Hot on the heels of an AMD antitrust lawsuit against Intel and a recent ruling in Japan that found that Intel abused its monopoly power, European Comission officials and competition authorities from several European countries raided the offices of Intel and several computer manufacturers. These “inspections” were probably carried out under article 81 of the EU Treaty, which prohibits price fixing and other distortions of competition within the EU.
Didn’t this happen like 3 weeks ago? Or am I missing something?
i think amd has
1- strong *factual* and *evidential* bases for the claim and
2- the claims can be successfully prosecuted in anti-trust laws.
hopefully we’ll see dell and toshiba and even APPLE offer amd cpu’s. hopefully with increase revenue and profitiability, amd can invest further in mobile department where its products are admittedly inferior to pentium m.
it is simply *lying* for dell not to offer amd opteron claiming ther’es no demand for x86-64 and turn around and offer itanium and emt64 units.
it is simply *lying* for dell not to offer amd opteron claiming ther’es no demand for x86-64 and turn around and offer itanium and emt64 units.
Most customers could probably care less what processor is in their boxes. What they do care about though is the price which will go up if Dell start using AMD processors and loose the discount intel provides their ‘100% intel’ customers.
Another reason not to go AMD would be that they even now have trouble meeting demand on their chips. Adding a huge client certainly wouldn’t help that situation.
“Most customers could probably care less what processor is in their boxes. What they do care about though is the price which will go up if Dell start using AMD processors and loose the discount intel provides their ‘100% intel’ customers.”
That is not a good argument. Discounts of this type usually end up as profits to a companies bottom line. Customers save money when there is a truly competitive environment. I bet Intel is willing to pay a lot in *discounts* to be able to controll market prices.
“Another reason not to go AMD would be that they even now have trouble meeting demand on their chips. Adding a huge client certainly wouldn’t help that situation.”
Not that I don’t believe you, but can you please provide us some references.
That is not a good argument. Discounts of this type usually end up as profits to a companies bottom line. Customers save money when there is a truly competitive environment.
Companies put the customer before profit ? Are you posting from the sixties ?
Not that I don’t believe you, but can you please provide us some references
Just a quick google becaus I’m pretty lazy; If you have the time you could come up with better references : :
http://www.allamd.com/news_archives.php/story/566
“There seems to be a shortage of Athlon 64 and FX-53 processors in Europe, China and Taiwan. Since AMD slashed prices on the high end processors, the demand on them seems rather high.”
http://www.allamd.com/news_archives.php/story/555
“ONCE AGAIN THE RUMOUR MILL is going wild with fanciful stories of AMD product shortages. This time, the rumours are not far off, there are huge AMD shortages, but no one has managed to nail down the reasons why.”
“Just a quick google becaus I’m pretty lazy; If you have the time you could come up with better references : :”
The links you posted are from Aug of last year. I have searched around and not found anything that looks credible that is newer then OCT04.
“Companies put the customer before profit ? Are you posting from the sixties ? ”
Not sure what you mean by that comment?
Your orig comment was that prices will go up for consumers if Dell does not get a discount from Intel, and my arguement is that, in the long run, prices will be lower for consumers in a truly competive market. Not one that is price controlled by Intel.
Not sure what you mean by that comment?
I think was he meant was just a more polite way of saying “are you on crack?”. This is what customers mean to Dell (and they arent the only ones like this):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/11/dell_customer_support/
The links you posted are from Aug of last year. I have searched around and not found anything that looks credible that is newer then OCT04.[i]
I don’t think CEO’s of internal corporations are as forgiving as you are. They tend to look at a company’s historic record.
I think the difference is mostly on new chips. Intel has a bigger capacity and bigger financial reserves, so it can start off with a bigger production and take a bigger risk on a new chip because thay can afford it.
[i]Your orig comment was that prices will go up for consumers if Dell does not get a discount from Intel, and my arguement is that, in the long run, prices will be lower for consumers in a truly competive market. Not one that is price controlled by Intel.
Economic theory is against you there. With 2 major players having control of nearly 100% of the processor market for pc-class systems this market is defined as a monopoly (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_ratio ) What we have here is a bid for more control by AMD, regardless of the outcome the chance it would benefit consumers is minimal. 2 players does not a competetive market make.
Also before I come off as some sort of Intel fanboy let me say I have owned Motorola,Cyrix,AMD and Powerpc based systems, not an Intel among them.
> hopefully we’ll see dell and toshiba
> and even APPLE offer amd cpu’s.
Why would Apple want to do that? Apple announced switching the processor architecture to Intel, solely because of a sort of hardware-supported digital restrictions management that only Intel can offer.
