backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 119 comment(s) - last by Viditor.. on May 19 at 12:31 AM
Intel says the European Commission is wrong, but it will comply for now

Earlier today, the European Commission issued a ruling against Intel and fined it $1.45 billion USD, which it must pay into a holding account while it appeals the decision. The company held over $3.5 billion in cash and over $4 billion in short term investments at the end of the first quarter.

The fine will not affect Intel's operations and its planned 32nm transition to the Westmere family of products. "Intel will continue to invest and innovate," according to Intel spokesperson Claudine Mangano.

It is also unlikely to affect Intel's dividend yields, which is something that has been discussed heavily today since the European Commission decided to time its announcement with Intel's annual series of meetings with investors and analysts. The suspicious timing is even more curious considering that AMD filed its first complaint with the European Commission in 2000.

Intel may choose to absorb the entire fine into its second quarter or amortize it over the rest of the year. However, its plans are still in a state of flux and may change since it has only received the summary of the judgment from the European Commission and not the entire document, which exceeds 500 pages.

The world's largest semiconductor company has been fined before by South Korea for antitrust issues, and is also currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.

In response to the European Commission's announcement, Paul Otellini, the President and CEO of Intel Corporation, issued the following statements regarding the European Commission decision on Intel's business practices:

"Intel takes strong exception to this decision. We believe the decision is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace – characterized by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers. Intel will appeal."

"We do not believe our practices violated European law. The natural result of a competitive market with only two major suppliers is that when one company wins sales, the other does not. The Directorate General for Competition of the Commission ignored or refused to obtain significant evidence that contradicts the assertions in this decision. We believe this evidence shows that when companies perform well the market rewards them, when they don't perform the market acts accordingly."

"Intel never sells products below cost. We have however, consistently invested in innovation, in manufacturing and in developing leadership technology. The result is that we can discount our products to compete in a highly competitive marketplace, passing along to consumers everywhere the efficiencies of being the world's leading volume manufacturer of microprocessors."

"Despite our strongly held views, as we go through the appeals process we plan to work with the Commission to ensure we're in compliance with their decision. Finally, there should be no doubt whatsoever that Intel will continue to invest in the products and technologies that provide Europe and the rest of the world the industry's best performing
processors at lower prices."

 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
tisk tisk
By BuckinBottoms on 5/13/2009 3:34:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
We do not believe our practices violated European law. The natural result of a competitive market with only two major suppliers is that when one company wins sales, the other does not.

But you didn't win those sales did you? You instead used money to grease a certain number of company executives pockets that had the power of purchasing decisions within that company. The NEC exec has already ratted you out Paul.




RE: tisk tisk
By poundsmack on 5/13/2009 4:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
I am not siding with Intel here, but it seems to me that the OEM's were the ones that took the bribe. It wasn't like the OEM's were unaware that was unethical or illegal. Intel should not be the only one fined, I think that fine should be reduced or at least spread out over Intel AND the OEM's who chose to go down that road as well.


RE: tisk tisk
By MonkeyPaw on 5/13/2009 5:54:15 PM , Rating: 5
That's the problem, it's not so much a bribe as it is blackmail. If an OEM didn't accept Intel's CPU discount deal, Intel could either sell products at much higher prices, or they could limit what products the OEM gets and how quickly. All of the above can be acceptable business practices, except in monopoly situations, where a competator like AMD is not large enough to supply any big OEM's needs. If OEMs refuse Intel's offer, they have nowhere else to turn to fill all of their orders. When AMD introduced the anti-trust lawsuit a few years ago, Intel's exclusive deals suddenly went away, and AMD quickly became an option for virtually all OEMs, including Dell. Even if the lawsuit goes nowhere financially, it has already benefitted the idea of competition, as Intel is under more scrutiny.


RE: tisk tisk
By lco45 on 5/13/2009 11:43:51 PM , Rating: 5
That is correct, the fault is almost entirely with Intel.
Any OEM that disobeyed Intel would be left with only AMD stock, cutting off most of their market.
Faced with that decision, and with Intel also offering a cash 'incentive' it's pretty hard to blame Mr OEM for towing the line.

Luke


RE: tisk tisk
By Oregonian2 on 5/14/2009 3:06:31 AM , Rating: 3
Just makes me smile to see that Intel forced customers to buy Intel processors that they had to buy anyway (or else just be left with AMD ones). Seems like they could have just charged more per unit and made additional profit.


RE: tisk tisk
By Frallan on 5/14/2009 3:14:36 AM , Rating: 3
Nope not in that marketplace - as allready stated the Athlon and the Opteron were the ones to beat in those days.


RE: tisk tisk
By zsdersw on 5/14/2009 8:49:56 AM , Rating: 2
AMD sold every chip it could make as soon as it could make it in those days. It was a supply problem.. and AMD *chose* to abandon deals with UMC and TSMC to add more capacity (though the x86 licensing agreement with Intel comes into play here).


RE: tisk tisk
By Viditor on 5/18/2009 11:42:10 PM , Rating: 3
"AMD sold every chip it could make as soon as it could make it in those days"

But at what price? It was never a supply problem...If AMD could have sold chips at anywhere near the same price level as Intel, they would have certainly made more chips (the statement from them by the way was that they were selling every chip they made, not every one they COULD have made).

For example, the P4 2.8 GHz sold for AUD$1,100 while the AMD 2.8 GHz sold for AUD$650...that's a 40% premium (which was fairly typical then) for a chip that's equal to or slightly slower than the Athlon was.
A major reason for that is that Intel had all of the OEMs in a bind on supply (is that the supply problem you meant?).


RE: tisk tisk
By AEvangel on 5/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: tisk tisk
By Targon on 5/14/2009 10:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
Any company that "turned Intel in" would find their supply of products cut off, which means they might claim moral high ground, and been out of business. This is a problem that people face in the business world all the time.

Do you think sexual harassment in the workplace is uncommon? Women who step forward to report it will often find themselves without a job, and be in a position where finding a new job is difficult. Other violations are out there as well, where employees WANT to speak out and report things that are wrong with their companies, but doing so would get them fired, or their job would disappear.

When you fear you may lose your source of income, you do NOT rock the boat unless you can find an alternative source of money. There is a difference between what might hurt your business, and what would put you out of business. You don't drop 80 percent or more of your income and stay in business for very long.


RE: tisk tisk
By Targon on 5/14/2009 10:18:46 PM , Rating: 4
That is only a part of the problem that AMD had to deal with. Intel was in the habit of cutting supplies to customers who would dare to buy and sell AMD based products. This threat of losing their supply of Intel products would basically force them out of business since AMD has always had a much smaller share of the CPU market. If a business would collapse due to not getting supplies of Intel products, they will NOT risk that loss.

