From the NY AG's office:
"Rather than compete fairly, Intel used bribery and coercion to maintain a stranglehold on the market," said Attorney General Cuomo. "Intel's actions not only unfairly restricted potential competitors, but also hurt average consumers who were robbed of better products and lower prices. These illegal tactics must stop and competition must be restored to this vital marketplace."
To obtain exclusive agreements, Intel paid hundreds of millions of dollars annually - and in some years billions of dollars - in so-called "rebates" to individual computer makers. These rebates were actually just payoffs with no legitimate business purpose that Intel invented to disguise their anticompetitive nature. Intel also attempted to erase the most obvious traces of its anticompetitive scheme by eliminating crucial but flagrantly objectionable provisions from written agreements or by camouflaging language about illegal guaranteed market shares with terms like "volume targets."
As for how this affects you, the consumer, the AG's office says that "Intel repeatedly pressured computer makers to guarantee it specified market shares of their sales, which prevented computer makers from responding to consumer demand."
The AG's office quotes some internal emails from Dell, HP and Intel in which alleged "anti-trust" activity is discussed. For example this is from an internal e-mail from HP executive in June 2004 after HP defied Intel and launched an AMD product: "Intel has told us that HP's announcement on Opteron [AMD's server chip] has cost them several $B [Billions] and they plan to ‘punish' HP for doing this."
And here's another one in which a HP executive discusses the possible repercussions for using another company's products:
"If you do and we get caught (and we will) the Intel moneys (each month is gone (they would terminate the deal). The risk is too high. Without the money we do not make it financially."
Here's the breakdown of how the AG's office says different computer makers were paid off by Intel to guarantee market share and keep businesses from using their competitor's products:
Dell
* In 2006, Intel paid Dell almost $2 billion in "rebates," and in two quarters of that year, rebate payments exceeded Dell's reported net income
* From 2001 to 2006, Intel granted Dell a privileged position vis-à-vis other computer makers in return for Dell's agreement not to market any products from Advanced Micro Devices ("AMD") (NYSE: AMD), Intel's major competitor
* Intel and Dell collaborated to market microprocessors and servers at prices below cost in order to deprive AMD of strategically important competitive successesHP
* Intel threatened HP that it would derail development of a server technology on which HP's future business depended if HP promoted products from AMD
* Intel paid HP hundreds of millions of dollars in rebates in return for HP's agreement to cap HP's sales of AMD-based products at 5% of its business desktop PCs
* In 2006, Intel and HP entered into an broader, company-wide agreement to pay HP $925 million to increase Intel's shares of HP's sales at AMD's expenseIBM
* Intel paid IBM $130 million not to launch an AMD-based server product
* Intel threatened to pull funding for joint projects that benefited IBM if IBM marketed AMD-based server products
* Intel pressured IBM to launch another AMD-based server only on an "unbranded" basis
The NYT says that Cuomo's suit is the "first formal antitrust action against Intel by any government agency in the United States in more than a decade."
ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO FILES ANTITRUST LAWSUIT AGAINST INTEL CORPORATION, THE WORLD'S LARGEST MAKER OF MICROPROCESSORS [NY AG]
Full Complaint (PDF) [NY AG]
(Photo:hanapbuhay)
+1 Exactly. Cuomo will be running for governor.
]]>As far as ATI right now, it's about time they got a decent performance card out. However, and just go to many honest review sites like HardOCP and read about the nasty driver issues that still exist. I won't buy one right now, and that's why.
Now, at the rate the fixes seem to be coming from ATI/AMD, I'll be able to compare it to Fermi in a couple months.
]]>Then you probably buy your computers from smaller name and boutique builders or build your own computers. The vast majority of personal computers are sold by tier 1 vendors like Dell, HP, or Lenovo with a majority of these computers being sold to commercial and industrial users who buy their computers by the thousand and replace them on a fairly regular schedule. There's virtually no way for AMD to compete in this market when Intel threatens to financially ruin the vendors if they sell too many of your chips.