Software-implemented digital restrictions are simply not secure enough, it is still far too easy to use iTunes songs without Apple hardware. That’s why there will be MacIntels and IntelPods – because it’s easier to restrict consumers to Apple hardware with Intel inside.
Shouldn’t there be a link to an article in there somewhere or are we to believe this is first hand information by the submitter ?
Here are a few links.
http://news.com.com/EU+antitrust+officials+raid+Intel,+others/2100-…
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b891811a-f2c9-11d9-8094-00000e2511c8.html
Doh! Fixed.
Another reason not to go AMD would be that they even now have trouble meeting demand on their chips
Your full of crap … it’s nice to just pull things out of thin air. I am a System builder and use nothing but AMD – there is no shortage – that’s a blatant falsehood.
Who’s demands are they not meeting? – let’s see some proof other than the fact that you simply uttered the words.
“Another reason not to go AMD would be that they even now have trouble meeting demand on their chips. Adding a huge client certainly wouldn’t help that situation.”
The reason why only now AMD, have forward his motion, is because soon the new facilities wil become operacional, and now they could respond to the demand. I don’t predict short stock…
Even so, this is a warning to all enterprises, that uses tatics to control the market.
hopefully we’ll see dell and toshiba and even APPLE offer amd cpu’s
Call me a sceptic but I doubt this legal action will make a great deal of difference. The money involved is higher than any sanction any court would dare impose. Capitalism takes precedence over the law.
I seriously doubt intel would be giving these rebates if they thought it wouldnt make a great deal of difference.
Of course, as for Dell not using AMD chips…
While the Opterons may be every bit as reliable as Intel’s chips, AMD hasn’t built the reputation that Intel chips have.
I remember a certain video from Tom’s Hardware when the Palomino cores first came out. While running Quake 3, the heatsink/fan were removed from a P4, P3, Athlon Thunderbird, and the (at the time) new Palomino core. The T-Bird started smoking, the Palomino burst in to flames, Windows crashed on the P3, and the P4 simply slowed to about 3fps in Quake. When the fan was replaced, the P4 returned to normal speed. I know the Opterons have much better thermal control than the Palomino, but is it capable of saving itself in such a drastic emergency? This I’m not so sure about.
You do realize that movie is bullshit propaganda anyway? Fans do stop working at times, but how many times has it happened to you that the cooling block fell of?
Anyhow, athlons have had overheating protection for a loooong time now, and if you think a amd 64 runs hotter than a current intel, you are either seriously misinformed, or just plain trolling.
You do realize that movie is bullshit propaganda anyway? Fans do stop working at times, but how many times has it happened to you that the cooling block fell of?
I actually own an AthlonXP 1500+ which at one time had a faulty fan. If it suddenly stopped the system would grind to a halt between 5-25 seconds depending on what I was doing at the time. So the cooling block wouldn’t have to fall off (like in the movie.)
Temperature protection worked like a charm though, still use the cpu today.
You do realize that movie is bullshit propaganda anyway? Fans do stop working at times, but how many times has it happened to you that the cooling block fell of?
Actually, it’s happened to me once before while my system was running. The plastic tabs on the socket of yesteryear were lousy. The heatsink’s bracket broke them right off. Of course, that was a P200 MMX (coincedentally, the last Intel chip i’ve owned). I’ve had it happen a couple of times while installing a heatsink, also.
Anyhow, athlons have had overheating protection for a loooong time now, and if you think a amd 64 runs hotter than a current intel, you are either seriously misinformed, or just plain trolling.
Yes, I am well aware that my A64 runs cooler than my buddy’s P4. A fan failure in a 1U case is still bad.
I know the P4 will stay running (but slow), and I hope the A64 will, too. I just don’t know, though.
The point was, Intel’s had some nice reliability features for quite a time longer than AMD. When the Athlons were coming out, I heard some IT guys belittle AMD’s chips because of problems they had with the K5.
As for Apple using AMD, I don’t see that happening. Intel makes the processors and supporting chipsets. AMD makes theirs to get the platform started, but rely on the likes of nVidia and Via to keep that part of the platform modern.
I hope AMD loses, but they won’t because they have a strong case.
Why do I hope they lose? I’m sick of all this antitrust crap. No country (including America) can have these laws and still be called a “free country”.
So Intel resorted to some questionable tactics to make their processors appear faster than AMD’s… so what? It’s called business. While I’m not happy with their decision to do this, it’s none of any government’s business to step in like this. If consumers don’t like it, the market will take of it and Intel will stop. If people don’t care, Intel will keep doing it. If I want applications to run fast on my AMD processor, then I’ll boycott using Intel’s compiler and eventually it will hurt them. That’s how capitalism works.
I honestly see all this as communist/socialistic actions… not that the EU isn’t socialist anyway… but it makes me mad to see governments, including the US government, having anything to do with antitrust cases like this.
Well, all I can say is thank god you aren’t in charge. Wow, so what, the 3% of computer users that are geeks will boycott Intel’s processors, while the rest run out and buy them because of what they are doing to AMD (because of performance benefits). Most computer users will think it is AMD’s fault that the processors aren’t as fast. A totally free market does not work, just like a communist market doesn’t. I think the government needs to do more than it has been doing.
JPortal, You must own a monopoly? Monopoly owners are the only people who think like you.
Free markets need some regulation to keep them free.
sucks for intel
Most computer users will think it is AMD’s fault that the processors aren’t as fast.
If no one informs them. What if AMD had an advertising campaign to show people what Intel was doing?
And I really doubt that this antitrust case will change anything, unless AMD again gets out there and publicizes what Intel is doing.
JPortal,
You need to read more about the case. One of the root issues is that computer suppliers (hp, toshiba, sony, etc.) *do* want to use *AMD* processors. It is aledged that Intel is threating them by either: revoking their discounts, not suppling them chips. This would be fine if Intel didn’t control 90% of them market, but since they do the end result is that computer suppliers are *forced* to use *only* Intel chips. Nobody wins on this, but Intel. Not computer suppliers or consumers.
If no one informs them. What if AMD had an advertising campaign to show people what Intel was doing?
And I really doubt that this antitrust case will change anything, unless AMD again gets out there and publicizes what Intel is doing.
Ah yes, of course, just like everyone is running OS X or Linux today because of all of the publicized things from the US vs Microsoft case. Customers don’t give two shits about the ethics of a company (Well some do, most don’t), all they care about is price and performance. Nothing else. Doesn’t matter to them whether AMD’s processors are slow because of Intel’s compilers or because they are crappy processors…all that matters to them is that they are slow so therefore they won’t buy them. Do a little test, talk to 10 non-tech savvy people. Tell them about the price of a Dell w/Intel and an HP w/AMD, and then tell them about the details of this case. Then ask them which they would buy. Sorry to ruin your perfect perception of a Free Market Economy, but history has shown us that things don’t work the way you say they do.
JPortal, You must own a monopoly? Monopoly owners are the only people who think like you.
Free markets need some regulation to keep them free.
I own http://www.jportalhome.com. Doesn’t really look like I have a monopoly on much, does it?
I don’t like what Intel’s doing, nor do I like any of Microsoft’s services. Free markets do NOT need regulations to keep them free; that’s an oxymoron. Look at Switzerland and Singapore. Singapore especially – they used to have really strict laws and taxes and when they got rid of 99% of those, businesses profited like you wouldn’t believe and now they have a very strong market. And… get ready… consumers and businesses alike are still very happy.
AMD has survived so far without the government’s aid in bringing down Intel. This is how it works: you have better products and people think you do, you do better than competitors. If competitors resort to dirty tricks, you let people know and it tars their reputation. The system works.
“Look at Switzerland and Singapore.”
You got to be kidding me, you have no idea what you are talking about. Not only does Switzerland have their own antitrust laws, but they are also under the EU antitrust laws.
Singapore has had so many Antitrust problems that they have been enacting new antitrust laws to protect themselves. They are said to be as strict as the EU.
Also in 2005 Singapore created the “Competition Commission of Singapore”. Here is a quick quote of them
**Act will prohibit agreements between firms to fix prices, reduce the supply of goods, predatory pricing and mergers and acquisitions “which substantially lessen competition and have offsetting efficiencies.”**
http://www.ccs.gov.sg/
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/
[i]You need to read more about the case. One of the root issues is that computer suppliers (hp, toshiba, sony, etc.) *do* want to use *AMD* processors. It is aledged that Intel is threating them by either: revoking their discounts, not suppling them chips. This would be fine if Intel didn’t control 90% of them market, but since they do the end result is that computer suppliers are *forced* to use *only* Intel chips. Nobody wins on this, but Intel. Not computer suppliers or consumers.[i/]
If suppliers want to use AMD chips, why do they care if Intel refuses to supply them?
If suppliers want to use AMD chips, why do they care if Intel refuses to supply them?
They care because they also have customers that want intel chips. Personally I dont think intel should be allowed to dictate what people can and cant buy.
Blech… that was formatted terribly.
Adding on my previous statement, if Intel refuses to give enough companies processors, don’t you think Intel will eventually start to lose money?