So, that is the problem here, that Intel was using unfair business practices. The sad part is that these practices were going on when AMD DID have the superior product compared to Intel(Athlon 64 vs. Pentium 4). Intel could change their practices today, but it would not replace what AMD lost from the business practices of that period.

This is almost a mirror image of what happened to Netscape. By the time the legal case of Netscape vs. Microsoft played out and favored Netscape, they were out of business. The fact that the legal battle will continue on does not and will not properly compensate AMD from their losses during the period they had the greatest chance to get massive increases in market share from Intel. Unless AMD is able to come up with a CPU design that is notably faster than the Intel i7, AMD will not be in a position again to grow market share by 10 percent per year.


By Laffer on 5/14/2009 3:06:31 AM , Rating: 5
Why Netbooks have only a very small screen? Why are there no Atom based Netbooks with 14 inch Screens. BECAUSE INTEL is FORBIDDING IT, they do not want their C2D sales hit. If a company wants to make an Atom based 15" notebook, they will not get any CPU. If they are making Geode based Netbooks, ohhhh, what a suprise, Atoms will be out of supply for this OEM....

That is the EVIL Intel is doing, we do not need a second MICROSOFT.




By Oregonian2 on 5/14/2009 3:09:32 AM , Rating: 1
A 14-inch netbook is an oxymoron. If it had such a sized screen, it'd not be a netbook, it would be a wimpy laptop.

Haven't seen such a restriction out of Intel, do you have a link, btw?


By Laffer on 5/14/2009 3:15:34 AM , Rating: 4
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/01/hp-as...

quote:
According to sources, HP is asking Intel to relax the screen size limitations the chipmaker places on systems that can use the netbook class-leading Atom processor. Currently the largest screen size Intel will allow the Atom to be used in is 10.2-inches.


By rbuszka on 5/14/2009 1:07:28 PM , Rating: 2
Whether such a machine would be a 'netbook' or a 'notebook' is a red herring.

When I bought my laptop (Gateway 15.4" model, 1 GB RAM, 1.6GHz Core Duo) in the spring of 2006, I evaluated it alongside Core Solo models that would, ostensibly, deliver similar performance to the 1.6GHz Atom.

Now that the same performance is available for a lot less, Intel is keeping laptops expensive for the masses by forcing manufacturers to integrate their more expensive, power-hungry, higher-horsepower CPUs into models that are only used for email, office apps, and web browsing. It's like the PC market's version of 'petrocracy'.


By Oregonian2 on 5/15/2009 2:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whether such a machine would be a 'netbook' or a 'notebook' is a red herring.


Perhaps true in terms of the main subject matter -- my comment was purely just one of semantics and definition of the "netbook" marketplace even if admittedly a side subject. A large screen (and the associated laptop size, weight, and price) takes it out of the "netbook" category even if it has an Atom processor.

If it's small physically, light weight, and very inexpensive, then it's a "netbook" -- even if it's got the highest power processor around. Netbooks only have cheapie processors toward gaining those three objectives, not because it itself is a requirement for netbook status.


By bruce24 on 5/14/2009 2:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
by Laffer
Why Netbooks have only a very small screen? Why are there no Atom based Netbooks with 14 inch Screens. BECAUSE INTEL is FORBIDDING IT,

Intel does limits the N270 version of Atom to devices with less than and ~10" screen. OEM's are free to buy the Z5xx versions of Atom and put them in any sized device they want. For example, the Dell Mini 12 has a 12" screen and an Atom processor.

By the way, If an OEM wants to include the $15 version of XP on it's netbook, they have to deal with some Microsoft limitations, which include single core, and memory and disk size limits.


By Targon on 5/14/2009 10:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing is stopping them from installing those low-cost versions of XP from being installed on multi-core processors. The license is what sets the functionality though.

Microsoft(and most commercial OS vendors) have generally placed restrictions on OS functionality based on the price paid. Current versions of Windows are licensed for single-CPU systems with as many cores as a single-CPU may have on it. This is the mindset that those who pay for the highest end products should not have to pay extra. This does NOT apply to systems with two or more physical processors though. If you have a dual-CPU system with 4 cores per processor, you will find that only one processor will be used since the normal non-server operating systems are not licensed for multi-processor systems. Basically, you need to pay extra for each additional processor in the system.

For servers, you can either pay for a license that is "per seat" or "per user" for your server. This again goes to the idea that if you have a big business and want software support, you will need to pay extra.

So, the reverse is true, if a company wants to put a low-cost operating system on a computer, they will get reduced functionality due to the lower cost. Basically, you get what you pay for. It may be artificial, but it is still the price of paying a super-low price. You should never expect to pay $15 for an operating system and get close to the same functionality a $65 or $80 or $130 operating system would provide.

Windows 7 Starter edition will have the same thing, where the Starter Edition is basically crippled. It will let people run applications, but not many at the same time. If you want full functionality, don't bother with the Starter Edition. Since those who will buy it legally will have either the Home Basic or Premium versions, or the more expensive versions, the limits will be appropriate for the version purchased.

Intel....they produce products. At no time should a company be able to cut supplies to customers just because that customer has decided to buy/sell BOTH Intel and AMD products. They can provide volume discounts, or cut prices, but the moment they say, "We will cut our prices as long as you do not sell more than a certain amount of our competitor's products" is where they violate the rules.

Exclusivity agreements are allowed in most situations, but if they tell a company that has not signed an exclusivity agreement that supplies will be delayed/cut off for selling a competitors' product, that is again the problem.


By zsdersw on 5/15/2009 8:11:39 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
At no time should a company be able to cut supplies to customers just because that customer has decided to buy/sell BOTH Intel and AMD products.


No. Intel owns what it has for sale until it is purchased. As such, it can decide who and who not to sell it to and at what price.

Sales are a mutually agreed upon action; the seller has to be willing to sell and the buyer has to be willing to buy. Neither has an advantage over the other. If the seller is more desperate to sell than the buyer is desperate to buy the price comes down and/or other agreements are made. If the buyer is more desperate to buy than the seller is desperate to sell the price goes up and/or other agreements are made.

This is the free market.. and it works. The government's role is limited to preventing fraud in the free market.. NOTHING ELSE.


By Viditor on 5/19/2009 12:28:47 AM , Rating: 2
As a legally functioning monopoly, Intel must adhere to limits on it's sales...

