backtop


Print 29 comment(s) - last by Filcka.. on Dec 4 at 12:17 PM

The U.S. DoJ probes graphics makers for antitrust violations

Both AMD and NVIDIA have received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division in connection with the DOJ’s investigation into potential antitrust violations related to graphics processors and cards. The root of the AMD subpoena is its recent acquisition of ATI Technologies last month, which was approved according to Canadian antitrust laws.

 

The DOJ has not made any specific allegations against AMD, ATI, or NVIDIA. Both AMD and NVIDIA said that they intend to cooperate with the DOJ in its investigations.

 

Together, AMD and NVIDIA hold just over half of the entire graphics market, each with about an equal share. Following the news, NVIDIA shares fell 3.6 percent on Nasdaq trade, while AMD shares fell 2.1 percent on the New York Stock Exchange.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Seriously?
By Sunrise089 on 12/1/2006 4:15:12 PM , Rating: 0
Your entire argument is infantile, but the last sentence stands out. Yes, lets all go back to the glorious days of Thomas Hobbes - a life nasty, brutish, and short, where a regression to a society like that of the pre-industrial revolution leaves no check on the power of government, so that we can all be treated as the property that under the style of government you seem to advocate we would effectively become.

Government is the threat, business is the counter-weight to that threat, and without an independent class of influential people outside government, you would quickly learn what life was like to those who lived during your dreamed of seventeenth century paradise. Ironically, anyone who did live back in those days would want nothing more than to be able to obtain the rights we hold today, ones you wish to piss away in a jealous rebellion mistakenly applied to those who contribute the most to society.

Simple math – The governments of Germany, Russia, and China killed 100+ million people last century. How many did the dangerous super-rich kill? I don't recall hearing of the Bill Gates Barbarossa plan, the Exxon gulags, or the Warren Buffet cultural revolution.

PS - The oil companies made a net profit of 10-20% last year, so tell me, how much could they have reduced their prices and even stayed in business? Would the ~$.40 you would save really have solved all the problems in your life?


RE: Seriously?
By duzytata on 12/1/2006 4:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually from 2003 to 2006 Oil Companies profits rose 52%, and that's not including the record breaking profits they posted through out 2006. So that extra $1.50 a gallon would have helped with a lot of problems in my life.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/2...


RE: Seriously?
By othercents on 12/1/2006 6:52:00 PM , Rating: 3
That link is Earnings Increase. While they earned more the price per barrel is also higher. The increase should be an equivalently percentage increase compared to the cost per barrel. Even though I believe that oil prices are high they can show the DOJ why their prices are high.

AMD/ATI and NVIDIA can not show why their prices are higher than Intel. This is probably why there is a probe into price fixing. However most technically savvy people understand that GPUs are more complex than CPUs and the high end GPUs should at least cost as much or more than high end CPUs.

Other


RE: Seriously?
By redbone75 on 12/2/2006 7:33:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
However most technically savvy people understand that GPUs are more complex than CPUs and the high end GPUs should at least cost as much or more than high end CPUs.


Maybe that's how AMD and Nvidia can show the government why their prices are so much higher than Intel's, because Intel doesn't make discrete graphics solutions. I mean, R&D costs money, doesn't it. However, being a consumer, I never felt that $600 for a graphics card was ever justified. If it were absolutely necessary for them to charge that much for a graphics card at initial launch, I would think that they wouldn't really be able to afford releasing a new product as often as they do, at least not until they recoup the costs of development, and I don't see that happening in what, 6 months?


RE: Seriously?
By Sunrise089 on 12/2/2006 1:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
How hard is it for people to try to understand numbers before making a post. If I sell a product for $11 and it costs me $5 to buy it and then $5 to do business (pay my employees, advertise, research new products for the future), my profit margin is 10%. If I raise my price to $12 the next year, that year my profits will have risin 100%. That does not meen I'm making a profit of 100% on the product. I'm actually making a profit of 20%, and that's basically all I can reduce my prices by and not operate at a loss.

Now, let's say I decide I'm going to set my price at a 10% margin on my actual total cost, rather than just deciding to add the dollar to two dollars or whatever. So when my cost is $10, as above, I charge $11. But now say my supplier raises her price to $15, and I still have my $5 additional cost, now I sell my product at $22, and once again show a 100% increase in profits, although I'm making the exact same on each dollar I myself spent. That's the situation the oil companies find themselves in.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki