's about time.
By Targon on 7/31/2007 4:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's a little less complicated than that when it comes to soda(or pop for those of you in the midwest). It costs money to get deliveries, so it is cheaper to accept deliveries from only one company or the other.

Now, the big legal problem that keeps cropping up with Intel is that in spite of the fact that Intel has the better processor at the moment, they keep paying distributors and other companies money to stop the sales of AMD. It is illegal to make a deal that says something like, "You must not sell more than X amount of our competitor's products in order to qualify for this rebate". While deals that involve "exclusive agreements" may have been around for ages now, there are still rules that must be followed. If Intel is paying companies not to sell AMD based machines, that is not the same as paying companies for selling a certain volume(not as a percentage of sales) of Intel based products.


RE: It's about time.
By InsaneGain on 7/27/2007 12:40:05 PM , Rating: 4
Well don't you think that is a very short term understanding of the issue? Did it not occur to you that short term benefit to consumers can result in long term damage? Obviously predatory pricing by the most powerful competitor and the resulting price war will result in a very large benefit for consumers in the short term. However, it is also obvious that once the largest competitor has driven all other viable competitors out of business, then prices will rise and innovations will slow, and consumers will suffer indefinitely. Anti-trust laws protect consumers by protecting competition, and that entails protecting smaller companies from the abuse that large powerful companies can wield. Again all I ever see on boards like this is bias. No one approaches issues like these with a completely objective viewpoint. I am guessing that Masher2 works for a very large American corporation and has a bias towards them as his livelyhood depends on them.


RE: It's about time.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's about time.
By SlyNine on 7/27/2007 3:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
No it wasn't driven out of business because at times it had vastly superior CPU's. But that doesn't mean It didn't hurt them. I hear you talking about IP's and the potential of the artist loosing money because of piracy. Well its the same thing, AMD didn't make the money it should have because it didn't have carriers such as Dell.

And what CPU exactly did AMD loose money on, Not saying its untrue just wondering.


RE: It's about time.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's about time.
By SlyNine on 7/27/2007 5:10:51 PM , Rating: 3
funny who said anything about a restrained Intel. we are talking about unfair practices by Intel restraining AMD.

The issue isn't cut throat pricing its blocking AMD from consumers by not offering good deals unless companies only sell Intel, If AMD was allowed to get in to these segments I'd bet Intel would have lowered the prices any ways, And customers would have had better CPU's for the money via AMD, at least a very good % of the time if not most of the time.

The view is narrow minded any ways because it totally ignores the other arguments about how AMD was not able to produce the R&D they should have been able too and now is not able to compete with Intel, or compete on the same level, allowing Intel to not have to "try" as hard and the whole industry slows in result.

AMD simply does not have the money it would have had if Intel didn't use these anti competitive tactics ( Witch has to do with blocking AMD to the market and not the price slashing).


RE: It's about time.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's about time.
By SlyNine on 7/28/2007 1:34:12 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Those arguments ignore one simple fact, proven throughout modern history. Secure, complacent companies do not radically innovate nor slash prices. Only fearful companies do. AMD, in fear for its life, created the best CPU in history, and nearly knocked Intel off its perch. Intel in turn, afraid of the results, countered with radically low prices and introduced new products at a dizzying pace. And us consumers bathed in the glow.


Interesting take, here's mine. Intel blocked AMD to the markets, Tried to prevent chipset manufacturers from producing amd chipsets, and released a slew of CPU's that were inferior to AMD's, Most of the consumer's out there ended up with those. thus hurting the consumer. Only times Intel was truly ahead was with northwood C for a short while (northwood B was about = to AMD) and the core2due. But other then that for years AMD was ahead.

Now core2due is released and after years of being held back by Intel AMD finally is showing signs of being hurt by Intel's anti competitive tactics. and is having trouble responding ( witch makes them seem complacent ), had they not been they probably would have released something a lot more competitive or at least have something a little closer then 2009. The only consumer's this was good for was those who want to see Intel dominant in the market.

I think companies that are allowed to do illegal things just because someone is afraid of restraining Intel is bad. I don't want Intel broke up or anything like that, I just want them to be prevented from doing illegal activities. Id rather see the government do something then just let Intel get away with what it has done.


RE: It's about time.
By SlyNine on 7/28/2007 1:36:16 AM , Rating: 2
excuse me, Core2DUO


RE: It's about time.
By kenji4life on 7/28/2007 1:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The end-result of government action is restraint of some sort. Will this restraint help consumers to lower prices and better products? History says otherwise.


