backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 62 comment(s) - last by JackPack.. on Mar 2 at 2:02 PM
Skype's decision to release Intel-only features on its newest software refresh may have been a poor idea

Last month we wrote a small piece about the upcoming Skype 2.0 features that are only enabled for Intel processors.  AMD is hoping to add another spear to its ranks by demanding Skype documents that prove or disprove Intel provided incentives to Skype for this favor.  Intel denies the allegations. 

A Skype executive declined to comment earlier this month when asked whether the company had tested the performance of its software on both Intel's and AMD's dual-core chips. An Intel representative confirmed that there are no instructions that specifically enhance the performance of voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) software like Skype's in Intel's dual-core chips.

This is not the first time this year for an AMD-Intel legal battle.  AMD has been building anti-trust cases against Intel in Japan, the US and Korea for over a year, claiming that Intel leverages its buyers and distributors to not carry AMD products.  Of course, AMD's 21.4% marketshare is looking pretty good to the company right now, monopoly or not. 


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
gg
By rqle on 3/1/2006 5:27:47 AM , Rating: 3
does this mean ati and nvidia can bully game developers/publisher to do the same thing. kinda getting annoy with only nvidia or ati "optimization" that both brand of hardware can easily supports. i can see amd intentions, but i always thought it was up to the software developer decision to do what they like with their own software, i mean isnt it "their rights" to do so? even though it can be pretty lame.




RE: gg
By smitty3268 on 3/1/2006 5:43:04 AM , Rating: 3
I think the point is that it is really a limitation Skype has created for AMD chips. The optimization would work for both Intel and AMD without change, but Skype decided for some reason to make it work for Intel only.

Plus, Skype isn't the one getting in trouble here, AMD is trying to prove that Intel is doing something wrong. The equivalent graphic card situation would be if ATI allegedly payed Valve to halve the performance of HL2 on NVIDIA cards by simply not displaying every other frame rendered. And if ATI had 80% of the market share and was being accused of being a monopolist.


RE: gg
By Bull Dog on 3/1/2006 5:44:04 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
does this mean ati and nvidia can bully game developers/publisher to do the same thing. kinda getting annoy with only nvidia or ati "optimization" that both brand of hardware can easily supports.

This a completely different matter becuase neither company has a monopoly over the other.

quote:
I can see amd intentions, but I always thought it was up to the software developer decision to do what they like with their own software, I mean isnt it "their rights" to do so? even though it can be pretty lame.


If Intel pays Skype $$$ to make it so that the software only has added functionality on Intel hardware with Intel claiming that only their CD Proc's are powerful enough, I can provide a whole barge load of benchs to disprove that.

This leaves us one other reason; the monopoly known as Intel flexes its muscles to bully AMD just becuase it can. Thats what AMD is sueing Intel over; monopolstic behavior.

If two company's are roughly even with each other then dirtier tactics are "allowed" basically because both companies do the same thing with roughly the same effectiveness. Competition is encouraged.

However, if one company has definite monopoly in a certain field, it isn't allowed to use dirty tricks to keep its self that way.

Have I made my point?


RE: gg
By kelmon on 3/1/2006 7:11:12 AM , Rating: 2
Silly question, but if AMD has a 21% share of the processor market, can we strictly call Intel a monopoly any more? Looks like we are galloping towards a duopoly more than anything else at the moment...


RE: gg
By hans007 on 3/1/2006 7:38:03 AM , Rating: 3
seeing as intel doesn't actualy have a monopoly they probably should be able to partner with whoever they want.

i mean, so what if it is locked for intel. intel is spending their money on providing additional features for its customers.

if amd spends more money say adding 2mb of L2 cache to every chip they make, is that not also an additional feature? whether intel does it by adding a feature through a software partnership or through more hardware what is the difference?



RE: gg
By Burning Bridges on 3/1/2006 8:43:09 AM , Rating: 2
No.

Intel is NOT spending money on the consumer.

It is not paying for added features, instead it is paying for certain features to be DISABLED for AMD hardware.

Basically Intel is spending it's money trying to beat AMD, and because they can't seem to do it with faster CPUs they are paying programmers to cripple their software if it runs on an AMD CPU.

/rant.


RE: gg
By JackPack on 3/1/2006 1:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
paying for certain features to be DISABLED for AMD hardware


Let's get the facts straight here.

