![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Because Intel doesn't employ anyone (or pracitcally anyone) in NY and AMD/IBM does...same as in Europe (Intel's Ireland presence is quite small nowadays).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-326654-100x100.png\")
@skylndrftr: That would be an interesting detail...is there a link to back up your assertion? (I'm not claiming you're making it up, I'd just like to see it with my own eyes before I go talking about it and looking like a fool).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-303175-100x100.png\")
You know, when I was in college a few years ago, I preferred AMD over Intel everyday. My Intel PCs would overheat, and overclock when running simulations of a CPU. I then switched to AMD [with the recommendations from tons of computer geeks], and while it wasn't the powerhorse of a Pentium, it had great performance, and best of all, it never overclocked.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-156571-100x100.png\")
@W10002: \"But I haven't really looked into AMD's latest offerings. Maybe it's because Intel paid off everyone to not talk about AMD.\"
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.
@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.
@Trai_Dep: After Apple switched to the x86/x64 architecture over PPC they were using strictly Intel products anyhow. So yes, Intel never needed to give them money because they were already sticking it to consumers by refusing to offer them any choice in the matter anyhow. Congratulations.
@W10002:
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-918136-100x100.png\")
@W10002:
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.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-697072-100x100.png\")
@W10002: I really followed the same logic. P4s were absolutely terrible, while the AMD Athlon chips were far more stable and cool. Once the Core2 Duo chips came out from Intel, AMD fell off the face of the planet.
@bitslammer: Based on the simulations I was running at the time [it's been years so I don't know the details], yes the Intel CPUs didn't support it. I didn't know this until after I ran them. It was for a class where I had to design a CPU, and run simulations of it. Once I bought a new PC with an AMD CPU, I was able to run my simulations without any problems.
@Pibbs: Yeah. I was in college when the best Intel had to offer was the Pentium 4s. Once Core2 Duo came out... I really don't know where AMD went.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1037-100x100.png\")
@W10002: I was strictly AMD for a while, they were killing Intel a few years ago when they beat them to the punch on the 64 bit chips. They had better prices and better performance in a lot of cases. It seems since intel released the core duo they haven't released anything that can compete. Maybe that has some relation to this article.
@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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-52435-100x100.png\")
@Hooray4Zoidberg: During those years mentioned I was shocked at how many computers were out there with Intel processors when AMD was clearly the better choice. Now I know why.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-470278-100x100.png\")
@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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-68654-100x100.png\")
great. now when do we go after nvidia & ati?
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-413611-100x100.png\")
@Powerlurker: I wouldn't worry too much about Intel. The last decent graphics they had, they purchased, the i740 (which is the basis for all Intel onboard graphics which suck a$$ today) so I won't exactly be expecting much from \"Larrabee.\"
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1087083-100x100.png\")
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.
@montusama: i guess that's supposed to be some kind of insult?
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-601731-100x100.png\")
@mac-phisto: Leave my GPUs alone... NVidia and ATI are both very competitive and reasonably priced and make their chipsets available to many distributors who sell their GPU's for even less.
@Persistence: ...but how much opportunity is there for new competition to arise? That is my concern. I share that same concern for many industries.
@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?
@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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-26176-100x100.png\")
@Inglix_the_Mad: \"Don't be an idiot. TWIMTBP is one of the reasons PC Gaming still exists.\"
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?
@VagrantRadio: You guys have zero idea of what it costs (and believe me time = money) to bring an \"A\" quality title to market, do you?
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-970724-100x100.png\")
@Inglix_the_Mad: Paid a million dollars per FPS?
Got a link to back that claim? I googled (admittedly only halfheartedly) and couldn't find anything.
@Zorks:
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.
Not really a surprise - how about grocery stores selling shelf space to companies - if you want more Tide on the shelf, then pay for the facing.
The \"marketing funds\" that retailers get behind the scenes pay for all sorts of hidden anti-competitive practices.
@tailstoo:
It's not quite the same. The proper analogy would be to just give a discount to PC makers when they buy Intel chips, not aggressively discourage and/or threaten them with repercussions if they don't reduce their AMD offerings.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
So it looks like Apple wasn't a party to these illegal schemes, while almost all their competitors had no problems diving face first into the muck with Intel. (Yay!)
Sucking up billions of dollars in illegal bribes from Intel puts quite an interesting spin on the claims that Apple's product line is overpriced (they're not, on an apples to apples comparison, particularly when software bundles are included, but still...)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-465792-100x100.png\")
@Trai_Dep: Apple's too busy suing their fans and ruining the environment to care about Intel giving them money.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-428567-100x100.png\")
@Trai_Dep: If it were an apples to apples comparison, there wouldn't be any difference, would there? You'd need an apples to pcs comparison. :)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-762676-100x100.png\")
@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.
@YouDidWhatNow?: Reread the article. Dell gets $2B in *just one year* that some *cough Apple* competitors did not.
Now, would you like to try again, only less fanboyish this time?