Assuming there will be any result.

quote:
Perhaps Vendor A didn't carry their product, but Vendors B, C, and D did. One could easily argue that it helped them as much as it did Intel, by forcing them to forge strong relationships with vendors and VARs...something that, prior to this, they had failed to do.


Let's dumb this down a little for entertainment:
Kid gets beat up by a bully. The bully's gang is too afraid to stand up to the bully, instead just standing by while the beating takes place.

Meanwhile, a few other kids are watching. They are friends with the kid, and decide they'll help him out a little. They don't confront the bully themselves, because they are too afraid the bully will hurt them too. Instead they just help the kid out by keeping him alive (so that he can get beat up some more). The kid is grateful to his friends, but wishes everyone wasn't so afraid to do what's right.

So the bully is in the right here, because noone will stand up to him. *cough* nazi germany *cough*. Good thing in the ladder situation, there was bigger kids in the school who weren't about to let that bully continue. But the former situation? Sorry, but there is no bigger bully than this one. He runs the school and knows noone can stop him.

quote:
AMD, in fear for its life, created the best CPU in history, and nearly knocked Intel off its perch. Intel in turn, afraid of the results, countered with radically low prices and introduced new products at a dizzying pace. And us consumers bathed in the glow.


Okay, so AMD managed to muster enough strength for a single blow. Not nearly a death-blow, mind you, not even close. The crowd goes wild, for a minute. Bigger, stronger Intel isn't as affected as it should have been because it's been taking steroids. So Intel came back with a bang, and AMD is left to lick it's wounds in the corner.

quote:
And you want to replace that with government intervention? Is it truly impossible for people to learn from history? Such market meddling has NEVER benefitted consumers, though many, many attempts have been made. They always result in higher prices and less innovation.


I wonder what your views on BIG BELL are? Would you argue that we'd be better off if they were never broken up in to Baby Bells? But history is not that what we should model our actions. It is the prospect of a brighter future that we should work towards. While history teaches us many great things, we must always be vigilant to the fact that we as a race (humans) must never use history as a model to build the future; for we would be doomed to repeat it, just as those who turn a blind eye to it. History should be used not as a model of what is to come, but as a tool of knowledge, guiding our path to the future not as a compass, but as the starting point from which we embark.

What does all that mean?

Simply this: you can quote history as much as you'd like, but this situation is unique, and should be treated as such.


RE: It's about time.
By masher2 (blog) on 7/28/2007 4:00:48 PM , Rating: 3
> "Let's dumb this down a little for entertainment:
Kid gets beat up by a bully...So the bully is in the right here, because noone will stand up to him. *cough* nazi germany *cough*..

You certainly succeded in dumbing things down, especially by linking Intel to the Nazi Party. What's next, a caricature of CEO Otellino as Iosef Stalin?

> "you can quote history as much as you'd like, but this situation is unique"

Every situation is unique. But the same economic laws apply. A restraint of trade has certain, inalienable results...and it never helps the consumer.

> "I wonder what your views on BIG BELL are? Would you argue that we'd be better off if they were never broken up ?"

"Big Bell" was a government-mandated monopoly; competition against it was illegal , made so by the federal government. In fact, the only monopolies ever injurious to consumers are government creations. The free market never spawns such monstrosities.


RE: It's about time.
By kenji4life on 7/29/2007 12:26:15 AM , Rating: 2
I wasn't linking Intel to Nazi Germany directly. I indirectly referenced it by comparing and contrasting it to a school bully, who fortunately for the bullied, is not the biggest kid in school. In fact, the most I'd say I did was link Intel to a school bully. You did Nazis on your own :( My intention was to show that Intel in one way is actually more of a threat, as there really is not a bigger company that can put them in check.

As far as government intervention, I agree 100% with you that it will not do any good. The question is less of "what is good" and more of "what is right". It's a sad thing that IF Intel is guilty of illegal practices, the end result is that nobody wins.

Okay, so competition against Big Bell was illegal. If Intel was doing illegal things, are they not liable? Forget about the fact that perhaps no good will come of their being punished. Do you not agree that if they did something illegal, they should be held accountable? By turning a blind eye, we're only setting a president that will allow other companies to behave in the same manor.


RE: It's about time.
By rcc on 7/30/2007 1:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, Intel did some things in a manner unbecoming, if the allegations turn out to be true. It was stupid, if so, and they didn't need to do it that way.