And this is NOT a free market (nor a Democracy for that matter). This is a modified free market and a Republic...


By Regs on 5/15/2009 10:56:35 AM , Rating: 2
The manufacturer has always had control over it's supply chain including who, what, where, and when. So drawing a line in the sand to how they control their supply chain could get very messy. They all do it but Intel has been under a microscope.

There are a lot of products out there that could be sold in bargain bin retail outlets, but the manufacturers refuse to sell some of their products to only the "classier" or more up scale stores for higher mark up. Some do it to they their products don't go out of style quicker if "everyone" can buy them at once. It's just classic marketing strategy.

The kick backs, abusive monopoly powers, and so fourth are another story.


It is ironic.
By Roy2001 on 5/14/2009 1:37:57 AM , Rating: 1
When AMD had good product, it charged premium for that.

When Intel has good product, it charges regular price and AMD is pushed to low end with lower ASP (average selling price).

Conclusion? Competition from AMD is not good.




RE: It is ironic.
By Laffer on 5/14/2009 4:05:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but always the Intel CPU's were more expensive. I remember the PIII times, where the TOP CPU was 1299 $. Later on they dropped the top CPU to 999$. I never saw AMD CPU on these prices, even when there CPU was much better!

Especially in the Server market, when the P4-XEON were absolutely crap and smashed by the Opterons, INTEL were at much higher prices...


RE: It is ironic.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/14/2009 8:10:40 AM , Rating: 2
AMD's FX line of processors was well into the thousand dollar range per chip just a few years ago. My what short memories we have these days.


RE: It is ironic.
By Laffer on 5/14/2009 8:02:07 PM , Rating: 1
They were RARELY over Intel pricing...


RE: It is ironic.
By Amiga500 on 5/16/2009 6:07:16 AM , Rating: 2
And what price was an extreme edition space heater at the same time? :-)


RE: It is ironic.
By Viditor on 5/19/2009 12:31:47 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly...Intel maintained an average of 40% higher pricing for most of the Athlons life.

Certainly between 2000 and 2005...


RE: It is ironic.
By psychobriggsy on 5/14/2009 10:25:28 AM , Rating: 3
Whoever has the best CPU product put the prices up.

Intel's CPU prices were vast back in the day, before AMD came along.

Sure, when AMD had the performance lead, they had premium prices at the top end, but the mainstream was still reasonable. In addition without AMD we'd be looking forward to a 4GHz dual-core Pentium IV at 150W at best by now.

What Intel did was wrong, this was an eight year investigation by the EU, so it wasn't a spur of the moment money-grab. Intel can appeal all they like, but it's unlikely they'll win - they might get the fine reduced.

It's sad that this affected AMD at their strongest, back when Dell wouldn't use them because of the Intel lock-in, and when other vendors presumably had these strong arm tactics applied. With more AMD sales back then, AMD would have had more money to invest and ride out the current 'bad times'.


LOL
By Tegrat on 5/13/2009 4:02:20 PM , Rating: 2
How's the "David Stone" between the eyes Goliath?




RE: LOL
By cmdrdredd on 5/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: LOL
By hcahwk19 on 5/13/2009 6:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
You are obviously having a hard time comprehending what was wrong with Intel's scheme. When these "bribes" took place, AMD indisputably had the superior product in both performance and price. The reason AMD did not gain the market share that they would gained is directly related to the illegal scheme by Intel. The loss of sales as a result of Intel's illegal actions is what put AMD behind in the R&D department for today's chips. While AMD is catching back up with the newest offerings, it is still lagging behind as a direct result of Intel's actions.


RE: LOL
By hyvonen on 5/13/2009 9:20:23 PM , Rating: 3
Note that at that time AMD simply didn't have enough production capacity to supply large OEMs (such as Dell) with sufficient amounts of CPUs. Intel did. Don't you think it's possible that the reliability of the supply chain might've had something to do with the Intel winning the Dell business?

And what happened when Dell switched suppliers? They got burned pretty bad with the lack of parts due to Barcelona delays...

Reliability of the supplier also carries value - not just "performance/price" ratios fanbois enjoy quoting so much.


RE: LOL
By Laffer on 5/14/2009 2:57:59 AM , Rating: 1
Completely UNTRUE. At that time AMD had already made contracts with TSMC and UMC foundries to make Athlon processors, but these deals came never into action because they could satisfy market demand with Dresden FAB. And Dell switched because it became TOOOOOO obvious that they were paid by Intel.


RE: LOL
By bruce24 on 5/14/2009 2:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
re: by Laffer
Completely UNTRUE. At that time AMD had already made contracts with TSMC and UMC foundries to make Athlon processors,

Your info isn't correct. Neither TSMC nor UMC had an SOI process at that time. It wasn't until 2006 that AMD qualified Chartered Semi to make it's 90nm K8 chips.


Great CPU from a shady company
By 13Gigatons on 5/14/2009 4:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
I just don't get why people are so willing to live under monopolies!!!!

Choice is good for consumers, it lowers the price and increases the quality.




RE: Great CPU from a shady company
By zsdersw on 5/14/2009 9:06:28 AM , Rating: 1
Consumers have always had a choice.. and clearly many made the choice to go with AMD when it had better products than Intel, because AMD sold every chip it could make as soon as it could be made. Those who didn't want to wait for so long made the choice to go with an Intel CPU instead or chose to wait longer for their AMD chip.


RE: Great CPU from a shady company
By Laffer on 5/14/2009 8:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the Customers do not KNOW about AMD or INTEL. Why Intel had so much success with there TRUE MEGAHURTZ campaign? Because 80% of the customers are stupid (not as general, but they do not have CPU knowledge).

Why they changed their naming scheme away from CPU now, because Netbursts Megahurtz was hurting for the Core Family.

Intel made more profit in a year than AMD's total sales together... They had plenty of money to spent to shut out AMD even, when AMD was better.

I am happy that at least the EU is doing something to protect us.


RE: Great CPU from a shady company
By zsdersw on 5/15/2009 8:22:42 AM , Rating: 2
How is it Intel's fault most of their customers do not know anything about either Intel or AMD's products? And, more importantly, why is it the government's responsibility to protect citizens from their own stupidity? Are you a socialist/communist or something?

Intel can advertise however it chooses, but it's up to the consumer to either be stupid and fall for it or do their homework and make better buying decisions. This is not the Dark Ages; information is insanely easy to acquire ... if one bothers to look for it. Or do you live in a country where the government decides what you can watch, read, and listen to?

quote:
I am happy that at least the EU is doing something to protect us.


How about protecting yourself a little? Vote with your wallet; it's the strongest weapon consumers have.. and it's something all companies, big and small, are afraid of and concerned about.


RE: Great CPU from a shady company
By Amiga500 on 5/16/2009 6:10:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why Intel had so much success with there TRUE MEGAHURTZ campaign? Because 80% of the customers are stupid (not as general, but they do not have CPU knowledge).


Sooo true.

A friend is thinking of getting a new computer, he has an old P4 @ 2.8 GHz... and he said "the new processors seem to be no quicker than what I've got".

Where do you start eh? :-)


US Lawsuit
By EglsFly on 5/13/2009 11:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't AMD file suit against Intel many years ago about this same thing? What ever happened to the US lawsuit???




RE: US Lawsuit
By Gaston345 on 5/13/2009 11:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not really sure, but wasn't that settled out of court?


RE: US Lawsuit
By Laffer on 5/14/2009 3:21:52 AM , Rating: 2
No, Bush became president... and everything which would hurt large american companies was settled or at least put into deep sleep...

Bush liked the idea of BIG AMERICAN companies. It is easy to implement secred BACKDOORS into all IT devices worldwide if there are only 2 worldwide suppliers INTEL and MICRO$OFT.


RE: US Lawsuit
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: US Lawsuit
By kenji4life on 5/14/2009 11:55:41 AM , Rating: 2
That's funny because when he said this it made me remember reading about using "unique" numbers, or serial numbers embedded into the CPU that could make a computer identifiable. The resulting controversy ended in Intel deciding to ship the CPUs with the function disabled.

http://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/sDefin...

http://www.cdt.org/privacy/issues/pentium3/

There's two sources.

Guess the conspiracy theories aren't always just theories. Hell it's already been proven that the NSA spies on us illegally every day.


Hide your face in shame, criminal!
By lco45 on 5/14/2009 12:00:01 AM , Rating: 2
Funny how small time criminals always cover their faces sitting in the back seat of the police car.

This guy runs a company who did something so bad the fine was over a billion dollars and he's standing there arguing about it with a straight face.

Luke




RE: Hide your face in shame, criminal!
By knutjb on 5/14/2009 1:30:16 AM , Rating: 1
Agree, it could change if the CEO went to jail and had to pay fines from his own pocket.

Just think of all the AMD share holders he screwed...


By MadMan007 on 5/14/2009 2:29:19 AM , Rating: 3
You really ought to check facts before posting whatever you think is true. AMD stock price increased about 20% from Jan 2000 to Jan 2007. In addition there was a rather nice runup from 2003 to 2007 (along with the rest of the stock market, but AMD outperformed the S&P 500 for that timeframe.) The stock price ran out of steam before the rest of the market in late spring/early summer of 2006...gee what CPU did Intel launch at that time?


By Laffer on 5/14/2009 3:24:46 AM , Rating: 2
I FULLY AGREE WITH YOU. He knows what he did, but still denying it...


It can't be helped...
By Zshazz on 5/13/2009 3:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
that Intel is being run by stupid anti-competitive leaders.

Guys, how difficult is it to get away with this crap... really. Hire me for $1 million a year, and you'll get better ideas like this one:

INSTEAD OF:
quote:
Oh, here's $1 million in rebates for not carrying our competitors products in your $10 million inventory


You do:
quote:
Oh, with every $9 million in purchases, you get $1 million in free products to fill your $10 million inventory.


See the difference? One is anti-trust because you're explicitly blocking your competitor, and you're idiotically specifically calling yourself out on it. The other actually looks like what you're trying to claim now. It's too late for this now, of course, but better luck next time, Intel!




RE: It can't be helped...
By BansheeX on 5/13/2009 4:39:58 PM , Rating: 1
And yet, they are fundamentally the same thing. The fact is, distributors have to weigh the gain offered by Intel with the losses incurred by deferring the sale of a competing product to another distributor. If AMD's product was remarkably better than Intel's, the loss may exceed the exclusivity payoff from Intel.

Intel cannot avoid this dynamic, and they do not have unlimited funds to supplant a competitive product with bribes. The larger the performance disparity, the more Intel would have to pay, and no private company has unlimited funds. Not seeing the problem here.


RE: It can't be helped...
By Frallan on 5/14/2009 3:01:45 AM , Rating: 2
That would have been ok and Im sure that intel did that as well.

What Intel did as well was to say:
- Btw if you happens to take on some of our competitors product we will not suply you with the top of the line super duper thingy we have.

And to other firms

- Ohhh that is a nice shiny new product you are developing there but we would like our thingy in there instead of our competitors. Ohh yeah it doesnt work - well then take these 10 millions to recoup your costs and drop that development


I hope on appeal Intel gets what they deserve...
By Beenthere on 5/13/2009 6:49:02 PM , Rating: 1
...and that would be a $500 BILLION fine.

Anyone confused about anti-trust law and the countless violations by Intel and Microsucks, should do their homework. These unscrupulous vultures have been convicted on mulitple continents for their crimes. These CEOs belong in prison for their massive crimes against society, IMO. Until Bill Gates goes to prison for 20 years and is personally fined $100 Billion, justice will be denied.




By rs1 on 5/13/2009 7:09:18 PM , Rating: 4
You sure have a funny way of spelling "Steve Jobs".


Intel Fine
By ahock on 5/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: Intel Fine
By knutjb on 5/14/2009 1:18:21 AM , Rating: 3
You must be blind. 1.4B for Intel to take out their primary competition is really cheap. Intel was using mob tactics by forcing vendors to use their product only or risk a "parts supply problem". Look at the LCD price fixing and memory price fixing. Who do you think pays for the "price fixing"? The end consumer ALWAYS pays and that would be you.


Good decision
By bernardl on 5/13/2009 7:37:59 PM , Rating: 3
My view is that:

- there is no doubt that Intel is providing us with valuable goods,
- it is pretty clear that they abused their dominant position and that people paid too much for what they got because of that,
- the goal of the high key decision of the EU commission is to define guidelines for what should be proper corporate behavious in near monopoly situations,
- the hope is that CFOs will apply the principle of precaution taking into account the possible cost of future law suits of the sort, and therefore pro-actively avoiding to put in place non compliant strategies in the first place.

The only question is why did the US governement not do it earlier.

Cheers,
Bernard




New Fee structure for AMD
By FXi on 5/14/2009 7:40:57 AM , Rating: 1
Hey AMD

'New' Fee to renew that X86 license...