]]>It's not just about order counts. The agreements didn't read "We will give you rebates if you sell more than x units of our product." They read "We will give you a rebate on every unit you sell if more than x% of the CPUs you sell are ours". These rebates were also applied to all the CPUs you sold. So if you sold x.1% Intel CPUs you got a rebate for all the CPUs you sold (where x is typically about 95%) so if you only sold 94.9% Intel CPUs you lost out on the rebates for ALL of those CPUs. Besides, neither Coke nor Pepsi is as dominant in the beverage industry as Intel is in the desktop CPU market.
]]>I suppose I should make my comment clearer. He isn't going after Intel, HP, Dell, and IBM. He's just going after Intel.
]]>Umm, the article you cited mentions Dell, HP, and IBM as VICTIMS of Intel's monopolistic actions. Cuomo isn't going after Intel and them. He's going after Intel on their behalf.
]]>Because that market is highly competitive. nVidia is going to have some tough times ahead. ATI/AMD's new 5800 series cards blow the doors off of any comparably priced nVidia solution and are selling faster than retailers can keep them in stock. Their chipset business is dying because they can't get the licenses they need to make them for LGA 1156 processors, and their integrated graphics business is going to be facing problems if Intel ever manages to pull off a half decent CPU/GPU chip.
]]>/me waits for the "Well maybe Intel offered Apple a few Billion dollars..." reply.
]]>OK, facts.
Both the above article and the NYT article AND your CNET article (except for an unsupported quote from an AMD exec) pointedly include Dell (by far the worst participant), HP & IBM. Cuomo's suit pointedly include Dell, HP & IBM.
Three major media powerhouses AND the NY Attorney General conspiring to protect Acer & Apple's reputation? Or that they looked and found no wrong-doing on Apple and Acer's part?
I'm open to evidence, but you're not providing it. I was suspicious of early claims that Apple back-dated exec options contracts, figuring there's NO WAY they'd be that stupid. But when the evidence was provided, I admitted - whoops - that they were. But I (and other readers) need evidence.
And, the thing is, this IS hurtful to the industry and consumers. Intel, Dell, HP and IBM should get smacked hard for this. We shouldn't be wasting time trying to muddy the waters to fuel our internal biases. There are many solid reasons why Apple single-sourced their CPU without bringing in illegal bribes. There's no evidence they behaved like the other three.
It puts an interesting spin to the "My Dell is cheaper than an Apple" that we see regularly here, no?
You should read the NYT article, btw. It's well written. A favorite quote from an Intel exec: "Michael Dell is the best friend that money can buy". :)
]]>@Xeos: I'm sure they are. No offense meant. Just having fun.
]]>@TVarmy: To be fair they have him listed as co-inventor which could mean:
a) he did all the work and his bud took credit
b) his bud did all the work and he took credit
or c) they both partied at the water cooler and had subordinates invent the usb and then claimed to be co-inventors
@jlmatthe:
Those of you looking at the current state of OEM computers are totally missing the point.
This was in full swing in the 90s - WAY before major OEMs were selling AMD boxes.
The reason they weren't selling AMD boxes was very simple - Intel's criminal activity. Period. End of story.
Intel has already lost this battle in Europe, and with the mountains of evidence against them they are reaping their whirlwind here in the states too. These lawsuits have been going on for YEARS...the NY one is just the most recent added to the list.
]]>Nah, just the big OEM vendors. They do sell AMD-based systems, but only in the "ghetto" market.
AMD processors don't offer the raw performance-per-watt that Intel's i5/i7 does, but the current-gen Phenom IIs are quite good for low-power desktops. My rig had some stability issues initially, but those went away as it broke in.
Don't discount AMD's graphics division; they're consistently giving nVidia a run for its money. Intel is also dependent on AMD's 64-bit extensions, because you'd be hard-pressed to find Itanium systems nowadays. Of course, if they muscle AMD out of existence, they can starve out the AMD64 as well.
Where AMD rightfully has a grievance is in the server market-- if Intel leveraged its monopoly power to coerce/force vendors not to offer Opteron systems, that's a violation of anti-trust law.
They can't say the same in, say, laptops, because they never had a compelling chip or platform for that market; certainly nothing that could challenge the Core (aka mini Pentium III) series.
]]>If you're Usain Bolt, you don't need to trip your opponents.