Intel never paid Skype - all they offered was engineering support to enhance the software for multithreading. In turn, they get exclusivity for a period. This is not much different from a patent. That's why it's not illegal.


RE: gg
By timmiser on 3/1/2006 8:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's why it's not illegal.


Apparently it is illegal or else AMD wouldn't be going thought the trouble of a lawsuit. It will be up to the courts to decide that.


RE: gg
By Lifted on 3/1/2006 8:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
AMD isn't suing Intel over this, they are simply adding more proof that they use their muscle whenever they feel they can to hurt AMD. As was said before, that is fine as long as you are not a monolpy. If you are a monopoly, you are not allowed to use your size to restrict competition, which is what this is probably doing. This is in and of itself is nothing, but in the grand scheme of things it points to a monopoly restricting competition.


RE: gg
By JackPack on 3/1/2006 9:58:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apparently it is illegal or else AMD wouldn't be going thought the trouble of a lawsuit.


Plenty of firms bring up a suit even though they are perfectly aware that there is no chance of winning. They do it either to simply make a statement or to tie up the little guy. That's what corporate lawyers do. Remember the RIAA suing the grandma?

I don't see AMD having a case. Intel did not pay Skype to make it Pentium exclusive. They simply helped designed the code for Skype. It's Intel's work. Why should AMD benefit from it?


RE: gg
By Lifted on 3/1/2006 11:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
AMD is just gathering information for their existing lawsuit. Who said anything about suing over this?


RE: gg
By Viditor on 3/1/2006 10:06:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
seeing as intel doesn't actualy have a monopoly

Actually they do...
It's a common misconception that "monopoly" (at least as it applies to anti-trust laws) means owning 100% of the market...it doesn't. In fact, the US government says that any company which has greater than 50% marketshare might be a monopoly, it all depends on the company's ability to construct "barriers to entry" by using their market position.


RE: gg
By JackPack on 3/1/2006 1:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
Legally, they've never been shown to be a monopolist.


RE: gg
By Questar on 3/1/2006 4:32:12 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong again dude.

Creating barriers to entry has nothing do to with being a monopoly. In that case I should sue both AMD and Intel becuase they have made the barriers for me to enter the x86 cpu market too high.

Monopolies are perfectly legal in the U.S. Using monopoly power to prevent another company from entering a market is illegal in the U.S.


RE: gg
By Lifted on 3/1/2006 8:47:08 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, he said

"barriers to entry" by using their market position .

Not "barriers to entry" becuase it's too expensive for you to build a fab.


RE: gg
By Viditor on 3/2/2006 1:50:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Creating barriers to entry has nothing do to with being a monopoly. In that case I should sue both AMD and Intel becuase they have made the barriers for me to enter the x86 cpu market too high

As Lifted points out, you are getting confused on terms...
The barrier of cost on a Fab is called (in legal terms) a "Natural Barrier to Entry", and it's not illegal as it's caused by the nature of the market and not a creation of the monopolist. Being a monopoly in and of itself is not illegal, but the rules of business practise are certainly different. For example, if AMD and Intel had equal marketshare, then none of AMD's accusations would be actionable. What's illegal is using your market dominance to keep smaller companies from competing equally.
quote:
Intel never paid Skype - all they offered was engineering support to enhance the software for multithreading. In turn, they get exclusivity for a period. This is not much different from a patent. That's why it's not illegal

There are several things wrong with this statement...
1. As anyone who has used a barter system can tell you, cash is not the only form payment there is. The value of engineering optimisations, writing code, testing the new chip design, etc... probably runs into the 10's of Million$.
2. Keep in mind that Skype is unchallenged in it's field. Unlike Vonage and the others, Skype is available internationally and their marketshare is many times larger than their nearest competitor. As it was Intel who initiated the deal (according to Intel's own spokesman), by paying Skype with Millions of $ in services to keep AMD out, they have broken the law rather transparently...frankly it was the stupidest move I have seen Intel make since the MTH disaster.
3. This is absolutely nothing like a patent...a patent is the creation of an idea or concept which may be licensed by anyone who pays. This is the purposeful restriction of a competitors product.
quote:
Legally, they've never been shown to be a monopolist

True...but of course the only reason for this is that the suit isn't in court yet. However, by any legal definition they certainly are. Intel's defense appears to be that the x86 CPU isn't a market, and that the court must judge any monopoly based on all semiconductors (memory, graphics, etc...). Because of the Microsoft precedents, this is almost certainly guaranteed to fail (during the MS trial, the court determined that x86 WAS a seperate market).
quote:
Intel can get away with saying that Skye is optimized to run on intel processors, it can't pay Skye to make them not run on AMD processors