1B Euro :)

Best regards,
Your friends at Intel




RE: New Fee structure for AMD
By PKmjolnir on 5/14/2009 10:00:21 AM , Rating: 2
Hey Intel

'New' Fee to renew that X86-64 license...

1B Euro :)

Best regards,
Your friends at AMD

Oops, didn't think that far did you? Didn't think at all perhaps?

Neither company is a supercentralized dictatorship, they license technologies to eachother to maximize their profits and also are both in and cooperates at various multicorporation projects. The problem is that some sections and departments doesn't mind shady practice, it's hardly the hardware engineers that run market simulations on how to achive the best lockout of the competitors.


The evidence
By crystal clear on 5/14/2009 9:09:32 AM , Rating: 2
Kroes: Intel Now "Sponsor of the European Taxpayer"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReBN51NY2-A&feature...




By jimbojimbo on 5/14/2009 3:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
Pick a huge corporation in another country and fine them billions of dollars. why not? It's basically extortion. Pay up or we won't let you sell any more here. This is rediculous.




The gluttony of free enterprise
By Kahnivorous on 5/16/2009 11:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
Strategically placing your product to fill certain market segments is simply not illegal. Nearly every tech corporation in existence does this. Even city councils "dictate" zoning laws that ensure money ends up in their pockets. The point here is that offering some sort of bonus or rebate is going on every where and everyone's pointing fingers in Intel's direction. AMD has similar dealings that worked in their favor and no one cried foul in the EU.

At some point, everyone has to understand that the better product is simply outselling the competition. If the same is going on again, then so be it. When it comes down to it, the EU just wants some of the success. And if they don't like this fact of reality, then perhaps they'd like to do without their processors.

Imagine the prices of Intel's processors. Also, they would only be left with AMD technology. Ironic that AMD would be the dominating processor company in the EU. There has to be competition everywhere lest thousands of corporations over seas can no longer do business with the U.S. If Intel pulls out, the EU would lose far more than 1.45B since they would lose access to our tech trade. Gluttony has cost the EU any credibility they may have had.




Simple solution
By DOSGuy on 5/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: Simple solution
By rdawise on 5/14/2009 12:57:25 AM , Rating: 3
So you think INtel should stop doing business in Europe?

Lets see it would probably go..

Intel - I am not paying. We wil no longer market/sll or tech to your country!
Europe - Okay, we will give our money to AMD/VIA so they can become bigger and supply or demand.
Intel - (with scared voice) Ha! I don't care if they get bigger....
Europe - You don't care if your competitors, who are competting with "lesser" tach, can now have the cash flow to have better tech?

Long story short, If Intel pulled out of Europe, they would be fools. You now open a door to your competitors for a new market to control, not share. Imagine if AMD controlled Europe. Intel would still share most of the US and Asia if Asia doesn't follow suit. The market picture would look like:
Intel: Share/Share
AMD: Control/Share/Share


RE: Simple solution
By DOSGuy on 5/14/2009 7:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
humor (plural humors)

1. Something funny, e.g. a joke, satire, or parody.


RE: Simple solution
By Amiga500 on 5/16/2009 6:17:32 AM , Rating: 1
LOL!!!

Good one!

*I assume your not being serious*


So what's next?
By MScrip on 5/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: So what's next?
By Karmena on 5/14/2009 6:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
this is what should have happened in the first place. Now you can choose - use system from Vendor A or Vendor B, and you are requesting you can purchase whatever you like. At that time, if you went to DELL and said - give me PC with AMD CPU - you could not, even if that was fastest CPU around. Now, 9 years later, obvious choice is to go Intel - but in time it was not so, and Intel could sell inferior CPUs for inflated prices, and definitely hurt customers.

Also a side note - when large corporation chose PC platform to use, lets say, some huge bank, did they had a choice to choose, if they bought 1000 units - would they go some small supplier, that could be out of business in 3 years, or to big company like HP and DELL to supply them those units


RE: So what's next?
By zsdersw on 5/14/2009 8:46:21 AM , Rating: 2
It takes two to tango; one to sell and one to buy.

No one was forcing people to buy computers that they likely didn't need.. and consumer stupidity is not Intel's problem, or the government's responsibility to mitigate.

Funny how nowadays.. when money and credit are tighter.. PC sales are down.. and back then, when the economy was doing pretty well (relatively), PC sales were strong(er).


RE: So what's next?
By rbuszka on 5/14/2009 1:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
"or the government's responsibility to mitigate"

Are you suggesting the ideal situation is one in which the consumer is left without an advocate? Is it realistic to expect consumers at every level to acquire engineering-level knowledge of the products they buy before they buy them?


RE: So what's next?
By zsdersw on 5/15/2009 8:15:55 AM , Rating: 2
Most of the people who bought AMD's chips (and who still do) do not possess "engineering-level" knowledge. They read the reviews and came to the logical conclusion; AMD had the better chips (at the time).

The average consumer, through either apathy or ignorance, chose overwhelmingly to buy computers with Intel chips inside.

This apathy and/or ignorance is not the fault of Intel or the government's responsibility to prevent.


RE: So what's next?
By alphadog on 5/15/2009 1:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
Computers break. They need to be replaced. Not every purchased computer is a discretionary choice.


RE: So what's next?
By zsdersw on 5/15/2009 2:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, but no one forced them to buy Intel instead of AMD.

If an AMD-based computer wasn't available in the timeframe required (or desired), the consumer would have to decide whether waiting is more costly or painful than going with an Intel-based computer.

These are all part of a standard decision-making process that any consumer should be using.


RE: So what's next?
By Amiga500 on 5/16/2009 6:02:44 AM , Rating: 2
Typically businesses will have contracts with set suppliers, such as HP, Fujitsu or Dell. These contracts will be negotiated at a high level within the customer company. The purchasing is then done by people without the power to change the contract, but forced to use the specified suppliers.

Been there, seen it, got the t-shirt. Its crap.


RE: So what's next?
By zsdersw on 5/16/2009 9:33:42 AM , Rating: 2
That's a matter of picking the right supplier; a supplier that has the desired or required hardware diversity. Vendor selection is a consumer responsibility.


RE: So what's next?
By Amiga500 on 5/16/2009 12:15:52 PM , Rating: 2
Read my post again.

Those making the purchases have little to no influence on the supplier as they are down the line, the "chain-of-command" so to speak, and do not have any influence in the contract decisions or negotiations.

Do you think OEMs are not above producing "favours" to the contract negotiators to get their name on the sheet?