I hope that the EU will disappear like the USSR did.
Dude, you are clueless. Do you know anything about american or world economic history? Do you know that laws regulating monopolies and trusts were created because it was observed that free markets could be destabilized and destroyed by the existence of unregulated monopolies. Your extreme idealism on this subject highlights your lack of knowledge and understanding of how a free market economy works.
Do you know anything about systems analysis? Capitalism and free markets are a fairly robust system. However there are conditions that when they arise they can cause these systems to destabilize and eventually collapse. A monopoly is just one of those conditions. This is not about idealism or capitalist ethics. It is just a practical reality that many non-ideal systems (capitalism and free market included) need some kind of maintenence that is sometimes less then elegant or ideal but required nonetheless.
Again, if you knew anything about your own heritage you would know that this lesson has already been learned the hard way. Unfortunately it seems like all lessons are quickly forgotten and the new wave of Bush loving red necks will have us back in another world wide depression and wave of political destabilizations before they learn their lesson again.
I have an idea. Jump off a cliff and take your redneck republican friends with you. Ok? Does that work for you?
Love,
Foo.
“While the Opterons may be every bit as reliable as Intel’s chips, AMD hasn’t built the reputation that Intel chips have.”
You’re talking about history. Some people will never understand…Intel is inferior to AMD products (talking Desktop) for about 3 years, period. Lower power dissipation, faster cpu’s, better functionality (x64 – ringing any bells ?), not falling behind in terms of stability. Setting cpu’s on fire by not attaching heat sink is again…history.
“If suppliers want to use AMD chips, why do they care if Intel refuses to supply them?”
Suppliers want to have a REAL choice what to sell. Nobody want’s to constrain his offert to customers to only one supplier whether it is Intel or AMD.
“Adding on my previous statement, if Intel refuses to give enough companies processors, don’t you think Intel will eventually start to lose money?”
Who will risk buiseness trying to force crucial supplier to be more competetive ? It’s like cutting branch you’re sitting on. That won’t happen.
“I hope that the EU will disappear like the USSR did.”
And i hope it won’t. This action was taken to EU (individual countries wouldn’t be taken so seriously). Still – strange comparison.
You got to be kidding me, you have no idea what you are talking about. Not only does Switzerland have their own antitrust laws, but they are also under the EU antitrust laws.
I stand corrected.
Jump off a cliff and take your redneck republican friends with you.
I’m not a republican, but if it makes you happy to be a jerk, I’ll leave it alone.
I’ll also add that your post (Foo/Anonymous) was all patriotic fluff and didn’t really provide any factual or philosophical arguments so I don’t see a need to respond to it.
They care because they also have customers that want intel chips. Personally I dont think intel should be allowed to dictate what people can and cant buy.
It’s called business. Companies agree to buy from Intel, and only Intel – or Intel threatens them if they consider other suppliers. There’s nothing wrong with that.
I’ll also add that if supplier X uses Intel processors but wants AMD processors, and their customers still want Intel processors, that’s a problem that the supplier needs to figure out, and again the government should not be involved! Intel can threaten to cut off supplies, raise prices and do whatever they want to keep business.
Supplier X can:
Do nothing and stick with Intel.
Risk dropping Intel and go with AMD. It could destroy them, but if they inform their current customers of why it’s good, it could actually help them.
There’s no easy choice, but business and life aren’t easy. The government stepping in will only complicate things… seriously, with the logic everyone is using, cell phone and cable companies shouldn’t be allowed to make customers sign year-long contracts – it hurts other businesses!
“I’ll also add that your post (Foo/Anonymous) was all patriotic fluff and didn’t really provide any factual or philosophical arguments so I don’t see a need to respond to it.”
There are many good examples in our history. John D. Rockefeller is probably the most famous, and it is largely because of him that Antitrust laws in the US exist. Even if you don’t believe in antitrust laws, you should pick up a book about him and Standard Oil. Very interesting read!
Rockefeller was one of the most hated american of his time (After his company was borken up and he gave away most of his money he became more well liked.) But being hated by most americans at the time of his monopoly of oil had no impact on his ability to control prices. For example in in 1887 (before the company was broken up) oil prices were $5 per ingot pound. In 1937 (After the breakup) oil was down to 22 cents per ingot pound. This is the most extreme example, but there are many other.
“The government stepping in will only complicate things… seriously, with the logic everyone is using, cell phone and cable companies shouldn’t be allowed to make customers sign year-long contracts – it hurts other businesses!”
It is not really about hurting or helping business. Antitrust laws are mostly about protecting consumers. I’m not defending AMD because I care about AMD. I care that Intel is not manipulating and controlling the market through illegal business practices. I want a tree free market, not one manipulated by Intel.
“I want a tree free market”
ha ha Opps I mean “I want a truly free market”
Ah yes, of course, just like everyone is running OS X or Linux today because of all of the publicized things from the US vs Microsoft case.
That’s because that case was BS, and Microsoft never lost the original case.
Customers don’t give two shits about the ethics of a company (Well some do, most don’t), all they care about is price and performance. Nothing else. Doesn’t matter to them whether AMD’s processors are slow because of Intel’s compilers or because they are crappy processors…all that matters to them is that they are slow so therefore they won’t buy them.
Then AMD should make faster processors… I’m assuming that if they did have an ad campaign about it, they wouldn’t just say “Intel is evil! Buy from us, we’re not sinners!”
Even [most sane] Linux advocates don’t just say “Microsoft is evil! Sure, their software is superior in some ways, but Linux is holy!”
There are other ways to get around this Intel compiler issue.
AMD could:
1. Offer great deals to large customers who agree to use a non-Intel compiler.
2. AMD could program their own compiler (or just market an existing one) that has good performance on Intel AND AMD, and has other benefits (free, faster compilation, whatever) that make their compiler better than Intel’s otherwise. If it was good, it would force Intel to remove the restrictions from their own compiler or lose customers.
3. Simply run an ad campaign as I’ve said before.
I care that Intel is not manipulating and controlling the market through illegal business practices.
It’s only illegal because the government made a law; that’s what the whole discussion is about: should the laws exist? I understand what you’re saying, but my point is that the laws Intel are breaking shouldn’t exist.
I want a tree free market, not one manipulated by Intel.
Intel didn’t get where they are by pointing guns at people. If you offer good services and/or products, you’ll become a powerful industry. That’s how it works, whether the government likes it or not.
“Intel didn’t get where they are by pointing guns at people.”
‘Pointing guns’ meaning threating people? That is exactly what they are doing now. Using their market clout too threaten computer suppliers. Which you feel should be fair business practice.
“If you offer good services and/or products, you’ll become a powerful industry.”
True, and if they continue to offer good services and products you will stay powerful. No need to supress compitition then. Most of the time big companies find it is cheaper to put down competition then to keep investing in the things that made the great.
‘Pointing guns’ meaning threating people? That is exactly what they are doing now. Using their market clout too threaten computer suppliers. Which you feel should be fair business practice.
You missed my point: they are where they are now because they offer great services; there’s a reason that people still buy from them. It’s not because they threaten people.
True, and if they continue to offer good services and products you will stay powerful. No need to supress compitition then. Most of the time big companies find it is cheaper to put down competition then to keep investing in the things that made the great.
But if they keep investing in threatening rather than improving products, it will be pointless for anyone to buy ANYTHING from them, ever. Eventually it will catch up to them; AMD may have to wait for a year, or two years, or maybe longer; but bad products and services eventually die off and are replaced by better products and services.
“You missed my point: they are where they are now because they offer great services; there’s a reason that people still buy from them. It’s not because they threaten people.”
According to your earlier statements it would not matter to you if Intel *is* threating people.
“Companies agree to buy from Intel, and only Intel – or Intel threatens them if they consider other suppliers. There’s nothing wrong with that.”
so I know my reply is useless.
I guess we are starting to boil down to the hart of our discussion. I think that it should be illegal for Intel to kill market compitition threatening resellers, you don’t.
“But if they keep investing in threatening rather than improving products, it will be pointless for anyone to buy ANYTHING from them, ever.”
As long as no compition exists they don’t have to improve their products. At this rate AMD will soon be starved & marginalized. Intel doesn’t have to play this game forever, just long enough to knock AMD out. Then they can sit back and live off the industry cut R&D funds, change whatever they want for their products, etc… You can’t run Windows on anything else.
It was us gov. that pulled the country out of depression by creating jobs so gov. is needed in dire situations.
OEMs can’t have it both ways by getting a free ride from Intel and at the same time selling AMD cpus. I don’t know all the details of the amd claims but on the issue of OEM selling intel cpus it seems to me like exclusivity and thus favorable financial terms are legal. It’s the OEM that chooses this. Not intel’s fault. If you think about it, free software is worse than Intel because you can’t compete when they’re giving it out for free. Why isn’t that stopped? Do we like free stuff that we’re blind like the sheep? Give us more free sw, more free sw pleeease we don’t care about those that want to make a business and living by selling it. Double standards seems to me.
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine
John Galt