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-268564-100x100.png\")
@Trai_Dep: What was the point of bringing up Apple in the first place? I hadn't realized it, but it's been really nice not seeing any PC vs Apple BS today. If I wanted that I'd be reading Giz.
@ceriphim:
Fanboy. To be honest, I should know better than to feed the troll...but it's hard to resist.
@ceriphim: Because HP, Dell & IBM aren't the only companies that use Intel chips. And the figures are staggering - I can't imagine any businesses that would turn down a $2B annual discount on one of their most expensive components. Which leads to the question, \"What larger industry impact might this have had?\" And, \"Why, beyond the involved parties, should this be castigated?\"
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?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-555736-100x100.png\")
@Trai_Dep: I seem to remember (I was a computer sales person at the time) that Intel gave Apple $10b+ to exclusively use their chips for some amount of time (maybe 10 years)?
@Ratty, YouDidWhatNow?: Guys. I'm open to evidence that changes my opinions. It's a learning experience. It's what we're put here for.
But I don't see Apple's choice to single-source their CPU when they did their insanely complicated move away from PPC as anything else besides what the CNet article suggests: one OEM providing a better roadmap, far better transitioning support, and even creating a custom chip to address PPC's weakness (fast, portable chips, like the one used for MacBook Air).
For the nontech guys, here's a brutal fact: supporting two CPUs IS a very big deal, despite what AMD says. Apple would be creating an already risky bet-the-farm jump away from PPC to a foolhardy one.
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\". :)
@Trai_Dep:
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.
I suppose I should make my comment clearer. He isn't going after Intel, HP, Dell, and IBM. He's just going after Intel.
@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.
@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.
...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.
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!
@Segador: I read that the guy they had on the commercial didn't really invent USB. The real engineer was \"working,\" which is probably Intel code for \"partying too hard to do a commercial.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1175017-100x100.png\")
@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
@Segador: I worked for Intel for just over 2 years. Trust me when I say, its a very diverse group of people. Indian, Asian, and White people are pretty much represented equally. Most of my management at my building was Indian, in the middle of Beaverton, OR where there is not a very large Indian population.
The commercials are pretty dead on.
@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
Just when Dell bought Alienware I was able to get and AMD chipped laptop for home and a 64-bit processor for work. The cost savings over comparable Intel machines was significant. A little latter I went back to see if they were still selling AMD machines but they had gone all Intel and the price was way up.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-71483-100x100.png\")
Let's face it, Intel processors are better. Why do you think Apple started using them?
@CapitalC: Even if we do go along with the idea that Intel is \"better\" because Apple uses them, you'd think Intel would let the better quality sell the processors, rather than these anti-competitive practices.
If you're Usain Bolt, you don't need to trip your opponents.
@Trai_Dep: And Apple could just have well gone and used AMD instead of Intel, but they didn't.
/me waits for the \"Well maybe Intel offered Apple a few Billion dollars...\" reply.
@CapitalC:
There is absolutely no correlation between Apple using some product & that product being the best in the industry. Best is a perception that differs from person to person. I am sure you will find lots of people who think Apple products are *NOT* top of the line. Even the iPhone isnt perfect for everyone's standards.
@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.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-350835-100x100.png\")
It is nice this is seeing the light of day... but it is no surprise for anyone who has worked in the industry. And certainly no surprise for anyone who observes \"Free Market\" practices as practiced by huge multinational corporations. It goes without saying the \"free\" part refers to them being free to do as they please in the market.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-407430-100x100.png\")
@GreatWhiteNorth: I'll be looking forward to Dvorak's next CRANKY GEEKS show to hear them talk about this. We've been needing this to happen for years.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-334007-100x100.png\")
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257467-100x100.png\")
I wasn't aware you could have a monopoly when you had competition...does AMD not count?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-545212-100x100.png\")
@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.
@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.
@YouDidWhatNow?: I'm not sure Linux would have mattered, but then again I don't know a ton about this (because Linux is free and not sold)
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-681073-100x100.png\")
@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...
@Jfielder23: Meh, that was a bull argument, and while it might have met the letter of that law, it's certainly violating the spirit, as there's now no one to really keep Satellite radio in check..
@coren: It's a valid argument, especially because both companies were going to fail due to competing in that one segment of the market. And guess what, consumers can keep them in check because satellite radio is one of those things that's quite definitely something you \"want\" rather than \"need\".
@Megalomania: Aren't they both failing combined now?
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?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-930037-100x100.png\")
@coren:
Monopoly is about market power and how it is used. Using market power to illegitimately squash competition through means other than a purely superior product can violate the Sherman Act.
Our marketing strategies are not like your marketing strategies. โชbumโฆ bu bu bu bumโช
The strong-arming happens EVERYWHERE. its not illegal. I'm a manufacturers rep that sells to distributors and small-to-medium store chains. We get pushed around all the time but its only logical following effing \"ECONOMIES OF SCALE!!!\" if i remember Econ 101 correctly
@arguewithme:
Wrong and illegal are different concepts. You may not think that strong-arming is wrong, but that doesn't mean it's legal. Certain types of \"Strong arming\" do indeed violate the US Anti-trust laws and can result in large civil, and in some cases criminal, penalties.