RE: So what's next?
By zsdersw on 5/16/2009 2:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
Read mine again. I said that vendor selection is a consumer responsibility; whomever makes those decisions in an organization is responsible for choosing the right vendor.

Stupidity at the top of the "chain of command" you're referring to is not Intel's fault.


The EU thieves are the problem
By Smokey48 on 5/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: The EU thieves are the problem
By Laffer on 5/14/2009 8:48:37 PM , Rating: 3
Now I am getting very angry. Stupid americans, never learn anything, just to proud of themselves.

Why an american company? Why are only american companies charged? So easy, because for the american capitalism money is EVERYTHING.

Microsoft the Vole, Intel the Chipzilla, Monsanto the upcoming giant, Google (?), after a while many of the big american companies turn into evil. And they get support from the government like G.W. Bush.

Remember the RAMBUS case, or Caldera aka SCO? Ring ring, Iraq war?

I am glad that at LEAST the EU tries to limit those companies. It is not because the company is american or european, it is because of the behavior. Interestingly mainly american companies behave like this. Trying to grow and protect themselves not only by good products, but also by illegal practices.


RE: The EU thieves are the problem
By Laffer on 5/15/2009 2:45:42 AM , Rating: 2
You know what Monsano is doing? If you buy gen-manipulated seeds from Monsano, you can not use the seeds from the grown plants for your next year, no, this is forbidden. You must buy again. And soon they will surely manipulate the plants, that the seed will not work, to protect their business....


RE: The EU thieves are the problem
By hyvonen on 5/16/2009 10:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's for your own protection. Who knows what kind of giant mutant hogweeds they would turn into...


RE: The EU thieves are the problem
By Amiga500 on 5/16/2009 6:06:36 AM , Rating: 1
When have they ever fined an EU company a billion euros?

How many companies have they fined a billion euros?

To reverse the attitude... perhaps if some of your blue-eyed Yankee companies had a bit more in the way of morals there wouldn't be an issue.

Oh, and if you think they fine only American companies... they have fined such United States icons like Air France in the past.


I'm split on this one.
By Spivonious on 5/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm split on this one.
By kusala on 5/13/2009 3:53:21 PM , Rating: 5
They are hurt by less sales for AMD. The more sales and closer they are to Intel the better the pricing and the need for each to outdo the other. When Intel does this it hampers AMD sales to innovate as they have less cash.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By Alexstarfire on 5/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm split on this one.
By insurgent on 5/13/2009 6:10:57 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah right, Walmart is bribing customers to keep out of mom-n-pop stores. The allegation is that Intel is trying to keep AMD out of the market through illegal means. The case only makes little sense if you're stupid or biased.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By derwin on 5/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm split on this one.
By Danish1 on 5/14/2009 12:40:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thats a rather ignorant claim, as I bet you couldn't cite one violation Intel was actually accused of by the EU.


quote:
AMD filed its first complaint with the European Commission in 2000.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By derwin on 5/14/2009 10:54:25 PM , Rating: 2
Nice one! The date is not the citation.

And I like my -1 rating even DESPITE the fact that noone still has mentioned one!

Keep on bashing and rate this one down too.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By GTVic on 5/14/2009 12:47:53 AM , Rating: 5
When one company with money to burn, throws money away to artificially destroy another company's market, that is an abuse of the free market system.

Letting such a company hide behind the letter of the law or simply saying that the customer was not hurt is ignorant . Whether or not the EU has a specific violation to point to is irrelevant .

No system can function without some type of control unless we can count on everyone to act ethically. Anyone who claims that all is fair in a free market system, has his head up his rear.

The overall harm is obvious. If Intel controls the market they are not required to innovate, they can simply design products that are just good enough to sell and bad enough that the customer will have to upgrade on a frequent basis.

If the American auto industry was as successful as Intel at this type of thing, many North Americans would be driving rusted out 2003 Dodge Caravans. Thanks to the competition from the Japanese, we have the option to buy a vehicle that doesn't start to rust as it is driven off the lot.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By derwin on 5/14/2009 11:10:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Letting such a company hide behind the letter of the law ... is ignorant


Is there really anything more to be said? You have made the point quite precisely. If they didnt break the law, why are they being fined?

I am no expert on the issue here, but neither are any of you, so stop assuming you understand what is being done and let the lawyers figure it out, because nobody here understands most of the US Anti-trust laws not to mention the ones under EU jurisdiction!

Ah, bah humbug, I've come this far, may as well cement in my 3rd -1 rating...

quote:
No system can function without some type of control unless we can count on everyone to act ethically.

This is entierly incorrect. The system of laws we develope are created ASSUMING EVERYONE will NOT act ethically. If we assumed everyone would act ethically, there would be no laws!

you make some nice points however...
quote:
The overall harm is obvious

Thats a good start...
quote:
If Intel controls the market they are not required to innovate

hmmm.. getting warmer...
quote:
they can simply design products that are just good enough to sell and bad enough that the customer will have to upgrade on a frequent basis.

And I think we have it folks!
So you seem to be assuming intel will act somewhat according to the theories by which you have made your own argument? I.E. that if there is no opposition, there is no reason for intelligence or drive to innnovate?
But you, my friend, are incorrect on almost your entierity of points!
1) Intel continues to innovate in this current envornment (Larabee anyone?)
2) The products are not "bad." How are they bad? Are they breaking on you? OR is intel innovating SO much that you feel complled to purchase their latest offerings anyway? hmmm....
and 3) The harm is obvious? a) what harm? and b) what is obvious about it?

quote:
If the American auto industry was as successful as Intel at this type of thing, many North Americans would be driving rusted out 2003 Dodge Caravans.

This is good. You demonstrait improvisation! However, I have a microprocessor purchased from the Intel corporation in 2003... and it is not rusted out, it is not broken, and infact, still works perfectly as intended.
quote:
Thanks to the competition from the Japanese, we have the option to buy a vehicle that doesn't start to rust as it is driven off the lot.

You finish this off with a nice little anti-american punch. The failings of the american auto industry were not in quality of their vehicles. The gas milage was a sore spot, but that was in part due to what was the greater cause, which was a lack of awareness of the markets. They thought everyone wanted muscle cars and trucks, so they built them. The muscle cars and trucks they built were some of the best darn muscle cars and trucks in the world, but they were not what people wanted.
So you might have had an argument to that point, but you really just dropped the ball all over the field here man... it is actually kind of disappointing to watch you blunder that whole point up... and then get a 5 rating? Wow, I am doomed to a -1! Sigh....