They could have obtained the same results by offering an aggressive schedule of discounts that ramped up in such a manner that the builders would have had to focus on Intel exclusively (although not explictly) in order to make the quotas. The net result to AMD would have been very similar, but the legalities would have been clearer.

Unfortunately, if the allegations are true, Intel in it's hubris attemped to bully instead of cajole. Hence the current issues.


RE: It's about time.
By InsaneGain on 7/27/2007 5:39:10 PM , Rating: 4
How does the fact that AMD gained market share preclude the possibility that Intel engaged in illegal practices?? It is very possible that Intel did engage in illegal actions that prevented further market share gains by AMD, and I'm sure you are aware of that.


RE: It's about time.
By SlyNine on 7/27/2007 3:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
It is because of AMD that Intel had to lower its prices for deals with other companies, However it did so knowing it has more money then AMD and predicted that AMD would not be able to maintain cut throat prices (allegedly at least, But I would say just short of fact).

At the time AMD CPU's were better. Most Customers were getting inferior Intel CPU's because Intel was making illegal deals with Dell and other such companies. So while Intel's market share at least stays the same AMD's is not growing nearly as fast as it should have.

Because it was not growing as fast as it should have AMD could not expand it's R&D lines as much as it needed to to compete.

If you think that helped the consumer then I'm wondering on what grounds did the illegal actions of Intel help the consumers.

the only thing that helped the consumer is AMD's CPU being as good as it was, but still didn't end up in the hands of most consumers because Intel's anti competitive actions. In turn that actually hurt the consumer. now in the long term AMD is struggling to keep up because it doesn't have the money it should so not being able to develop and take risks that it could have.

Intel could have offered the same pricing with companies like Dell while allowing them to use AMD as well, In the end thats what this all comes down too.


RE: It's about time.
By wordsworm on 7/27/2007 8:55:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD gathered market share faster then ever before in its history

So you don't think Dell could've sold a few AMD machines alongside Intel? How many billions of dollars in lost revenues does this alone entail?
quote:
Antitrust laws exist to protect you and I, not large corporations like AMD.

Large corporations like AMD are made up of a lot of people. Those people deserve to have the ability to compete without having larger companies inhibit sales by having retailers not offer their competitor's brands. Further, AMD's the reason Intel has to compete. If it wasn't for AMD, Intel would probably still be selling what we would now consider substandard chips for a price premium.


RE: It's about time.
By kenji4life on 7/28/2007 1:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you want to replace that with government intervention? Is it truly impossible for people to learn from history? Such market meddling has NEVER benefitted consumers, though many, many attempts have been made. They always result in higher prices and less innovation.


Furthermore, Dell waited until AMD's greatest moment was over before they acted. Is it a coincidence that Dell only finally adopted AMD after AMD's product was no longer top-dawg? Let's keep in mind: Intel knew that they were coming back. Holding Dell beyond arm's length from AMD kept AMD further at bay until Intel could retort K8's powerful statement.

Remember, while we will probably always remember people like JFK, MLK, and dare-I-say Jesus (no I'm not Christian), history has done us the injustice of forgetting those who were written out of it by those with the power to do so.


RE: It's about time.
By kenji4life on 7/28/2007 1:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, the above post was a reply to :

So you don't think Dell could've sold a few AMD machines alongside Intel? How many billions of dollars in lost revenues does this alone entail?

and not the quote from above, which I failed to clear from my clipboard before pasting and posted without previewing.

EDIT: the feature of tomorrow.


RE: It's about time.
By Flunk on 7/27/2007 9:44:54 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the definition of the word fanboy requires that they not be able to apply reason to the subject of their obsession.

Wikipedia's Opinion:

Fanboy is a term used to describe an individual (usually male, though the feminine version fangirl may be used for females) who is utterly devoted to a single fannish subject, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession. Fanboys remain loyal to their particular obsession, disregarding any factors that differ from their point of view.


RE: It's about time.
By bldckstark on 7/27/2007 12:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
Does this make homosexuals Fan-Gays?


RE: It's about time.
By bldckstark on 7/27/2007 12:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
Does this mean that homosexuals are Fan-Gays?


