Intel Fined $1.45 Billion by EU in Antitrust Case (Update1) - Bloomberg.com
The folks at AMD must be looking awful smug right now.
The folks at AMD must be looking awful smug right now.
CPU/Mobo Intel fined $1.45 Billion by EU in Antitrust Case
- Thread starter Vulc4n
- Start date
- Status
See this not going to help AMD. What intel did was make itself a household name in terms of computer 5 years back by restricting AMD to enter the market.
$1.4 billion means nothing .. they have already generated $100 billion because of those deals with computer manufacturers
$1.4 billion means nothing .. they have already generated $100 billion because of those deals with computer manufacturers
muzux2 said:^ and an evil aswell. Nice time for AMD to grab more market share..
Regardless, Companies like AMD even survived till this day because they managed to steal/reverse engineer Intellectual property from Intel, modify and use it for their own products. If not for Intel, AMD would probably be non-existent now or at best making small complexity RAM/ROM chips or micro controllers like so many other chip manufacturers form the 60's and 70's that did not manage to make anything big.
Someone told me that its American mentality to always cheer and side with the underdog, but I find that mentality everywhere. :hap5: People tend to call the top dog evil and what not regardless of the contributions they made and then go on to cheer the underdog. The same kind of stuff happens to MS too.
vishalrao said:
My post was in response to muzux2 calling Intel evil.
As for the anti-trust/anti-monopoly laws, don't you think they are all designed to prevent monopoly. Its not just about unethical business practices. There are a number of business practices followed out by all these companies which can be termed as unethical. Yet, its basically the top dog companies like MS or Intel that are mostly made to face the brunt end of these laws. Its because companies like these can get into a monopoly situation. If one of the underdogs uses similar practices, no one gives a damn.
Some time back, MS was punished for bundling Internet Explorer/Media Player etc on the basis that its a unfair practice targeted againist reducing the market share of the then commercial Netscape Navigator. The logic was that if MS is including a free browser, people wouldn't have to buy one from Netscape and that would result in reduced sales for Netscape. Yet when a company like Apple bundles a lot of crap with the OS, its great and people even put it down as a positive point for Mac OS that its bundling so much stuff. For that matter Apple has a lot of business and marketing practices that border on the unethical line. Yet Apple gets away with it because its still considered small fry compared to some top dogs despite its recent business success. Even Apple will get pounded if its one day considered as a top dog and that's probably started happening.
I am not saying that this is all unfair to the top dogs, but these laws are just a means to ensure that the top dogs cannot use their resources to get into a monopolistic situation either through fair or unfair means. Keeping some competitors around in the market is always good for the end users, but sometimes it also acts in the opposite manner.
btw, Intel has been called unfair/sued on several counts just for the huge crime of reducing the prices on their processors in a manner that that their competitors (AMD) could not match. Whose fault is it if the competitors cannot keep up with their prices? Can you imagine, Intel cannot reduce the prices on their processors even if they can just because AMD cannot give competing processors at similar prices. Its the same way that even small businesses in your town/city works. Try opening a small shop and giving way stuff for half rate. You will not be able to because the other businessmen will gang up on you and trash you. Even at such a small scale, they have their owns means for regulating the competition.
@ nice sentiments lord nemesis, but just the way it is a reality that AMD lags behind Intel in certain areas (marketing and fabs are prime example) it is also proven that Intel pursued monopolistic policies and unethical business practices.
Technology wise, it could be true that in earlier days AMD reverse engineered Intel technology but they did it because there was a legal framework allowing them to do so. it wasn't illegal. But when Athlon was going strong and Intel had no answer to it, the Chipchilla simply tied up big OEMs via incentives and other favours to stop AMD at bay. It is not the marketing that has made Intel a household name or just pure performance but the fact that all tier one system integrators have played the ball with it and discriminated against AMD.
Monopoly laws are there for certain reason and while it is true that companies work their way around with legal frameworks often, if you are guilty you are out to cough up the fines.
Technology wise, it could be true that in earlier days AMD reverse engineered Intel technology but they did it because there was a legal framework allowing them to do so. it wasn't illegal. But when Athlon was going strong and Intel had no answer to it, the Chipchilla simply tied up big OEMs via incentives and other favours to stop AMD at bay. It is not the marketing that has made Intel a household name or just pure performance but the fact that all tier one system integrators have played the ball with it and discriminated against AMD.
Monopoly laws are there for certain reason and while it is true that companies work their way around with legal frameworks often, if you are guilty you are out to cough up the fines.
Its funny really.No OEM's complained about it (more profit),consumers sure dont complain (lower prices),its AMD that complained about morals,ironic really if you look at history..
Dont get me wrong,Since public dont get to know about business practices,there should be a reason for it.
Dont get me wrong,Since public dont get to know about business practices,there should be a reason for it.
Intel used these practices during the timeframe when AMD had a technologically superior product, and it knew it will take some time before they can come out with a new design. The 20% market share you are seeing for AMD now would have been much higher if AMD would have won top OEM deals like Dell, or HP back then.
More deals would have meant more revenue, would have meant higher spend on R&D, which would translate in more competition.
Although right now I strongly suspect why AMD is in existence yet, its making massive losses since a long time, the economy is not helping either and surely the Saudi princes have better avenues to put their "oil money".
More deals would have meant more revenue, would have meant higher spend on R&D, which would translate in more competition.
Although right now I strongly suspect why AMD is in existence yet, its making massive losses since a long time, the economy is not helping either and surely the Saudi princes have better avenues to put their "oil money".
:clap:Aces170 said:
Yep! More deals lead to Economy of Scale (Early Break Even point) more revenue, more money, R&D and most importantly unethical practices.
A profit generating company can easily reduce its product prices because relative decrease in price leads to more increase demand thus, more profit. In case of AMD (a not so profitable company) doesn't has this option; if they reduce product prices their demand doesn't increase relatively higher than decreased price, so they generate losses.
So, fine is justified (And Eu should give this amount to AMD so that they can square up their losses
hyeah: )
morgoth said:
Now what we term as unethical is a matter of perspective. Do you believe AMD or any other company does not use similar tactics?
You are saying that OEM's favored Intel because they were offering lower prices. Now with the dire situation AMD is in, if they strike a deal with OEM's to offer their CPU's GPU's and Mobo Chipset's for lower prices and all the OEM's favor AMD, would it have been alright? Is that not unfair to Intel? I guess even the law would turn a blind eye because Intel would still be a larger company than AMD and Intel's losses wouldn't be that substantial that it would be out the market altogether.
When AMD had the superior products (Athlon 64+ and Athlon X2) they were insanely priced. After Intel re-gained its lead with the Core 2 series, AMD cut down the prices on the X2's so such they captured the entire low end market segment to themselves in way that Intel could not match. Yet when Intel wanted to reduced the prices on their own line in a way that AMD cannot match, they were sued and called unfair. Wouldn't you term that unfair to Intel?
The way I see it, these laws are just a means to ensure that the underdogs do not get trampled and stay in the market by whatever means. Any business tactic that results in severe losses to the underdogs is considered unfair regardless of the ethics of the practice. Many of these practices are considered unfair only when the top dog uses them
Thats not what the case is, Intel threatened to pull back its entire business if the OEM's dealt with AMD. There was a huge case study on the same, search on google and you will get a gist, AMD has sued Intel:
1. Intel threatened to cut businesses with certain OEM, if they dealt with AMD (I think the case against Toshiba was proved to the same.)
2. Intel allegedly gave monetary assistance to certain OEM's to help sell end products (read bribes) I dont know whats the status of that is.
3. OEM specific pricing, which turned out Intel gave better pricing to OEM's who did not deal with AMD.
And in the end, its not an underdog support in this case, its purely fair business policies here. Mind you Intel has stopped all these pratices with the introduction of C2D, indicating they were clearly stalling for time, and did not want to lose any market share to AMD in the process.
@Nemesis : You are right in a sense but take it this way.. Making competition tight by offering VFM product is different thing ! while bribing and giving rebate to only sell their products is totally unethical...
Intel maybe the best but practising such activities is lame :| They are so good that they don't need to practice such activities.. They already have 80% market share and by doing such activities they are jus making mockery of themselves...
I was shocked to read that they even bribed the biggest computer store in Germany not to sel AMD processor :} Seesh how lame one can get in this crap business :|
Intel maybe the best but practising such activities is lame :| They are so good that they don't need to practice such activities.. They already have 80% market share and by doing such activities they are jus making mockery of themselves...
I was shocked to read that they even bribed the biggest computer store in Germany not to sel AMD processor :} Seesh how lame one can get in this crap business :|
OMG LOL thats a mighty PR assault by AMD against Intel 
I hope it doesn't backfire on AMD... meaning... Intel pay the fine, are forced to reduce prices... which means their products become even more value-for-money (performance-per-dollar) and more buyers move from AMD to Intel!
Oh the nightmare scenario...
I hope it doesn't backfire on AMD... meaning... Intel pay the fine, are forced to reduce prices... which means their products become even more value-for-money (performance-per-dollar) and more buyers move from AMD to Intel!
Oh the nightmare scenario...
- Status