Intel is the one who created those optimisations for Skype...that is both the payment and the illegal act...


monopoly, duopoly or competition?
By tygrus on 3/1/2006 7:33:03 PM , Rating: 3
It's a fine line.
* If Intel paid $$$ of incentive to exclude AMD then that would be monopolistic.
* If Nvidia paid to have a game only run on Nvidia then that would be monopolistic.
* If Intel provided their own engineers/code under a contract/license then it would be OK for Intel to say that their work (IP) can only be used with Intel CPU.
* If Intel prevents a feature (minus Intel IP) to work on AMD then that would be wrong.
* If Intel was able to stop them taking the same deal with AMD to assist then that would be wrong.
* If AMD could pay/assist Skype the same to add the feature for them using AMD IP and Skype IP (as in non-Intel IP) then they should and drop it out of the other claims.
* If the feature is 100% Skype IP then it should limit # conference call connection according to testing the users CPU/system to determine how many it can support (benchmark based, not CPUID based).

The problem is if Intel is using the profit and influence of it's past and present dominance to block/handicap competition even when the competitor may have a better product&price.

* There should be nothing stopping AMD to use Intel tactics to encourage OEM's to sell more AMD and less of Intel.
* There should be nothing stopping AMD to assist OEM's to produce better AMD systems at lower prices and more advertising (co-marketing).
* Intel has a lot more spare cash (even after ongoing Itanium losses) to heavily discount and promote products (their's and OEM's using Intel).
* AMD did manage >20% market share previously but was knocked around by it's own problems and Intel structured payments that severely punished anyone who had high sales (or from increasing sales) of AMD CPU's (even if their sales of Intel were not dropping).
* Current AMD action has scared Intel into being more cautious but the fine line is walked on by Intel. Since the AMD action, AMD sales have dramatically increased. It's also spooked some OEM's into allowing more AMD and resist Intel's propositions.
* AMD have increased ASP so it could be a fair duopoly/competion.
* It's not fair for Intel to have two varstly different effective prices for the same order mix/qty if the OEM/retailer is in the same region/market, same advertising but only difference is one os also selling AMD on the side.


RE: gg
By Samus on 3/1/2006 7:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
21% is pretty pathetic when you consider AMD's capable output (which nearly triple the demand for their chips, so they are technically running at 33% capacity across 3 fab's) and that they have made a debatably superior product to Intel's desktop/server chips for years.


RE: gg
By Lifted on 3/1/2006 8:50:36 PM , Rating: 3
AMD has one CPU fab in Dresden, one flash fab in Texas, and a second CPU fab in Dresden that is not even online yet. How again are they only running at 33% of capacity?


RE: gg
By moloko on 3/1/2006 10:45:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, if one company has definite monopoly in a certain field, it isn't allowed to use dirty tricks to keep its self that way.


That's a nice sentiment, but we've already seen that a monopolistic company in the software field can do whatever it wants, regardless of law. Even the U.S. Justice Dept. is scared of Microsoft.


RE: gg
By Jackyl on 3/1/2006 9:49:11 AM , Rating: 2
I certainly know that Nvidia pays for game developers to optimize for their cards. This has been going on for years. Nvidia also pays for development cost and advertising of some games. Remember Unreal Tournament 2003/2004? Plastered with Nvidia all over the place. Start the game, and you get a Nvidia ad that says "It plays better on Nvidia". I hate it. If I have an ATI card in my system, I sure don't want to see Nvidia ads, or ANY ads in a game.


RE: gg
By jamori on 3/1/2006 1:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
The difference with NVIDIA's 'best on NVIDIA' program is that they work with the developers to ensure that the game has been thoroughly tested on all [reasonably recent] NVIDIA hardware and that it works and plays well. It's like a certification stamp -- we guarantee that this software will run correctly on NVIDIA products.

This thing with Intel and Skype, though, is that rather than making sure that the Skype conference software runs well on Intel hardware, they are [allegedly] paying Skype to make sure that it doesn't run well on AMD hardware.

This would be more akin to Microsoft paying some motherboard manufacturer to make sure your system gets underclocked by 50% whenever you're running Linux.


RE: gg
By GoatMonkey on 3/1/2006 11:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
It seems like the software developer can write code that will only work with one specific machine configuration if they want to. It really limits their market though if you require that.

If Skype did accept incentives to develop for only 1 platform, I don't see a problem with that for Skype either. However, I do see AMD's problem with it. It should be perfectly legal for a company to offer incentives to use only their product, but not if it causes an anti-competitive or monopoly situation. It's a subjective judgement call that needs to go to court.



AMD should have a bigger marketshare than 21%
By 5150Joker on 3/1/2006 5:32:31 AM , Rating: 2
AMD should have a much bigger share than 21% right now given how good their chips are. Of course I'm sure they're limited by their production capability but I doubt they're still selling chips faster than they can make.




By Griswold on 3/1/2006 6:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
That is why AMD wants to drag Intel to court for anti-trust claims.

Plus, AMD's marketing still blows donkeynuts.


RE: AMD should have a bigger marketshare than 21%
By SunAngel on 3/1/2006 6:45:54 AM , Rating: 1
21% marketshare for AMD? Wow, I would have never guessed Intel would have let that happen. Goes to show you, again, I am the last to learn of anything.

Are AMD processors that good? A decade ago they were used in low-grade machines. I'm having a hard time believing media hype. I feel the same way with the iPod. I just can't image people are spending as much as $500US on an mp3 player.

Hardware costs to music costs, a decade ago, were Walkmans were as much as $50 and musical cassette tapes were $10, or 5:1. Today, they are $500 for iPod and $20 for cd. That is 25:1. No matter how much I read in the news you can not make me believe these things are being bought.


By 5150Joker on 3/1/2006 6:51:06 AM , Rating: 2
ipods are bought only because it's trendy, not because they're that much better than alternative much cheaper mp3 players. To answer your question, yes AMD chips really are that much better than current Intel chips, especially their dual core solutions.


By Mudvillager on 3/1/2006 6:56:34 AM , Rating: 1
imo you're wrong. i've bought the three latest generations of the "real" ipod and the reason is most certainly not because i wanna feel trendy. all other mp3 players that i've tried has a ui that simply cannot compare with the ipod's ui.

however i second your amd statement :)


RE: AMD should have a bigger marketshare than 21%
By Zoomer on 3/1/2006 8:36:07 AM , Rating: 1
Who cares about UI, if it works, that's enough. :p

Features would be like better DACs, better battery life, etc.


RE: AMD should have a bigger marketshare than 21%
By jamori on 3/1/2006 1:48:03 PM , Rating: 2
Offtopic, but I absolutely loathe the iPod UI / music management. I already have all my music organized by folder -- I don't want to have to go through and create a 'playlist' for each folder if I want to easily find all my music by X artist. Just let me drag-and-drop my folders of music, and play one folder at a time like many other players do.

I only have an iPod because I got one free during that whole 'freeipods' craze :)


By michael2k on 3/1/2006 2:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you need to create playlists, if you already have them sorted?

On an iPod you need only navigate Music->Artist and you have all the songs by each artist.

The strength of the music management, which you aren't taking advantage of, is that iTunes will by default organize your music (by album, artist, and genre), exactly the same way that your OS manages your harddrive.

You don't go out of your way to organize inodes, sectors, tracks, and file fragments, right? You let the OS handle it.

Another strength you don't seem to want to take advantage of is Smart Playlists, in which all it takes to create a playlist of X artist is to create a rule in a filter "music by Artist X".

And a weakness you do want to take advantage of is to manually manage your music. In this day and age you want to go through all your folders, one by one, and drag and drop, instead of letting iTunes autosync (whether it be by playlist, artist, genre, album, playcount, or rating, since you get to decide).

For example if by playlist you can do the following:
All songs in the following two playlists:
All songs unrated
All songs rated 3 or higher


By Zoomer on 3/2/2006 3:12:27 AM , Rating: 2
The only problem is that they try to pollute music folders with some files.


RE: AMD should have a bigger marketshare than 21%
By Bonrock on 3/1/2006 12:34:32 PM , Rating: 3
You're right. A decade ago, AMD processors were used only in low-grade machines. Hell, even five or six years ago, AMD systems did not offer the kind of reliability and flawless operation that Intel systems did (largely because of the crappy chipsets available for AMD processors).