RE: It's about time.
By fantumm on 7/27/2007 2:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
No, but it means YOU are a Fan-Homophobe


RE: It's about time.
By wordsworm on 7/27/2007 9:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Wikipedia's Opinion:Fanboy is a term used to describe an individual (usually male, though the feminine version fangirl may be used for females) who is utterly devoted to a single fannish subject, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession. Fanboys remain loyal to their particular obsession, disregarding any factors that differ from their point of view.
Did you set them straight? :)


RE: It's about time.
By bhieb on 7/27/2007 12:01:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you're watching a boxing match, and your guy is getting turned into pulp, it strikes me as a bit myopic to say, "that divorce is really hurting Joe right now." I'd say that getting beat the f- up is hurting Joe.


Good analogy, but take it another direction. If Joe could not train because he spent all his time dealing with the divorce, then yes Joe is getting his butt kicked because of the past problem.


RE: It's about time.
By kilkennycat on 7/27/2007 3:04:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If Joe could not train because he spent all his time dealing with the divorce, then yes Joe is getting his butt kicked because of the past problem.


Or if Joe spends all his time dealing with a disastrous MARRIAGE would be a far better analogy of the situation in which AMD currently finds itself.....


RE: It's about time.
By Pezman37 on 7/27/2007 5:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you're watching a boxing match, and your guy is getting turned into pulp, it strikes me as a bit myopic to say, "that divorce is really hurting Joe right now." I'd say that getting beat the f- up is hurting Joe.


When Tiger Woods' trainer left Tiger started doing a lot worse, so I can't say I find that a great analogy.

It's more a sign I think that the general public goes for what they see as the best bang for their buck. Best buy is telling them so, and so is dell*. I know best buy is selling AMD systems, but I went shopping with my sister for a computer and was immediately told about how the core 2 is better, and it is better.

I think maybe my beef with Intel's practices is that they don't want anyone getting the idea that AMD is the "value" chip and that you can get a decent bang for your buck. That however is all supposition on my part, and not to be taken as the fact of the matter.

quote:
Considering the unresolved nature of the court case (and the impossibility of deriving a false conclusion from false data*), I would categorize the harm to AMD as both hypothetical and indefinite.


Sums it up well, you can't know just how different things would be if XYZ had or had not happened.

(*by not even selling AMD systems, they are not per say telling people not to buy AMD systems)

-Buys Intel, but hopes AMD takes several more hits at Intel.


RE: It's about time.
By ICE1966 on 7/29/2007 8:36:16 PM , Rating: 1
The only reason AMD is hurting is because alot of the AMD fans have bought into the Intel crap. Sure, intel finally released a processor thats worth having and now everybody flocks to it like its the great white hope. AMD still makes a very good processor, in fact a great processor. Who cares if it overclocks well. I was at a lan party last weekend that we have every year, and one of my friends had a C2D system. He was using the same video card as I do, same kind of ram, execpt he was using a C2D e6700. I am using an AMD 5600+. he had his overclocked to 3.2 ghz, mine was running slightly o/c'ed at 2.93ghz. Playing Counterstrike source he was running 175 to 235 fps just like I was. he had the great C2d, but I was not impressed, and he was shocked that he was not smoking me on frames. Anyway, to hell with a C2d, it has not shown me anything to make me switch.


RE: It's about time.
By utube545 on 8/10/2007 5:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
Your loss, dumbass fanboy


RE: It's about time.
By Phynaz on 7/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: It's about time.
By Khato on 7/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's about time.
By biohazard420420 on 8/1/2007 7:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
The whole problem with that argument is that the companies accepting the "bribe" bear just as much responsibility for that action as intel. They went along with intel when they could have just as easily gone public about the whole situation which would have put a huge hurting on intel pr wise and revenue wise. I am sorry but if intel lost any of the tier 1 companies they would lose a fortune. That is not to say that intel and amd cant share them though. You can't put all the blame on Intel when there are other companies that were playing ball with intel so to speak. the bottom line is this though the technology behind the product is what matters most which is why intel is beating amd bloody with the Core 2's. While I am against monopolies they do not always stifle the market, the fact that intel has a better product does not make it a monopoly. the sad fact is alot of the general public that buys pcs from dell and hp and lenvo could care less what brand cpu is inside as long as it performs like they want it to.


EU = Big Time Socialist
By pauldovi on 7/27/2007 12:04:00 AM , Rating: 1
The EU is about as far left on the political scale as modern politics gets. Why do you think the economies are doing horrible over there? Their taxes are high and their government oversight is even higher.

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

"Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them."

Both by Ronald Reagan




RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By InternetGeek on 7/27/2007 12:51:34 AM , Rating: 1
I can agree that government regulation might not be the best solution for most of the problems. I fail to see the relation to this article though.

Yes, Intel is going for the kill with the current performance/price war, and you could even reason that AMD should be given some air to protect us as consumers in the future. But AMD should not be protected from its own destructive behavior. The ATI buyout would make them big and easily put them in equal competition terms with Intel, but claiming that AMD's current situation is Intel's fault from prior years is not the solution.


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By Proteusza on 7/27/2007 5:48:50 AM , Rating: 3
But think what a difference it would make to AMD and Intel if Intel had played fair.

Had Intel played fair, AMD would have had more money for R&D. They could have afforded a price war. With a higher R&D budget, both Barcelona and R600 could have been out sooner.

Intel would have had less money to make Core 2 Duo, and wouldnt have been so keen to drop prices through the floor boards.

You see, the problem with what Intel did is that it affects everybody so much. I would almost say that Intel should pay out a large portion of its profits to all affected companies, which includes AMD, possibly others.

To say that AMD must "deal with it" is stupid. What Intel did was illegal. It harmed the economy. They need to pay, and what was done, needs to be undone as carefully as possible.


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By defter on 7/27/2007 7:03:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
With a higher R&D budget, both Barcelona and R600 could have been out sooner.


AMD hasn't much to do with R600. It took many years to design R600, and when ATI's aqcuisition was finalized in October, R600 was basically finished, only some tweaks remained.


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By Proteusza on 7/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By FITCamaro on 7/27/2007 8:20:25 AM , Rating: 2
The point of a corporation is taking legal responsibility away from those who run it. A corporation is a legal entity.

Necessarily fair or moral? No. Legal. Yes.

And yes, that in the past has not protected those who run a corporation. The Enron trial showed us that. Granted most of those bastards got off. But that has to do with money. No different than celebrities who break the law and get away with it. Also not right, but there's little we can do about it short of taking over the country in a revolution and changing our government.


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By Proteusza on 7/27/2007 8:30:26 AM , Rating: 4
No, it isnt moral, and it shouldnt be legal, and there is nothing can do about it because of lobbying, which is corporate funded politics.

Living in the UK, the worst thing I can say about politics here is that nothing gets done even though we pay huge taxes. in the us, it seems everything runs smoothly, but dont fool yourself into thinking you live in a democracy. I dont believe the populace has enough control over the governing of the country for it to be called that.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/27/2007 4:21:27 PM , Rating: 3
The U.S. is a Republic. There is no misconception about this.


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By defter on 7/27/2007 8:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe ATI would have been bought sooner, so AMD could pump money into R600 sooner. Maybe AMD could have afforded to pour money into making the 80nm manufacturing process better, or even shrink right down to 65nm.


In order for AMD to make any significant changes into R600, it would have needed to purchase ATI at least 1-2 years earlier, which isn't a very realistic situation.

BTW, R600 is manufactured on TSMC process, AMD cannot make that process better.


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By Phynaz on 7/27/2007 8:17:41 AM , Rating: 1
I see post like yours declaring "what Intel did was illegal".

Nothing has been proven yet. Accusations have been made is all.


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By SavagePotato on 7/27/2007 9:49:39 AM , Rating: 4
I have a core2 processor which I rather like. However it doesn't take a whole lot of speculation to come to the conclusion that Intel used shady strong arm tactics.

There realy is no contention of that, it is known fact regarding the situations with OEM's or for example the false chip shortages to punish motherboard manufacturers in the early days. The only real question is whether it will be deemed illegal or followed by reprecussions.

On another note, I think the big American capitalist were better than everyone else attitude is getting old. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Moreso people in whose houses their dollar is plummeting, along with high unemployment and the worst social programs in the world, should not throw stones.


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By Phynaz on 7/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By SavagePotato on 7/27/2007 10:28:45 PM , Rating: 1
Socialist is the evil commie insult of the new millenium? Bury your head in the sand if you wish, but Intel's tactics are well known particularily the standout threats in the days of the original Athlon. I won't go into the whole white box asus motherboard story, thats been said a million times.

Denying Intel did those things is just chosing to be ignorant, maybe out of sheer love for them, or misguided interpretations of what a capitalist market should be.

Thats where the choice lies, and it is more of a choice as I see it than needing to prove anything thats already well known, and I'm sure quite provable when it comes down to it. That choice it seems will belong to the courts in the end as to whether there is anything illegal in what Intel did unmistakeably do.

Oh, and it's a big world outside. I know it's hard to accept that your country is a part of it and not the center of it. It's great that you love it and all, but from the half assed crumbling education system, to the non existant medical system, or the homeless working poor, unemployed, celebrity and corporate dominated culture. Well, theres certainly more than a little room for improvement I think, in the "greatest country ever".


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By 16nm on 7/27/2007 11:03:44 AM , Rating: 2
I really do not see any problem. Intel are not a true monopoly. They used their strength in the market to try to keep their position as much as possible. If they want to give their profits away to keep market share then that's fine. Intel really have done nothing wrong here. Any good company would have done the same thing. It would be irresponsible to their share holders if they had not.

If AMD were not so proud of their product then they would not have been in the bind they are in today. Had they not sat around watching their profits roll in and been aggresive towards Intel by selling their chips for reasonable prices then 1.) Intel would not have been able to give their profits away without reporting a loss and having less for R&D, 2.) AMD would have gained more market share and a more loyal following, 3.) AMD would be a larger chip company with a better recognized product.

AMD had a superior product and decided to charge much, much too much for it instead of trying to put the squeeze on Intel for once in their history. They gave Intel the chance to reward Intel-only OEM's with rebates AND to design a totally new chip to crush AMD with, all the while selling hot, powerhungry chips which required Intel to design the BTX standard around to cope with the heat. AMD's greed was their downfall. Just stupid executives making stupid decisions...

Now AMD have an inferior product that can not be used to squeeze Intel's bottom line. You've got to hand it to Intel. They have some smart monkey's in the boardroom. Kudos to Intel!!


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By feelingshorter on 7/27/2007 5:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
Your making up an argument and arguing against it when no one here posted it. Often, people like us who don't understand how it works like to make comments that sound rather reasonable to the average person. But, you assume Intel was using fair tactics. It has been posted numerous times on these forums what unfair tactics Intel uses. Just search for previous news article on dailytech about the AMD vs Intel anti competitive issue and you will see posts (filter your rating to 5 only) that will blow you away. I never understood how Intel was anti competitive. But then again, do you understand how they buy their CPUs from Intel? No you don't. Dell doesn't go to newegg and buy their CPUs and making their systems. Just read up about it, but it sounds like you've already created a bunch of ideas in your head you think are facts. If you put yourself in AMD's shoes, you cannot say what Intel did was fair. But, again, you obvious don't know what Intel did, and thus have argued against an argument that no one on these forums have made!


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By 16nm on 7/28/2007 3:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your making up an argument and arguing against it when no one here posted it.


No, No. I am just adding my thoughts here. I read the thread to here and tacked this on the the end. It seemed like the appropriate place for it after having read the then above posts. Frankly, I am a little suprised your attention is drawn to this... I don't know why you point this out, after all, you did bite which I can admit I am glad about.

At any rate, the most damage done to AMD was the rebates Intel offered its OEM's. This certainly cost them the most growth, which is questionable because AMD's prices certainly had them raking in the money. But of course AMD will proclaim this is unfair but I think they know that they were unable to meet demand for their products. It certainly is not illegal in my opinion. If Intel want to give their profits away that's their choice.

Everything else Intel did was piddly sh!t that should leave AMD flattered that Intel would fear them so much. AMD simply did not have the capacity to meet demand when it was its highest. Now they have an inferior product and are trying to use the legal system to their advantage. They know Intel is too big and too smart to overcome and they hope to get a leg up on them through the legal system. In the end, I think they will be unsuccessful. They must prove that the consumer was hurt of which there is ZERO proof.

Explain to me how this is not the case, please.

quote:
But, you assume Intel was using fair tactics.

No, I am sure both are quite guilty of unfair tactics.

unfair != illegal

These are VERY desparate times for AMD. We are at a time when the cost of manufacturing has jumped substantially and AMD is in for some tough times. Silicon is no longer a good material for the newest processes and by 16nm the industry thinks we will have to move on to yet another new process. (Intel is already preparing 32nm) AMD are planning on introducing a 45nm silicon process which will have huge leakage problem and they will not be able to get many MHz out of. There already are big leakage problems with 65nm which is why intel was unable to reach the 3.8 GHz achieved on 90nm. Without the 45nm High-k process, AMD is dead. Obviously they are going to team up with manufacturering leaders but this is going to eat into their margins.