And with that, I will bid you adiue.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By Frallan on 5/14/2009 2:47:03 AM , Rating: 4
A: We dont have to know the evidence we have to trust that the investigators knows it
B: MediaMarkt, Dell, Asus, Lenovo from the top of my head was subjected to unlawfull practices. The target was AMD.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By vignyan on 5/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm split on this one.
By Regected on 5/13/2009 11:15:21 PM , Rating: 3
Walmart enters a market and very often demands tax breaks and other concessions from the local government. When these run out, they pack up and move the store to another district not to far away. In the past 20 years, my local Walmart has done this three times, with the last move being less than a quarter mile, but still a different city line.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By AmazighQ on 5/13/2009 3:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
your talking only about price but there is also something called performance/price ratio and at a curtain point AMD was ass wiping Intel in that ratio but it still stayed small

where it hurt its that you pay xx price for a CPU from vendor A that its unable to function properly in today software but you could have at the same time buy a CPU from vendor B for less price and will still work today
with vendor A CPU you need to buy new one
with vedor B CPU you can still use it a bit longer


RE: I'm split on this one.
By Alexstarfire on 5/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: I'm split on this one.
By Frallan on 5/14/2009 2:50:24 AM , Rating: 2
Well that is where this case comes in. Vendor A did through bribes and blackmail force the companies retailing the goods to only sell products from Vendor A thereby not only crippeling the growth of Vendor A but also hurting the end customer.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By Oregonian2 on 5/14/2009 2:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
I'm confused, offering lower unit prices to customers as they buy higher volume is a bribe or a blackmail?


RE: I'm split on this one.
By Frallan on 5/14/2009 3:06:42 AM , Rating: 5
Nope but saying

If you do buy from our competitor you will not be allowed to buy from us is.

Even that would be allowed in a marketplace where the customer has many producers to choose from but in this case it was in a market where only 2 viable producers existed and the one who said so held 90% of the market.

The market, the market position and the practice of hardhanding the customers makes it illegal.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By zsdersw on 5/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: I'm split on this one.
By zsdersw on 5/17/2009 10:23:31 AM , Rating: 1
Since the truth was down-rated, I'll repost it:

Intel doesn't have to sell anything to anyone. It owns what it has for sale until someone purchases it. As such, it can decide who it does or does not want to sell it to and for how much.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By Helbore on 5/13/2009 5:50:39 PM , Rating: 1
The EU has little to do with helping the consumer or even the average citizen. Its all about political blustering by a bunch of politicians with more power and money than worth.

Heck, if the EU was a business, it would be subject to the biggest antitrust lawsuit in history. Its nothing more than an overpowered, non-democratic monster that's run amok.

Its a dangerous beast that (as an EU citizen) scares the hell out of me.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By BZDTemp on 5/14/2009 4:04:33 AM , Rating: 4
I strongly disagree. The EU has power but without power the big companies would be calling the shots.

And as for comparing the EU to a business that is just stupid. No business is democratically elected.

Don't be scared - use your vote and your voice to influence the politicians. The EU is a democratic organization.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By Helbore on 5/14/2009 8:12:42 AM , Rating: 1
The EU isn't a government of a country, though. I have my say in the deomcratic election of my own country's government, but what can I do about the EU? Vote for a couple of MEPs to sit in their parliament.

Its not like the voters have any say in the make-up of the EU parliament. Its not a government, after all. Its, for all intents and purposes, a mini-UN - with representatives from member states. But it has the powers of a government, enacting laws that need to be adhered to in member states.

Its nothing more than a giant bullyl, with no competition. Name the the political parties that oppose each other in EU elections. That's right, there aren't any. There's jsut the political stance of the MEPs we elect, but they're little more than ambassadors.

Look at it like this, no matter how hard I vote, all I can do is choose the UK representatives in the EU. I cannot help to sway the political influence within the parliament, even if I got every other British citizen behind me. So, essentially, our votes have zero impact in the makeup of the parliament.

That's all well and good when electing an ambassadorial representative, but its a joke when said parliament starts enacting laws and making decisions for my country.

That's why I compared the EU to a company that would be on anti-trust violations; they have so much weight to throw around and no competition. At least in my own country, there are multiple political parties to vote for. When it comes to the EU - in terms of my power to affect it - my vote is practically useless.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By rs1 on 5/13/2009 6:46:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The purpose of the anti-trust laws, at least in the US, are to protect the consumer. I really don't see where the consumer was hurt in this case.


I think the line of reasoning goes something like "Intel's anti-competitive practices have hurt AMD, and if allowed to continue may even drive AMD out of business, and if AMD is forced out of business, then the consumer will be hurt". So the ruling is designed to stop Intel's shady business practices before they can do further damage to AMD (not that AMD hasn't been doing enough damage to itself recently), because if they sit around and wait until AMD is dead and consumers are being directly affected, then it's a little too late to fix things, isn't it?

The fact that no consumers were harmed by Intel is less important than the fact that they might easily be harmed by Intel in the future if Intel were allowed to continue with its push against AMD. In fact, a larger company trying to force out a smaller one by doing things like selling its product at below cost will almost always result in a short-term win for the consumer. But such practices are still illegal, due to the potential for a longer-term loss that they create down the road if larger companies are allowed to muscle smaller ones out of business.

That aside, does anyone know what happens to the $1.45 billion, assuming that Intel loses its appeal? Does any of it go to AMD? They could certainly use a bit of a cash infusion at this point to retire some of that debt that they're drowning in.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By Oregonian2 on 5/14/2009 3:01:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That aside, does anyone know what happens to the $1.45 billion, assuming that Intel loses its appeal? Does any of it go to AMD?


Of course, with AMD now being fabless and not actually manufacturing CPU's this may be an even tricker question.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By Frallan on 5/14/2009 3:12:29 AM , Rating: 3
Short answer No.

However if the appeal fails and the fine is upheld EU has paid for the investigation and Intal has been found guilty. At that point AMD will sue for damages and since they dont have to prove that intel is guilty (allredy done) the only thing that remains to argue about is how much Intel needs to cough up. This is where the real mone will roll. The 1.45 billion$ is only the appetizer in a 4 course meal if this happens. In the end not only AMD but also Dell and other firms will want a bit of the pie.

Id say it probably wipe Intels profits out between the years 2000 and 2008.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By Amiga500 on 5/16/2009 6:14:51 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The fact that no consumers were harmed by Intel


Eh?

Where do you get that idea from?

I was 'harmed' by Intel as through specified contracts I had to get a Dell... which meant a piece of shit Prescott instead of a K8 skt 939 - which could subsequently have been upgraded to an x2 down the line. Would have been quite useful for my work.

No doubt there are countless examples of the same. People forced into using poor performing equipment due to Intel's sales practices.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By TSS on 5/13/2009 6:51:04 PM , Rating: 5
"characterized by constant innovation, improved product performance and lower prices. There has been absolutely zero harm to consumers."

netburst anybody?

now northwood was ok but can we forget presc(h)ot)? or much worse still, the plutonium D? anybody who got a pentium D got screwed over bigtime, and i belive dell was still only selling intel at that time. now why would that be?

if AMD had been bigger in that period of time they would NEVER have tried to pull that off. also maybe a bigger AMD = more research funds = maybe they wouldn't have dropped the ball on phenom.

however these are all just maybe's. probably's at best. but still good enough for a billion euro's.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By Pirks on 5/14/2009 1:13:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
CPU prices have dropped significantly in the past 5-10 years
Imagine how much more they would have dropped had Intel not used its dirty anticompetitive practices.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By Laffer on 5/14/2009 2:48:43 AM , Rating: 4
Remember when the first Athlon came out? Asus and others shipped their motherboards in WHITE BOXES! Why did this happen?

Why did it take HP and other SO INCREDIBLY LONG to ship the Barcelona OPTERON Servers with SHANGHAI Processors even they were widely available??? (Shanghai uses exactly SAME socket etc. as Barcelona)

Did the NETBURST P4 not hit the customer? How long they were able to sell this crap even at high prices, even when Athlon 64 was available and much better?

AMD was able to catch ONLY 10% more marketshare in 3 years, where the P4 was absolutely crap.

Without they anticompetitive behavior, AMD would have taken 50% of the market, having also enough money for further development and creating more competition. But Intel got them STUCK...

Have you ever seen an AMD Server advertisement from HP or DELL? Why NOT?


RE: I'm split on this one.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/14/2009 7:32:55 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Did the NETBURST P4 not hit the customer? How long they were able to sell this crap even at high prices, even when Athlon 64 was available and much better?

While the P4 didn't scale as well as Intel had originally hoped, it did go from 1GHz to 3.6GHz. Your also discounting Intel's marketing team, which during the P3 and P4 era did an outstanding job with the Intel jingle, and the blue man group. I can't remember seeing any AMD commercials at the time.

quote:
AMD was able to catch ONLY 10% more marketshare in 3 years, where the P4 was absolutely crap.

An interesting fact for you is that AMD was actually hurt by itself more than Intel in this regard. At it's peak during the A64 era AMD was selling processors as fast as they could create them. They have no additional fab capacity and thus were unable to push more chips into the market to increase their market share. Intel on the other hand has a massive fab capacity and didn't suffer from the inability to provide more chips to OEM's and channel partners. It would have taken AMD 3-5 years to bring a new fab online, with it being closer to 5 once you factor in site location and zoning permits.

quote:
Without they anticompetitive behavior, AMD would have taken 50% of the market, having also enough money for further development and creating more competition. But Intel got them STUCK...

See my comment to your previous accusation.

quote:
Have you ever seen an AMD Server advertisement from HP or DELL? Why NOT?

Simple. Because Intel shares the cost of the advertisements or funds them outright to market their products. AMD has never EVER had a credible marketing presence. If I were AMD I would fire my marketing department or firm and bring in someone who doesn't suck. When was the last time you saw an AMD commercial from AMD? Now when was the last time you saw one from Intel? My point exactly.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By zsdersw on 5/14/2009 8:30:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
An interesting fact for you is that AMD was actually hurt by itself more than Intel in this regard. At it's peak during the A64 era AMD was selling processors as fast as they could create them. They have no additional fab capacity and thus were unable to push more chips into the market to increase their market share. Intel on the other hand has a massive fab capacity and didn't suffer from the inability to provide more chips to OEM's and channel partners. It would have taken AMD 3-5 years to bring a new fab online, with it being closer to 5 once you factor in site location and zoning permits.


Tellingly, no one else who has responded to this story seems to remember this little factoid.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By TSS on 5/14/2009 8:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
oh no we remember it. just think even further back.

netburst was just the sum of all the dirty practices before it. because they had been so successfull they thought they could get away with it. AMD proved they couldn't, but indeed lacked the capacity to fill the void. by the time they could, intel had already initiated the backup plan, the pentium M, what would later become the core 2 duo.

now, *why* would amd have no extra capacity at that time? would they have had it if they became bigger in previous years?

i own a pentium 3, 600 mhz, the "coppermine" cpu. when i got it, i was 13 years old. me and my dad visited several shops to find the best deal. i learned that AMD existed on the web about a year later. if the shops would've had AMD computers (and intel was *everywhere*) i might have reconsidered. and this is exactly what this whole arguement is all about.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By zsdersw on 5/15/2009 8:29:33 AM , Rating: 2
AMD chose to abandon a deal with UMC that would've added capacity.

Dirty practices? Hmm.. unless I'm missing something, it takes two to make a practice dirty; one to try it and another to fall for it. Consumers could've educated themselves about who had the better processor, but chose not to or didn't care. That's not Intel's fault.

If consumers made smarter buying decisions and voted with their wallets, Intel would've changed a lot of things.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By Laffer on 5/14/2009 8:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
Interestingly I have contacts directly to AMD in Germany, because I work with them closely on HPC and GP-GPU topics and they always denied that capacity was limiting them. There may have been peeks like for Intel too, but never a general issue, where they could not produce enough CPU to satisfy the market.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By swizeus on 5/14/2009 5:52:18 AM , Rating: 2
AFAIK, the processor price (intel's) began to drop ever since AMD filed antitrust lawsuit against intel


RE: I'm split on this one.
By paslocal1 on 5/14/2009 11:57:38 AM , Rating: 2
forget Intel vs amd...

I wanna know why I can't go to any food chain restaurant and pick from EITHER Pepsi or Coke...??

It's always ONE or the OTHER.. like, what the freak? THats a scam against the consumer.. Some restaurants have better food, but it sucks I can't pick the cola I WANT!!!!


RE: I'm split on this one.
By Laffer on 5/14/2009 8:18:14 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong answer, it is the same kind of blocking the other... Why can you have different sorts of wine in the very same restaurant?

Because there are not only 1 or 2 BIG producers which own the whole market.


RE: I'm split on this one.
By zsdersw on 5/15/2009 8:33:02 AM , Rating: 2
Go to restaurants that offer both. If none offer both, vote with your wallet and don't go to any of them. If they want your business they'll offer you what you want. If they don't want your business, screw 'em.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki