backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by Dactyl.. on Aug 7 at 2:44 AM

An AMD-commissioned report claims Intel's practices hurt the industry on a massive scale

According to a recent AMD-commissioned study by research firm ERS Group, Intel gained approximately $80 billion USD in monopoly profits over the course of 11 years since 1996. ERS Group director Dr. Michael A. Williams, said that while gaining billions in profits is normal for a company of Intel's size, Intel gained an extra $60 billion by using anticompetitive business practices. Essentially, Dr. Williams' report claims that Intel overcharged for microprocessors and other related products.

Intel has been in a legal situation with the European Union for the last several years, being a prime target for antitrust investigations. Just recently, Intel disputed the EU's claims that its business practices negatively impacted the market and consumer spending. Intel claimed that many if not all complaints were directly from AMD and not customers at all. True enough, most of the complaints filed to the EU have been by AMD and companies that received subpoenas from AMD to release information.

"We are confident that the microprocessor market segment is functioning normally and that Intel's conduct has been lawful, pro-competitive, and beneficial to consumers," said Intel senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell in a statement.

According Dr. Williams' report, Intel collected roughly $141.8 billion USD in profits from 1996 to 2006. The report subtracted normal competitive profits as well as economic profits and something called "assumed advantage profits" of 5%, leaving Intel with $60 billion in monopolistic profits. Despite assumptions using what the report called "standard economic methodologies," it is impossible to determine exactly just how much extra profit Intel gained from a monopoly.

"To be conservative, the study next provided Intel with a generous assumption that 5 percentage points ($28 billion) of its economic return were attributable to legitimate advantages. That left the $60 billion monopoly profit figure," indicated the report.

Assumptions aside, Intel has done very well over the last several years. Its price structure however has not changed drastically -- flagship processors always carry a big premium while lower models always give the better value. Intel's halo processors typically carry a price tag of roughly $1,000 at retail; Intel value processors occasionally fill a sub-$60 price point.

An area outside of the legal system where AMD constantly competes with Intel is in prices. Over the last two years, the price war between AMD and Intel has been nothing less than beneficial to the consumer. AMD recently cut prices on its multi-core processors, giving another shot in the arm to Intel. In this back and forth price cutting, AMD essentially reduces its potential profits. Intel traditionally competes by using heavy marketing campaigns that run on a global scale, but AMD's marketing strategy heavily focuses on the U.S. market -- a small percentage of the overall global market.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Is it just me...
By Ringold on 8/5/2007 8:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
If that is all that the standard has to be, "dominant power" in the EU, then every small town resteraunt owner should sue McDonalds for having crushing local dominant pricing power.

My take on the above report:

quote:
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


A fine example of using an economist and statistics (and we all know what statistics are) to make an eye-popping claim, a propaganda tactic to make a huge claim and then hope that a smaller one that previously wouldn't of been accepted will be when compared to the previous massive claim.

And even if Intel has been a naughty boy, we should just be thankful AMD survived because at this point it'd do more harm to the processor market breaking up Intel in to multiple CPU firms (if it would even be possible) or sticking them with a huge fine (which would be passed on to customers in higher prices / lower performance sooner or later). Would those actions satisfy government lackey's that get a thrill out of sticking it to big, evil American companies? Yep. The rest of us though would just suffer.


RE: Is it just me...
By Targon on 8/6/2007 7:45:48 AM , Rating: 4
The difference is that you don't see McDonalds selling their products to restaurant chains so they are the majority of the supply chain. It's not just about being in a dominant position, it is being in a dominant position and then preventing people from going to the competition. In this example, it would be like McDonalds forcing restaurants to buy their beef from them, and if they dared to buy from somewhere else, supplies "might be delayed" to the point where the restaurants are afraid to buy from a third party.

That is the anti-competitive sorts of behavior Intel has been accused of doing, where there was a threat, or an encouragement not to buy from the competition, at risk of retaliation.

Now, AMD is not claiming that they should have gotten all of the "monopoly money" the report claims that Intel has gotten, but shows a motive for Intel to keep their monopoly position. $60 billion is a LOT of money, and if you figure that $20 billion has been gotten as a result of unfair business practices over the years that should have gone to their competitors, that's grounds for a fair amount of it to go to Intel's largest competitor if AMD wins the lawsuits.

A lot of elements are not intended to show that AMD should get all the money, but instead just add fuel to the fire when it comes to the legal battle. No matter how impartial judges may be, if there is continued news that shows that Intel has been accused of improper business practices around the world, it WILL add to a pattern of what Intel business practices are.

I do remember when Asus released their first K7 Slot A motherboards that the product was sent out in a plain white box with no fancy packaging of any kind(unlike their Intel motherboards). The general feel, based on comments posted from all over, is that Asus was afraid of losing supplies of chipsets if they hyped their AMD based motherboards as much as they hyped their Intel based motherboards. The K7M was an AMD chipset based board as I recall, one of the first from a big name in the industry to support the AMD Athlon. It was NOT common to find a motherboard to support the new AMD chips in those days. Keep in mind that before the Athlon, AMD processors would work in the same motherboards as an Intel processor since the socket type was the same. This meant that motherboard manufacturers did not need to worry about supporting chips from both manufacturers.


RE: Is it just me...
By MonkeyPaw on 8/6/2007 7:58:48 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
If that is all that the standard has to be, "dominant power" in the EU, then every small town resteraunt owner should sue McDonalds for having crushing local dominant pricing power.


This analogy is quite terrible. Unlike Micky-D's, Intel's customers aren't the end user, it's the OEM that sells the machine to the consumer (when was the last time you bought a CPU directly from Intel?). Because Intel supplies critical components to OEMs, they have significant bargaining power. From the claims I've read, Intel has used this leverage to convince OEMs to sell less AMD products, sell no AMD products, or delay the sale of AMD products. Intel can do this because AMD cannot supply enough CPUs for entire OEM orders (Intel can).

This lawsuit happy world that we live in has people questioning the validity of every lawsuit. However, if AMD's, The EU's, Japan's, and Korea's claims (all have filed against Intel) are true, and Intel's anti-trust activities have significantly hurt AMD's opportunity to make revenue, then the consumer loses.

quote:
or sticking them with a huge fine (which would be passed on to customers in higher prices / lower performance sooner or later).


Where have you been? If AMD wasn't pricing aggressively, how much do you think you'd be paying for a Core2? Notice how this time, when AMD's product is not competative, Intel's prices are lower than the last time this happened (P4)? Since the lawsuits, we've seen better prices from Intel. Heck, we've even seen Dell start selling AMD products. Coincidence?


RE: Is it just me...
By Oregonian2 on 8/6/2007 1:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because Intel supplies critical components to OEMs, they have significant bargaining power. From the claims I've read, Intel has used this leverage to convince OEMs to sell less AMD products, sell no AMD products, or delay the sale of AMD products. Intel can do this because AMD cannot supply enough CPUs for entire OEM orders (Intel can).


Looking from this high-level, isn't a company SUPPOSED to try and get their products purchased rather than that of the competitor? Wasn't AMD trying to get their products used instead of Intel's, and doing so by any legal method they could muster? There may be problems in the methods used, but the goal of selling your company's products to customers rather than having the competition's being bought by those customers seems to be a proper and honorable goal.

quote:
Where have you been? If AMD wasn't pricing aggressively, how much do you think you'd be paying for a Core2? Notice how this time, when AMD's product is not competative, Intel's prices are lower than the last time this happened (P4)? Since the lawsuits, we've seen better prices from Intel. Heck, we've even seen Dell start selling AMD products. Coincidence?


Also note that Intel changed "administrations" a few years ago, that may have had an influence as well.


"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














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