]]>I mean, IBM offers plenty of AMD-based server products and they certainly aren't "non-branded"? They also offer Cell processor based products and PPC-based; however these don't really sell.
AMD products: [www-03.ibm.com]
]]>@Hooray4Zoidberg: Intel is targeting the high end market while AMD is going more for the mid to low with less expensive processors and a lower cost, but usually better value. AMD has a whole bunch of really good chips out there right now, don't know why you would think they have nothing that can compete. Maybe not in pure performance, but in terms of price/performance definitely.
]]>Oh, to be young and ignorant must be a bliss.
This isn't 1980 with Xeroxed manuals and copied floppies with the program writer dropping them off at the local computer stores. Writing a game is big business, in no uncertain terms. Games cost a lot of time and money, which smaller houses are always on the edge about.
If you aren't Chris Taylor or Sid Meier, getting someone to help bankroll is nigh impossible. Heck even if you are them, it's not easy. Go look at Smith & Tinker, they're working on the new Mechwarrior Game, the guy in charge used to work for Microsoft (not to mention his other non-pc / electronic gaming successes), but likely won't get any help from them.
I can already guess who's probably helping him though, Nvidia. No, they probably won't toss him cash directly, but they'll lend him programmers under strict non-disclosure agreements (to protect HIS intellectual property) to help make his game run faster on Nvidia hardware. They'll do so without wrecking his main program loops, and they'll do it for "free" (just add the TWIMTBP logo) This frees up a shiatload of programming time and money for him to do artwork, effects, et al. They'll offer him help sticking PhysX in the game. Heck, if it looks really really good, they might even mention it to a few of their partners who might be willing to bundle the game with Special Editions of their cards (and that ends up being direct money, but from Evga, Asus, BFG, et al.)
That's what Nvidia does in TWIMTBP. They save developers, especially smaller ones, time and money. Go ask someone like Chris Taylor or Sid Meier what it's like to write a PC game and have bills to pay, like your staff writing the game with you. You save a half-million in programming costs, that's several salaries.
Don't b*tch because Nvidia does it better. I don't b*tch when ATI / AMD / Intel do it. Heck, I wish they'd do more of it. I hate console gaming, too simplistic.
]]>I was nice, it was 6 million. A non-recurring charge of about USD 6.0 million, consisting of incentive compensation and other charges associated with the signing of a development agreement
How about Valve wanting a million bucks to port to OS X?
However, there's another side of that story. According to Inside Mac Games, Apple did talk to Valve, but Valve demanded a million dollars up front in order to port Half Life to OS X, which most likely ended the talks.
Or how about ATI paying a million bucks for Dirt 2 optimizations?
ATI desperately need to push the sales of its heavily overpriced DirectX 11 cards that are supposed to launch on September 23rd (two days from press time) and having games such as Dirt 2 and Stalker 2 might help.
part and parcel of the PC Gaming business folks. Nothing to see here, move along.
On the flip side, get off your damnable high horse and figure out that if it wasn't for Intel Inside, AMD Phenom (BF), and especially TWIMTBP many smaller developers would have folded leaving us with repetitive, useless titles put out by the mega-publishers of EA, Vivendi, and Activision Blizzard. Do we really need another non-innovating Madden? How about a non-innovating "Command & Conquer" How about the new MW2 which now limits the PC gamer to IW.net servers and a max of 18 players?
Do you want real innovation? Chris Taylor's Gas Powered Games producing "Supreme Commander"? The game that, while not perfect, at least created some new ideas? The game that was evilly supported by Intel AND Nividia? Intel for the Core 2 and Nvidia for the 7 series of cards (both of which whomped their competitors I might add). AMD forked over cash for Battleforge to EA. While I might not consider the best use of money personally, at least it's not a cookie cutter game.
That's what these programs pay for. Without them, and TWIMTBP in particular, we would see a dearth as the major houses moved to support 2 things: MMO's and Consoles. Read up on the Infinity Ward decision and realize that the 18 person cap has been part of consoles for a long time.
You're all acting fanboi idiots.
]]>@eddieck:
Yes they were.
]]>...for your sake, I hope you are just hopelessly awful at the proper application of sarcasm.
]]>@Ratty:
Why bother him with facts? If he honestly wants to put Apple up as some kind of paragon of virtue...clearly facts are of no importance to him.
]]>@harvey_birdman: You are right lets remove all patents starting with the Drug Companies.
]]>Intel's been operating like this ever since I worked there almost 10 years ago, and likely long before. I bought an AMD pc during my time there just for spite.
As an aside, Intel has quite an opressive and cult-like corporate culture. It's hard to explain because I've purged most of the awful memories from my mind. However, at my following job (where I still work today), I ran into an older gentleman who also worked there with me. I mentioned Intel one day and he said, "Don't say that awful word around me. I have worse flashbacks about that place than I did about serving in Viet Nam."
]]>@Trai_Dep: You were saying?
@CapitalC: And that's why every new Apple computer ships with Blu-ray drives, right?
]]>look, chief. maybe i should've been a little more explicit, but if you're so "cutting edge", you'd know what i'm talking about: [tinyurl.com]
i guess what i'm trying to say is that our anti-trust department is a bunch of pussies. blatant evidence of price-fixing & collusion should result in penalties. alas, not this time.
]]>@W10002: I've always used Intel chips from back in the 8088 days. For what I do, I need these systems to run 24/7, without any chance/prayer of ever seeing a computer tech if they break down. AMD's lack of thermal management in the early days kept me away from them. Their current thermal management's better, but they still default to locking up rather than throttling back like the Intels.
I still have a ton of Intel Pentium 2 computer from 1998 still cranking away in the field at near 100% CPU as they have for the past 10 or so years. Even my "home" computer is a 7.5 year old Intel P4 (not Prescot - those weren't worth using), still dutifully cranking away in the corner.
Now, I don't deny that AMD has always been less expensive, and in many cases outperformed their Intel counterparts. But that's not what I'm after -- I want uptime. Flawless uptime under extreme conditions. Intel's been able to deliver that consistently for me.
]]>i guess it would be like pepsi buying up the whole soda aisle by saying, "listen, you buy our soda for $5/2-liter. you give us the whole aisle, we'll rebate you $4.80 for every 2-liter sold & fully rebate unsold units. sell our soda for whatever price you want, just make sure it's lower than our competitors in the area." then, 2 weeks later, they come back & say "we're not rebating you anything b/c we noticed that you put a coke vending machine outside your door." then, when the coke machine gets carted away, they come back & say, "we're still not rebating. we noticed you're selling water. & juice. that doesn't meet our contractual obligations." then, when your whole store only sells pepsi, they say, "no dice. we noticed a bodega that's selling coke for 10¢ cheaper than you're selling pepsi, so you fail to meet the requirements." and on, and on, and on....
]]>@coren: Being a monopoly isn't illegal, but using it to stifle a market and competitors from competing is. Similar to what Microsoft got in trouble for, Intel pulled the same sort of thing and is finally at least getting investigated for it's practices.
]]>It's a bad thing for the entire sector, not just those directly involved, in other words.
Also, since any mention of Apple here results in at least five mentions of They're SO Expensive, this scandal might suggest at a reason why Apple's COGS differ from those other three.
All fair, interesting questions, no?
]]>Frankly this explains why PC prices are beyond the reach of most consumers and why there is so little innovation in the computer industry.
Except that it isn't. I have a really hard time seeing what possible harm has come to the consumer given the relentless pace of discounting and the stream of ever-faster systems.
]]>@Xeos: And unfortunately for Intel, so is the lawsuit.
]]>If a manufacturer like intel can get dependable order counts from their partners it makes it easier to turn a profit by having less waste, less unused inventory stocked in warehouses losing value, etc.
One other point about this, AMD is building a hugenormous manufacturing plant in New York and the politicos there are trying to bolster that investment.
Definitely sour grapes on the part of AMD and AMD money being slipped into the state of NY coffers.
]]>@dragonfire81: Because wal-mart isn't paying retailers to only sell to them, and not wal-mart's competitors? Intel is paying (or threatening NOT to pay) OEMs to use their product, and their product only. While both actions are despicable, only one is illegal under anti-trust laws. It's what got Microsoft under the government's magnifying glass, and it's gotten Intel as well. Considering this isn't the first I've heard of investigations and possibly damning evidence against Intel in the antitrust field over the last few years, I'm betting this won't be the last suit against Intel for this, either. They're entering Microsoft territory here, and the only thing left to really doubt is if the government will be as kind or as blind to Intel as they were to Microsoft.
]]>@ceriphim:
Fanboy. To be honest, I should know better than to feed the troll...but it's hard to resist.
]]>@Trai_Dep:
Apple was probably not considering buying AMD product. In that case, Intel had no need to leverage them with their mob-like bullying. And/or this was after Intel realized they were in deep shit and they decided not to pull anyone else in. And/or something else that really makes no difference.
As for fanboyism, please keep it to yourself. I don't care about when Apple did or did not begin using Intel CPUs, because frankly that's not even germaine to the issue at hand. This started way back in the 90s in any event. Thanks for pointing out that there is nothing that needs to be corrected on my side.
]]>I don't know, it seems to me like saying dos is competition for OSX, to say that free radio is competition for satellite.
And couldn't consumers just as easily keep other examples (Microsoft, Intel) in check by purchasing competing products?
]]>I agree in principle that government intervention in private industry should be minimized, but claiming that the patent system is to blame is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Patents are all that keep companies from abandoning innovation altogether.
]]>The commercials are pretty dead on.
]]>@Zorks: Agreed, that is a ludicrous claim.
]]>@Naame: Completely disagree. Government regulation is the problem, not the solution here. Intel has been given a monopoly on its products by government decree in the form of a patent. Remove that government regulation and others will easily be able to compete.
]]>@UltimateOutsider: How do you explain Dell getting rebates that surpassed their entire net income, for 2 quarters in a year? You don't see anything fishy with that?
It's hard to compete with Intel when your profit is slashed, due to Intel intentionally crippling your market share with their war chest. Can't spend money on R&D when you don't have money to pay staff.
]]>I suppose Intel might be "bribing" manufacturers, but if they are, the manufacturers aren't complying with the bribes.
]]>That's a load of shit. Nvidia's program to help developers optimize games on their video cards isn't even one of the reasons pc gaming is still around..
Where exactly are you getting all the generalizations in your comment from anyway?
]]>PS: free hint: examine the year of the $2B subsidy, and cross-compare to Apple's CPU choice. It'll save us both the trouble of my having to correct you a second time.
]]>What I'm sure the headline meant to say is that Intel is exhibiting anti-competitive behavior and thereby opening itself to antitrust action. AMD has been pursuing this in American, Asian, and European courts for some time. It's getting close to seeing trial in Europe.
What is going on is that (allegedly, of course, until it is proven) Intel offered better prices on their products if PC manufacturers kept sales of competitors products (i.e. AMD processors) to 20% or less.
Perhaps not so shockingly, back in the P4 days when AMD quite simply trounced Intel in terms of performance per watt, performance per dollar, performance per processor cycle, and every other concievable benchmark, AMD was stonewalled at 20% of the market share. This, of course, is bad for the market and bad for consumers.
]]>Life is better when you stop irrationally expecting things to make sense. Like why hot dogs and hot dog buns are sold in different quantities.
However, I agree that Ticketmaster is the devil.
]]>I wasn't referring to any laws vis-a-vis the sole-source agreement...my impression is that they exist within the beauracracy of each company that would be buying something.
I went through a few of them before. Maybe I failed at making my point, but I think my point was simply that in the case of Intel, they'd have a hard time convincing anyone (objectively) that they are a good case for a sole-source agreement.
]]>@coren: Free or not, it's still a competitor. Take for instance when Sirius wanted to buy out XM, they way they had proved they didn't have a monopoly was the fact that they were competing with local FM radio...
]]>I hate this man because he's a dork and he needs a hobby in the WORST way. Dude! Take up water polo or knitting...something.
]]>@CapitalC: Well everyone knows that if Apple does it, it must be the best.
]]>I have an x2 black edition 2.6 that I've overclocked and it runs great.
]]>It makes no sense...
]]>Got a link to back that claim? I googled (admittedly only halfheartedly) and couldn't find anything.
]]>your analogy is backwards and invalid.
Intel is a manufacturer bribing retailers to only sell their products.
Wal-mart is a retailer pressuring manufacturers to get the cheapest price.
]]>It's easy to choose the underdog when they're not being anti-competitive AND they provide a superior product. It's hard to choose AMD right now with Intel's offerings being so much better a buy, but, I still choose AMD for reasons such as these*.
* Well, not specifically THESE reasons, but others that may not be illegal but sure are exercises in scumbaggery like patenting sockets and instruction sets.
]]>@Segador: b-b-but AMD is populated by engineers of light and purity that design things only for the good of the consumer and whose executives never jack the price of a dominating product up.
(see: Athlon 64 / Athlon 64 X2)
"Muwahahahaha, my processor design crushes my rival's design. I can charge more for it!"
Quick: Is that comment from:
A) Intel
B) AMD
C) Both
@Segador: Don't be an idiot. TWIMTBP is one of the reasons PC Gaming still exists. Now if you're going to go after Nvidia you'll still have to go after AMD/ATI because they paid a million dollars per FPS to get Half-Life 2 to run faster on their hardware.
Oh and TWIMTBP often doesn't hand out money, but it does hand out a LOT programmer time (as in Nivida programmers creating loops for their video / physx)
Here's the breakdown folks:
286/386 Intel
486 AMD (after the DX4s)
P1 P2 P3 Intel Domination (K6's and early Athlons sucked)
Athlon XP (Games)
P4 A, B, C Math programs
A64 / X2 (the P4 D was nicknamed the space heater by me)
Core 2, Quad
Phenom cheap
i7 flexible
Oh and AMD has never really competed in the mobile space...
AMD is sucking hind t*t right now. Their only competition is on price. Compare this to the Domination of A64 / X2 when it came out. Notice how expensive they were and how cheap Intel P4-D's were? Yeah, that's because Intel competed on price then, because their chips sucked. This back and forth will hopefully continue.
As far as ATI, let me know when their current chip's bugs are worked out, otherwise the last real performance winning chip design they had was the 9700.
]]>@nbs2:
AFAIK, to get a sole-source agreement with a customer, you have to prove that you're the only reasonable source for the product/service in question - and then you get to exclude everyone else.
If Intel had sole-source agreements, they wouldn't need to attack with bribes and threats.
I'll guess that the reason they don't get sole-source agreements probably has to do with the fact that there's not the slightest reason a customer would want to do that - back in the day, AMD and Cyrix both were reasonable alternatives when these shenanigans were in full force. Once the K6 era began, there was no hope for Intel ever providing reasonable cause for a sole-source agreement.
]]>I don't think non-tech people understand the way the technology industry works.
The entire industry is "monopolistic" to some degree. In the microprocessor market we mostly have Intel and AMD, but you also have VIA, ARM, Samsung and some others. ARM may design (they don't make anything) but they have an insanely large market share of the mobile headset processor market. To nvidia and ATi, as ATi is no longer a company it doesn't count so technically, its nvidia vs. S3 Graphics (owned by VIA i believe). Pretty sure if you look at S3's market share its not even close to nvidia's.
I guess in the end, what I'm trying to say is that all companies do monopolistic practices to ensure their current positions and to grow even. Even if you make your own company to shake things up, you'll probably end up doing the exact same thing as your rivals.
]]>Did intel not have sole source agreements with any of these companies?
]]>Intel locks its multiplier. However, raising the FSB of the motherboard is dependent on the mobo manufacture, and will raise the clock speed of the processor regardless of the processor.
]]>I agree, this exact same thing happened to me. I have been building my own desktops since college and always used an AMD CPU. Never had a problem with any of those systems and I saved so much money I could afford to build new systems more often. Now Intel CPUs are so expensive I can't afford to them.
Now I use an old dual Xeon Dell Precision 650 workstation. Does everything I need, except run Windows 7 that is.
]]>...actually, I should say this started way before Apple started using Intel CPUs. I don't recall the actual time when Apple started using Intel product...might have been 2006.
This was going on in the nineties to be sure.
]]>@CapitalC: This sounds like circular logic to me. Try again
]]>I would hope, for your sake, that your "strong-arming" doesn't include bribes, kickbacks, or threats to not supply your product if the customer wants to also buy product from your competitor. Because that's not strong-arming...that's criminal.
]]>Intel is too big to fail.
]]>@mac-phisto: Vendors actually frequently pay retailers to not carry other products. It's disguised as buying shelf real estate. For example, go to any conveneince store or grocery store and look at how much space they devote to Marlboro cigarettes, Coke/Pepsi products, Lay's chips, etc compared to other brands like Jones Soda, Camel, Tim's Cascade, etc. They buy up as much space as possible, and buy out other spaces by paying more money than others can afford or are willing to pay.
]]>If this were truly the case of where Intel would raise prices or pull out, AMD would be there to step in.. I do not see where they are monopolizing the market.. AMD have decreased market share because tech wise they have been getting their butt kicked.. And if you ran a company would you say no to millions if not billions of dollars for selling something you were already selling??
Maybe the NY AG should also file lawsuit in all the corruption of officals in his town first..
]]>Hilarious. Ahh, nerd humor.
]]>Our marketing strategies are not like your marketing strategies. ♪bum… bu bu bu bum♪
]]>@mac-phisto: Um, you mean just nVidia, right? Who do you think pays for all those "Runs better on nVidia" ads in front of every single PC game today?
]]>@W10002: My homade computer is using an AMD Phenom II black, which overclocks amazingly and cost 1/5 what an i7 would have cost me. To be fair, it's not as fast as an i7, but my other, store-bought i7 desktop just isn't that much faster at anything but straight benchmark programs. I'll take the AMD any day.
]]>@coren:
...it depends on more than that. Like the way Microsoft can be a monopolist in the OS market when Apple, Linux, and Bob's OS were around.
]]>@CapitalC:
That is debateable on how you define "better" - but even in the most objective pure-performance standpoint, that crown has traded back and forth.
If you're going to use "what Apple uses" as a benchmark for what's "best" - then apparently the rest of the world was wrong for not using Motorola chips exclusively for so long? Clearly, the company that owns 5% of the worldwide computer market should be the belwether for what's "best."
]]>@Trai_Dep:
Your pro-Apple arguement is as pure fail as it always has been.
To the other point, PC OEMs didn't really have much choice when Intel put their illegal pressures on. You don't get to say they "had no problems diving face first into the muck with Intel." Intel had them by the balls and was threatening them with massive penalties by not playing their game - in exactly the same way the mob enters a small business and proposes "protection" payments. You can either go along, or you can get your ass handed to you.
Also, this all happened WAY before Apple started using Intel processors. So that's a total red herring.
]]>just like the current economic crisis, big banks pushing little banks and people around how they see fit.
same thing with intel. they have money, they buy the pc mnftrs. so without intel I guess hp, dell & ibm wouldnt exist or be as big as they are now.
they should add the word intel after their company name hpintel, dellintel, ibmintel.
]]>i suppose it's possible, but walmart simply using their market size to pressure vendors to sell their items for less doesn't compare to this. this is outright racketeering: "sell our product exclusively or we'll end our rebate program & charge you 3x as much for our processors."
]]>But... Intel is friendly! They have dork rock-parties that aren't like ours at all! They all get together in ethnically diverse groups and sing the "dum... dum dun dun dun dum!" song every day!
]]>The "marketing funds" that retailers get behind the scenes pay for all sorts of hidden anti-competitive practices.
]]>Not sure what you mean by saying that the system "overclocked" itself????
Overclocking is something that you as the user choose to do *IF* the hardware supports it. Traditionally Intel has "locked" their CPU clock speed meaning you can't adjust it while AMD has offered many "unlocked" CPUs where you could adjust the clock speed.
]]>Then something happened in the last few years. I think Intels current processors addressed some issues I had with its performance. As a result, AMD got left in the dust, and now I slightly prefer Intel CPUs over AMDs.
But I haven't really looked into AMD's latest offerings. Maybe it's because Intel paid off everyone to not talk about AMD.
]]>Big businesses do this. It may not be ethical, it may not be legal in some cases but it happens all the time.
]]>