@Esquire99: Correct. In addition, if certain kinds of legal strong arming get regularly abused to the point where it is a detriment to society and progression then I think they have earned themselves a thorough review to determine if the practice should be made illegal.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-113837-100x100.png\")
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..
@kcvaliant: The issue is that Intel was paying system builders to not offer its competitors products. It's illegal for them to offer and for the companies to accept, even if they weren't go to sell AMD products anyhow.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-116599-100x100.png\")
Intel is too big to fail.
If this all turns out to be true, then AMD is pretty Bad Ass for surviving this long.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1228022-100x100.png\")
@wkm001: It isn't and AMD is directly behind both this and the recent EU action against Intel. Sour grapes != bad ass.
...for your sake, I hope you are just hopelessly awful at the proper application of sarcasm.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-301060-100x100.png\")
@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.
Did intel not have sole source agreements with any of these companies?
@nbs2: the fact that they didn't should be a pretty clear indicator that they knew that it wasn't reasonable for Dell et al to cut out AMD from their product lines.
@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.
@YouDidWhatNow?:
There is no such requirement for sole-source, or \"Requirements contracts\" under anti-trust law. The burden is on the party saying the contract is a violation of the antitrust laws to show that the agreement causes harm to the competitor, harm to competition, and that the efficiencies created by such a contract are insufficient to offset the harm.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-22998-100x100.png\")
Hate to be off topic, but if Intel is considered a monopoly by the NY AG, what does that make Ticketmaster who still screws everyone over with impunity and has no competitor? At least in this situation AMD is a competitor to Intel.
It makes no sense...
@axiomatic: Ticketmaster's actual customers are the venues they sell tickets for. The venue owners are the ones who would have to raise complaints about ticketmaster.
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-414437-100x100.png\")
@axiomatic: The headline in this case is horrible. It's not that Intel is a monopoly (it is a little better than a duopoly, there are niche makers on top of AMD).
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.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-376262-100x100.png\")
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.
Somehow I don't think the NY AG gives a rats a$$ about chip prices and the consumer. My guess is they are looking for a tobacco like settlement to line their pockets. Why will none of these agencies go after the big targets - oil companies.I've become so jaded about these things that I always look for their real motive.
@clayfree:
I think the NY AG is more concerned with making a name for himself so he can move up the political ladder. I don't think that's his sole motivation in pursuing Intel, but I'm sure it's a primary one.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-782863-100x100.png\")
I think Cuomo is going a little too far with this. If Intel is \"bribing\" the manufacturers into using Intel processors instead of others, why then do all of the majors make systems with AMD processors?
I suppose Intel might be \"bribing\" manufacturers, but if they are, the manufacturers aren't complying with the bribes.
Cuomo is upset because he got a BSOD.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1269364-100x100.png\")
I don't see the problem with this. Coke and Pepsi have been doing this for years. That's why you can get either Coke or Pepsi at (name restaurant) but usually not both. Likewise with car dealers. You don't see Ford dealers selling new Chevy's.
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.
@DrLumen:
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.
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.
AMD wasn't complaining when they had the fastest chips (back in the Pentium 4 days).
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-552772-100x100.png\")
Hmm, I've been using AMD processor in my last three computers. I wasn't aware Intel had a stranglehold on the market, except for misleading consumers into thinking they are faster than AMD.
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.
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.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-455196-100x100.png\")
I disagree with this claim; however I can see the merits of the argument, I just don't believe it's a true \"monopoly\".
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]
@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.
Soooo many places to look for corruption and stolen tax dollars and our AG is going after Intel? That's nuts. Cuomo: You work for Taxpayers. Get us our money back!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-184636-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1187733-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-627591-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-568700-100x100.png\")
And how is this much different from Wal-Mart constantly pressuring their vendors for lower prices and otherwise throwing their weight around to get what they want?
Big businesses do this. It may not be ethical, it may not be legal in some cases but it happens all the time.
@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.
@dragonfire81:
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.
@dragonfire81: What makes you think it's different???
@dragonfire81: You are right that it happens all of the time. Just more good reason and incentive for the government to crack down on them. These kinds of business practices exploit the natural weaknesses of a capitalistic society that doesn't contain enough effective regulation. A large effort to lessen those weaknesses is long over due.
@dragonfire81: Maybe the smackdown is finally starting since the economy is bad.
@dragonfire81: Throwing your weight around in terms of threatening to cancel, raise prices is normal. Using your massive market share to explicitly conspire to restrict your customer's use of a competitor is not.
@dragonfire81: i don't think i've ever read about walmart paying vendors bribes not to sell in other stores, or vendors paying walmart bribes not to carry other manufacturers' products.
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.\"