I used to quietly root for AMD because they were the underdog, but I knew Intel was better in every measurable way except price. Well, times have changed. AMD's Athlon 64 and Opteron processors are outstanding, and their dual-core processors can't be touched by Intel's. Intel is still ahead in the laptop market, but AMD rules the desktop -- not just on price, but performance too. If you're skeptical, I strongly suggest you check out some benchmarks yourself.

There's a big difference between the "media hype" around AMD and the media hype around the iPod. The media has long been favorable towards Apple's products, so I can understand your skepticism there. However, bear in mind that until relatively recently, the media (especially the hardcore tech mags like Maximum PC) had a tendency to be quite punishing towards AMD. I don't think there's any hype there.


By michael2k on 3/1/2006 7:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
How long ago was it that Apple bore similar dislike?

When they were perpetually beleaguered, insolvent, and ridiculed for being the other computer manufacturer?

The rise of Apple, recently, is that unlike AMD, with both being the underdog that made an incredible turnaround.


By michael2k on 3/1/2006 6:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
Regarding the iPod:
If you have, say, 400 CDs that you bought, worth roughly $10 each, that's $4k of music.

You can think of an iPod as an archive and backup; you lose the iPod, or damage the iPod, and your collection is still safe. Unlike a folder of burned CDs, you also have the capability of carrying an iPod in your pocket.

So if you compare the value of a Walkman:Tape as 5:1, the value of your entire collection to an iPod is 1:8; in that light, it's actually worth much more than a Walkman, don't you think? That was the original value proposition of the 5 gb iPods in 2001; now you can get 4gb Nanos for $249, much cheaper and smaller and cooler, and instead of a 1:8 value, it is 1:16.


Companies...
By creathir on 3/1/2006 10:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
If a company wishes to limit its customer base like this, let them! Think of resturants that only offer no smoking sections. They are catering to just a certain portion of the market. (The one that hates the smell of smoke while eating)

Should all of the smokers demand to know if the no smoking organizations encouraged this move? Maybe even paid the resturant off?
Who really cares?
If Skype wishes to choose whom they want to do business with, let them make that choice. AMD is being quite unresonable here in my opinion. Skype is not a PC manufacture, they do not sell CPUs or machines that use those CPUs. I do not see how this could possibly be "uncompetitive practices" on the part of Intel. (Mind you, I am no "fan boy", I have an Athlon 64 CPU)

I personally see this as AMD badgering companies that choose to use Intel products.

- Creathir




RE: Companies...
By Spinne on 3/1/2006 11:12:10 AM , Rating: 2
It's not the same thing, because if you let this pass, then you'll start seeing other software that run only on Intel CPUs. As the number of such titles increases, more and more people will be dissuaded from buying AMD simply for compatibility reasons, killing AMD and all other competitors to Intel forever.
In any case, AMD has lisenced the x86 architecture from Intel, so for Intel to then offer incentives to companies to purposely make their software incompatible with AMD's processors is just plain wrong.
I for one am not going to consider Skype's services in the future.


RE: Companies...
By SunAngel on 3/1/2006 11:22:14 AM , Rating: 2
You currently had the same issue with Intel and Power PC processors. However, software campanies had the choice to develop for both platforms. Skype has the choice to develop for AMD platforms. Yet, if the contract between Skype and Intel prevents that, anti-trust issue my be relevant. However, Intel should have the right to purchase research and development from Skype for exclusive services. This just everyday business. AMD does have the option of going to others such as Vonage and have exclusive contracts also.


RE: Companies...
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 11:38:51 AM , Rating: 2
> "for Intel to then offer incentives to companies to purposely make their software incompatible with AMD's processors is just plain wrong."

But Intel hasn't done this, and not even AMD's lead counsel is claiming incentives were definitely offered.

> "I for one am not going to consider Skype's services in the future."

Wow, with no proof or real evidence...based on one news story alone, which I suspect you didn't even read completely? Remind me not to vote for you for judge.