Let me stop and just say that the challenges before AMD are plentiful. They are very desparate and their complaints against Intel are just acts of their desparation.

In the end, Intel is the behemoth chip maker and AMD is the little train that couldn't.

(excuse the typos)


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By 16nm on 7/28/2007 3:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dell doesn't go to newegg and buy their CPUs and making their systems.


LOL.

And I thought EVERYONE bought their processors through Newegg. What an ignoramous I am!


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By masher2 (blog) on 7/27/2007 10:21:55 AM , Rating: 3
> "Had Intel played fair [they] would have had less money to make Core 2 Duo, and wouldnt have been so keen to drop prices through the floor boards...

And thus us consumers would have been treated to more expensive, less capable processors from Intel. And AMD, in a less desperate position, would certainly not have been motivated to cut prices to stay alive.

Price wars and vicious competition are good for buyers. Antitrust laws exist to protect the consumer, not the competitors. The period the EU is examining saw one of the most sustained periods of swift product introductions and staggering price drops in all of modern history...in ANY market segment, not just electronics. Intel's actions clearly benefitted consumers at all levels.


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By SlyNine on 7/27/2007 3:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
Unless of course AMD had more money and made an even better product then Intel's Core 2 Duo.


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By euclidean on 7/27/2007 10:46:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I fail to see the relation to this article though.

A guy working for Intel to try to get talks away from their company....


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By goz314 on 7/27/2007 6:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The EU is about as far left on the political scale as modern politics gets. Why do you think the economies are doing horrible over there?


So, thats why the dollar is at near historic lows compared to the Euro.


RE: EU = Big Time Socialist
By TomZ on 7/27/2007 9:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
The US dollar is low because of our huge import/export trade imbalance. Econ 101.

Also, the ratio of a particular currency to others doesn't in itself tell you the whole story about the economy of a particular country using that currency.


By Amiga500 on 7/27/2007 4:46:34 AM , Rating: 4
How much more R&D money could AMD have sunk into Barcelona if they could have sold their Athlon/Opteron CPUs through the big OEMs, and gain the marketshare those products deserved?

Or manufacturing, would it have been possible for AMD to have (properly) started (or even built) their Fab in New York by now?

For instance, with more manufacturing, they could have made the R600 in-house and all on 65nm - that would have solved a number of power issues for that GPU.

History has got us to where we are now - Intel screwed with AMD in the past, resulting in a weaker AMD in the present - that is undeniable.

The European Union is right to go after them, and you can call me a "stupid commie" or whatever the fuck you want, but it won't change that.




By Phynaz on 7/27/2007 8:15:01 AM , Rating: 2
How much more money?

Zero.

Remember AMD was selling every Athlon it could make.


By Amiga500 on 7/27/2007 8:28:05 AM , Rating: 2
So... do you think back in, say, 2000, AMD had reason to believe it could sustain a couple more FABS (due to the demand for the CPUs from the channel and OEMs) and could go to the banks with the numbers looking investment - they wouldn't have built them?

Get real.


By Phynaz on 7/27/2007 9:04:50 AM , Rating: 2
With what money?

Go back and take a look at AMD's financials.


By TomZ on 7/27/2007 9:10:30 AM , Rating: 2
^- You're right about that. In addition to the money, it takes a long time to build new fabs, and AMD would have needed to start a few years before their demand spike. But they didn't.


By Amiga500 on 7/27/2007 10:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
READ my post!

"Go to the bank and look for investment"

The demand for AMD processors didn't peak until 2005, thats 5 years - are you 2 seriously trying to say it takes 5+ years to build a fabrication plant?

Of course, they could also have sub-contracted out more work to 3rd party Fabs, and as a result dramatically improved their present day bank balance.


By Phynaz on 7/27/2007 11:12:51 AM , Rating: 2
AMD: Mr Banker, it's the year 2000, and I have lost money the last four and half years. Please give me more.

Banker: Yeah, right.


By Amiga500 on 7/28/2007 6:14:19 AM , Rating: 2
Never heard of a business plan then no?

If you can make a solid case - you will get the money.


By DallasTexas on 7/27/2007 7:36:04 PM , Rating: 1
..History has got us to where we are now - Intel screwed with AMD in the past, resulting in a weaker AMD in the present - that is undeniable..."

Says who? AMD? Intel is not convicted of anything, quite frankly. You're making all this crap up, like the rest of the AMD nancies in here.

Is AMD weak today versus a year ago (when they were cleaning up) because of Intel illegal practices? Seems to me they screwed up.

The only fact here is the EU responded to a complaint - which they are legally obliged to do. Guess where the complaint came from? It is simply amazing the under-dog fan frenzy in here. I especially like the comment pre-cursors here "..I'm not a fanboy..blah blah..but...blah blah". It's like an opinion has to be pre-approved. LOL . This is like a min-tech My-Space forum. Dailytech needs to create a buddy list for all you goofs.


By Amiga500 on 7/28/2007 6:11:32 AM , Rating: 2
Where have you been for the past few years?

http://news.com.com/Japan+antitrust+watchdog+bites...

Intel is mulling a response to a ruling by Japan's antitrust watchdog that it used unfair business practices in the country.

The Fair Trade Commission, in a warning against Intel's Japan unit on Tuesday, said the chipmaker attempted to stifle competition in Japan by offering rebates to Japanese PC makers if they agreed to limit their use of others' processors.

and of course there is the European ruling - do you really think they are stupid enough to take it to court without evidence? The US FTC also fined Intel in the late 90s for abuse of its position.

Thats three instances of where bodies have taken action against Intel on anti-trust grounds within the past few years. [Yet of course... Intel have done nothing wrong - right?]

Since your obviously so smart, can you tell me why HP (2002), Fujitsu (2005) and then finally Dell (2006) were so slow to take AMD on board? Certainly wasn't the quality of the product, or the price of it now was it? But I'm sure you can enlighten us all.

I'm also sure you can explain the logic of the following:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_arc...

Ruiz and his colleagues believe Intel's (Charts) monopolistic foul play is what sank AMD's (Charts) last bid for parity. That was in 2001, when the company had also gained share for five years straight. But once its unit share hit 21.8%-right around where it is today - the bottom suddenly fell out of its markets, Mercury Research data show. The contraction was especially severe in Japan, where AMD's unit share slid from 25% in mid-2002 to 9% in mid-2004, according to Gartner Dataquest.

The downright suspicious part, as AMD execs see it, was what happened to AMD's share with particular Japanese customers. Its portion of Sony's (Charts) business dropped from 23% in 2002 to zero by 2004, AMD says.

Its consumer desktop business with NEC (Charts) plummeted from 84% to almost nothing over the same period, while its total share of NEC business sank from close to 40% to less than 15%. AMD's Toshiba business flat-lined-dropping from about 15% in 2000 to zero in 2001 and ever since, AMD alleges.

Best chips, at the best prices.... yet look what happened.

from the same source:

n 1997, Intel became the target of an antitrust probe, although not because of AMD. The Federal Trade Commission began scrutinizing the company because of its hardball responses to three patent-infringement suits brought against it by computer makers Intergraph, Digital Equipment Corp., and Compaq Computer.

In each instance, Intel responded by withholding from the plaintiff specifications about Intel's future microprocessors that each maker needed to design its products. In DEC's case, Intel implied that it might cut off DEC's chip supply within four months.

But you keep your head firmly lodged in the sand now... the truth can sometimes be uncomfortable when your exposed to it.


By masher2 (blog) on 7/28/2007 11:18:27 AM , Rating: 1
> "I'm also sure you can explain the logic of the following... Ruiz and his colleagues believe Intel's (Charts) monopolistic foul play is what sank AMD's (Charts) last bid for parity..."

I highlit the important part of your quote. All conjecture and assumption, the same as the EU's case. The mere fact that AMD had, for a period, the "best chips at the best prices" is no automatic guarantee of their increasing market share. This is what you (and unfortunately, some of the leadership at AMD) fails to understand. Marketing, advertising, product positioning and image, and many other factors are involved.

The facts are AMD DID increase market share dramatically in the US and many other nations. The mere fact they failed to do so in Japan is not "proof" to anyone but the extremely gullible.


By Amiga500 on 7/29/2007 6:25:29 AM , Rating: 2
The facts are AMD DID increase market share dramatically in the US and many other nations. The mere fact they failed to do so in Japan is not "proof" to anyone but the extremely gullible.

Yeah - they did increase in the US and others (despite the major OEMs not granting them access for quite some time - even though they were a superior product to the alternative).

But , their Japan share practically disappeared - despite them having the superior product. That doesn't happen, if you've 10% share, word of mouth about how much better AMDs are than Intel will at the very least keep it at 10%, irregardless of what the marketing lot do.