RE: Companies...
By Viditor on 3/1/2006 1:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But Intel hasn't done this, and not even AMD's lead counsel is claiming incentives were definitely offered

Well, no...incentives were certainly given, they just may not have been cash incentives. When you "donate" time and money to optimise code specifically for Skype, that would certainly be an incentive.
quote:
AMD does have the option of going to others such as Vonage and have exclusive contracts also

It's tough to see it from the US, but Skype really has no competitor at all. Vonage is exclusively in North America and the UK, while Skype is truly international. Also, Skype's marketshare is several orders of magnitude higher than the nearest competitor.
quote:
Is Intel's 80% enough of a monopolistic percentage to effectly create harm to AMD

Without question...even Anand has indicated this in his blog (with several examples of it that he had seen in the marketplace). A good example is when AMD was beginning their Opteron launch with HP as a partner. They gave HP millions of CPUs for a startup and to help offset the penalties Intel was going to impose. Just before the launch, Intel threatened HP and they left those CPUs in the crates at their warehouse. Imagine what would have happened to HP's business if Intel started to delay shipments of parts all of a sudden...! They would have been out of business in 6 months. The head of HP said in a meeting that month that they were cancelling the AMD launch because "Intel has a gun to my head".

By writing code for Skype that ends up restricting the overwhelming leader in the field to Intel processors, Intel has created another barrier to entry for AMD.

What amazes me is how Intel's management could have been so stupid as to actually do this AFTER the suit was filed! Otellini just lost a couple of notches IMHO...


RE: Companies...
By fxyefx on 3/1/2006 11:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
AMD isn’t concerned with Skype’s ability to choose portions of the market, but whether or not this particular choice was swayed by incentives offered by Intel - incentives that are possible through Intel’s greater market presence ( illegal incentives. ) What other possible reasons could there be for Skype to exclude ~20% of the market?


RE: Companies...
By SunAngel on 3/1/2006 11:53:46 AM , Rating: 3
You made a solid response ... "why would Skype exclude 20% of the market?" That is one reason why I can not see this as being an anti-trust issue (but I may be wrong though). Is Intel's 80% enough of a monopolistic percentage to effectly create harm to AMD. Some would say 20% is enough to influence the market, maybe not change the market but nevertheless influence it. If Intel was to effective sew-up Vonage and the others from developing for AMD and as a result AMD's marketshare never improved or declined and at the same time the Sony/IBM "Cell" was to swipe marketshare from both Intel, AMD, Via and the others you have to conclude AMD is not competing effectively. But it doesnt seem to me AMD is doing a bad job. Over a decade they went from 0 marketshare to 20+%. Intel's mission should be to contain the damage and repair. AMD's job is to continue to bust the market wide open. So, in other words, both are doing excellent jobs in their respect endeavors. New companies will be the ones claim anti-trust because they can't enter the market. However, we all know the Sony/IBM venture will not have such issue. :)


RE: Companies...
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 12:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
But it doesnt seem to me AMD is doing a bad job. Over a decade they went from 0 marketshare to 20+%

Err, not true. When AMD released the K7, their market share briefly hit 23%. They're still not back up to that level yet.


RE: Companies...
By Griswold on 3/1/2006 1:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
Rofl. What an example. How would you think about it if this chain of restaurants was one of two sources for food on this planet, holding 80% of the market share? And lets twist it a bit, they only want smokers in their restaurants - dont smoke? Dont eat.

You need to come up with a better analogy to impress anyone.


Another AMD publicity stunt
By DallasTexas on 3/1/2006 7:22:25 AM , Rating: 1
You gotta give the crappy (oops, I meant scrappy) semiconductor company credit. They certainly will seize every opportunity to plaster their name and litigation with Intel on the press.

This is just the juicy fodder that the press likes to feed the scandel hungry public for entertainment purposes. At the same time, AMD benefits by having their name circulated - and most importantly, being compared to Intel.

Kudo's to AMD's new marketing push!




RE: Another AMD publicity stunt
By Zoomer on 3/1/2006 8:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, this is an excellent idea. Unfortunate, but brilliant.

Free advertising, capitalising on today's media.


RE: Another AMD publicity stunt
By Burning Bridges on 3/1/2006 8:44:57 AM , Rating: 2
ewwwwwww, do I smell a fanboy? ;)


RE: Another AMD publicity stunt
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 12:56:55 PM , Rating: 3
Fanboy or no, he's correct. Its an excellent marketing move on AMD's part...even if it did take their legal team to pull it off.


RE: Another AMD publicity stunt
By JackPack on 3/1/2006 10:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
LOL.

Lots of simple minds on DailyTech today.

Did it ever occur to you that it might backfire on AMD? If they don't win, and these claims don't go through, what do you think industry professionals will say about AMD? About their corporate culture?


Listen and learn
By DallasTexas on 3/2/2006 7:25:32 AM , Rating: 1
Here is a bit you can walk away with if can't afford business school - THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BAD PUBLICITY!


RE: Listen and learn
By Burning Bridges on 3/2/2006 1:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You gotta give the crappy (oops, I meant scrappy) semiconductor company credit. They certainly will seize every opportunity to plaster their name and litigation with Intel on the press.


This is bad puplicity for you!!

BTW do you work for Intel, or would you like to explain why you refer to AMD as "crappy"? I can't afford buisness school, so you will really have to spell it out to me :)

idiot.


RE: Listen and learn
By JackPack on 3/2/2006 2:02:28 PM , Rating: 2
Is that what you learned in some brain-dead classroom somewhere?

This isn't a simple one-sentence case study. AMD is taking a risk with their antitrust complaint. Skype adds more to their offensive strategy. But if it turns out to be misinformation and baseless claims, the perpetrator often suffers a severe loss of credibility.


RE: Another AMD publicity stunt
By mircea on 3/1/2006 1:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
Comone how many people will really be struck by this news. Where in the media do you see this. It's all in the same circles that already know how Intel and AMD compare right now. Maybe some mags will have a 1/4 page coment about the AMD push and someone out of the know will sudenly find out that the media he knows (TV, stores) are lying to him.

AMD having 21 % is huge considering the fight Intel put on the OEM side and the poor (lack) of AMD showing on comercial spots anywhere.


By SunAngel on 3/1/2006 10:12:02 AM , Rating: 1
Its as if AMD is crying foul because Intel and Skype have an exclusive contract. Contracts rule the corporate world. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is sold or bought without a contract. For a paying a premium to Skype for exclusivity of its services is wrong, I think that is equivalent to the former contract of Michael Jordan and Nike. Can anyone recall another sport star promoting Nike products at the same time M.J. was ruling the basketball courts? Yet, M.J. never had any legal issues from other players claiming M.J.'s contract with Nike prevented them from contracting with Nike. I believe Nike was only interested in M.J., thus deciding only to use his image and name on their product and no one else. So, I see the same issue here. Skype is to blame if there is any blaming. But, its Skypes product. If Skype want to restrict its revenue base only to Intel that's their perrogative.




By Viditor on 3/1/2006 10:33:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its as if AMD is crying foul because Intel and Skype have an exclusive contract

It's not, actually...
Nike actually DID have other sports stars promoting at the same time as MJ (hundreds of them in fact), they just didn't make many TV commercials of them...
But that's not really the point. According to the anti-trust laws, a company that controls the market (like Intel or Microsoft) is not allowed to use it's market dominance as a means to prevent smaller companies from competing.
In this case, Intel gave Skype a lot of software development time in exchange for exclusivity. AMD is unable to do the same because Skype would be crazy to exclude processors that are found in almost 80% of the market...
If both AMD and Intel had roughly equivalent marketshare, then these types of contracts would be absolute fair game.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 11:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
> "In this case, Intel gave Skype a lot of software development time in exchange for exclusivity."

Not according to either Intel or Skype. Only AMD is making the claim.


By Viditor on 3/1/2006 12:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not according to either Intel or Skype. Only AMD is making the claim

Actually, Intel is saying it too...
"Intel approached Skype with its plan to optimise code on its chips for Skype's software so users would have a good experience while trying to host a multiperson conference call, Crooke said"
http://cnet.com.au/software/internet/0,39029524,40...


By kalaap on 3/1/2006 11:37:53 AM , Rating: 2
Tiger Woods


By tjr508 on 3/1/2006 12:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
David Robinson =p


a
By Yaos on 3/1/2006 10:24:01 AM , Rating: 2
The bridge building games (BridgeIT I think) only work with Nvidia cards.




Monopoly
By coomar on 3/1/2006 2:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
A monopoly requires barriers to entrance for compeititors (which clearly exist for coprocessors) and large enough market share.

Industries which are dominated by a single firm may allow the firm to act as a near-monopoly or "de facto monopoly", a practice known in economics as monopolistic competition. Common historical examples arguably include corporations such as Microsoft and Standard Oil (Standard's market share of refining was 64% in competition with over 100 other refiners at the time of the trial that resulted in the government-forced breakup). Practices which these entities may be accused of include dumping products below cost to harm competitors, creating tying arrangements between their products, and other practices regulated under antitrust law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Intel can get away with saying that Skye is optimized to run on intel processors, it can't pay Skye to make them not run on AMD processors




"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki