1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

European Commission Publishes Decision Concerning Intel's Abuse of Dominant Position

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Sep 21, 2009.

  1. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,406 (4.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,233
    i mentioned that AMD had the better chip back then. yet they still could not deliver their product because they are an inferior company. that is what it comes down too. intel can dictate terms of the argreement just as the vendors can. the vendors do not have enough clought tho when they operate separately. had they organized together with AMD they could have beaten back intel. of course i guess in the eyes of some THAT would have also been illegal.
  2. extrasalty

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    176 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    25
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  3. FreedomEclipse

    FreedomEclipse ~Technological Technocrat~

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,558 (5.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,226
    I totally agree, building up to the Phenoms first release I read an article in a magazine where either an AMD executive or representative was being interviewed about the new Phenoms - Intels new line of Core 2 Duos was also brought up during the interview & the AMD rep said that they werent worried at all & if anything they were fully confident in their product (1st gen Phenom) but i could tell that the intel question pushed his back against the wall. benchmarks from obtained engineering samples were taking the net by storm & all the results were clear that it would totally decimate the phenoms. the rep was also asked if after seeing the results if AMD would delay phenoms release & tweak/revise the chip a little more - to which the AMD rep refused. & thats when AMDs troubles began & their marketshare started to spiral.

    AMD set themselves upto fall - simple as.

    I think AMD genuinely knew they were gonna take a hit but i dont think they expected to take that BIG of a hit. they took a gamble & put themselves in a position they couldnt recover easily from without having an 'exit stratagy' or at least some sort of fallback to cover their ass. Core 2 Duo came along & beat phenom into the next technological era then came Intels 'exploitation/Abuse' of their position which put AMD at a further disadvantage...

    - Its true, any company can lower or raise their prices, Intel are business people - & they're business people that took advantage of the market while the stocks were low just like any other good trader would do. you cant blame them for that. but possibly the way they went about doing it is the real issue here.

    AMD are still licking their wounds but they are recovering slowly & despite Intels domination they are still stronger then ever before despite how small of a company they are. its unlikely they will be strong enough to rival Intel 1:1 for a long time to come still but they will eventually get there, if not then they will create a world or focus on a part of the market where they are king & continue to run in leaps n bounds.
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  4. KieranD

    KieranD

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    8,006 (3.13/day)
    Thanks Received:
    813
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Intel well what can i say i dont know legal mumbo jumbo but im sure the European Union a collaboration of the lots of European Countries knows its stuff a lot more than us plebs. If coca cola said to stores dont stock pepsi or else that is basically the same thing, its like them saying to Tesco Supermarkets dont stock Pepsi for 2 years and we will give you a bonus, by that time coca cola sales would have increased by a large amount to having its main competitor cut it would gain its potential sales or at least a big share of its potential sales, it uses the extra profit to fund the "bonuses". Its a bit underhand really, it should be up the competitor plus its not like one of those companies wasnt going to release an AMD product because it was and then Intel stopped that.

    Its not like here we need 200pcs, so intel can you do it cheaper than AMD? It was far from that it was like here we are and we want to be the only choice.

    Intel is an older company and has been manufacturing cpus for a lot longer than AMD ever has, so it got a head start in the market, it can take many more years for them to become equal they may not even gain much more market share. I find it quite a feat that AMD made the acquisition of ATi shows how far they have come from making Intels own cpus.

    A little note Microsoft became a world leader in Operating Systems through popular choice, so when people moan about it being top dog it was us who put it there.
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  5. mdm-adph

    mdm-adph New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,478 (0.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    340
    Location:
    Your house.
    Yeah, except for the entire Pentium IV era, right? :wtf:

    You either didn't read the evidence like I asked, or you're ignoring facts that you don't like.

    Neither one surprises me. :shadedshu
  6. Yukikaze

    Yukikaze

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,309 (1.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    481
    What's shitty with my X3 720BE again ?
    WarEagleAU and mdm-adph say thanks.
  7. PP Mguire

    PP Mguire New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,005 (2.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    453
    Location:
    Venus, Texas
    Read the specs bucko.

    AthlonXP and 64 where top notch and Intel couldnt shake a stick at them. Then AMD went downhill and now they still barely compete with Yorkfield (Q9***). With i5 and i7 (both sockets) tearing away at both mainstream and enthusiast id say...shitty. Its good, but shitty compared to those performance AND price.
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  8. Yukikaze

    Yukikaze

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,309 (1.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    481
    :shadedshu

    I did, I own one.

    The 720BE does great for its price point. Sure, AMD might not wear the performance crown, but their CPUs are fine for just about everyone. Calling them shitty is really selling them short, even if it is a "relative shitty" (Which isn't even true anyway).
  9. PP Mguire

    PP Mguire New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    5,005 (2.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    453
    Location:
    Venus, Texas
    Take it easy their tiger, all ive run is AMD since the Thunderbird era. They are good CPUs but in todays market, yes they are falling short of performance.

    AMD cant even compete in the price to performance era anymore because the 965 is 245 and the i5 is 205 on Newegg. Also, you can get p55 boards cheap too.
  10. mdm-adph

    mdm-adph New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,478 (0.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    340
    Location:
    Your house.
    Not when you factor in the price of the corresponding motherboards, it ain't.

    The i5's stats aren't even that great, and the motherboard is pricy to go along with them.

    All cost aside, yeah -- even I'd like an i7 920 system, but if I had to choose between Phenom II and an i5, I'd choose the PII.
  11. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,406 (4.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,233
    uh, ive got two diff threads going here. i already mentioned how at the time AMD had the superior chip but it didnt matter since they are the inferior company. vendors wouldnt take AMDs side because AMD simply cannot run at the level the vendors required. intel was smart and putting the nail in the coffin with those rebates strategies.
  12. jmcslob

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,897 (1.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    457
    Location:
    Internet Heaven
    I think this case was moreover about "Innovation BLOCKING" which would serve who's best interest?...A few Greedy Crooks?...Laws exist to keep civil Morals and Business in CHECK..This is simply a case of THE PEOPLE SAYING ENOUGH.
    Money is not the ultimate authority!!! If you believe it's ok for business's to conduct Collusion, then problem here is not the Verdict it's your Ignorant misguided Moral Views that is the problem, your argument is "the other guy should have resorted to collusion as well" REALLY? WTF dude you have some serious issues, i really don't get your point here, do you really believe it's ok to cheat, just because the other guy did?
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  13. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,406 (4.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,233
    no, im saying that it should not be illegal to offer rebates to companies when they do not go with the competition.
  14. mdm-adph

    mdm-adph New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,478 (0.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    340
    Location:
    Your house.
    Clever wording there. You forgot the "or else" part of the issue, which is what the charges against Intel were all about in the first place.
  15. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,406 (4.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,233
    again, the vendors could have gone with AMD. obviously the better business move was to go with intel. that is business.
  16. jmcslob

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,897 (1.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    457
    Location:
    Internet Heaven
    And i agree with that and if that's all that they did I'd be with you, but they did a lot worse then that, they basically said "Take this discount or were gonna cut off your supply of Our stuff, you already invested millions in producing and give your competition an even better price" AKA. COLLUSION
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  17. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,406 (4.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,233
    which is business. clearly the vendors didnt do their homework. the lawyers should have written up a business contract that would have atleast covered their asses so that if intel did cut them off they would be covered financially.
  18. Andy77 New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    119 (0.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11
    One thing that btarunr and co. taught me was not to give into their narrow-minded view... let the fanboy talk, cash his dough out so intel can pay up the fines.

    BTW... what about the investigations from FCC and in Asia?... any bits of news about them?
  19. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    NO, AMD couldn't deliver as many chips as Intel did, but with A64's superiority and given enough time (let's say 6-12 months) they could have matched and even surpased Intel in market share. Chip manufacturing is all about volume, the higher it is the lower that you can sell your products and you can invest in another fab, etc. But you just can't create as many chips as Intel, because you are not going to sell them in your first attempt, so disproportional investment prior to having them sold is out of the question. You can, however, make a small amount of superior chips and let the free market, the customers, do the job. Once you start selling your superior product you can ramp up the production. That's free market.

    To fight that phenomenon, that is nothing more than the only consecuence of a free market, Intel paid the biggest PC vendors so they didn't use AMD's superior product for 3 years. At the time, HP and Dell being almost a duopoly, none of them could afford to not obtain Intel's rebates, in case the other one was getting the rebate, because they simply couldn't meet their demmand with AMD chips. The important thing here is that they were not allowed to use AMD products, even when they clearly wanted. This way the consumer didn't ad the choice to use AMD. Should Intel let them use AMD chips, a lot of people would have bought AMD based PC's up to the max that AMD could offer. Let's say a 25% of the market, at first. Obviously in a year that number would have been much bigger.

    Sorry I don't know where you think you live, but that's illegal everywhere. Just because they have not been punished in the US (yet), doesn't mean the Federal Trade Commission doesn't think that's illegal. It just means they are still looking for more proofs to meet the overprotective requirements that are needed to punish a monopoly in the US.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2009
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  20. gumpty

    gumpty

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    744 (0.32/day)
    Thanks Received:
    134
    Location:
    Auckland
    Rhino, are you actually happy that Intel behaved that way (irrespective of personal opinions about free markets etc)?
    You do realise that if AMD had had a bit more cash from those days they might have been able to come up with chips that could compete with Intel's Core2 architecture? You realise then that you may not have had to pay what you did for those chips you have and you could be hundreds of dollars better off now?

    Right or wrong ... it is all of us that are worse off, even now, because of what happened back then.
  21. mechtech

    mechtech

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Messages:
    251 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Well anywho, to all the above rants.

    This really has nothing to do with chip production, chip superiority, or other. It it just basically Intel not adhereing to the Laws of Europe, which are quite different from North America and probably every other nation. I see Rhino mention buisness lots, well that may be buisness in the U.S. but not evreywhere on the planet. I do agree that the vendors (dell, h.p., etc.) should have had some balls and reported Intel's ""threats"" from day one, but when the CEO's make millions per year, one can only assume that they get some kind of payoala on top of everything else, and it would be the company getting the fine not them. Only time will tell after the Governing body in the U.S. does their investigation of Intel.

    The bottom line I read from all this is that they did affect the "free" market, and probably hindered competition, and from what I understand from the very few economics classes in university, in Europe that's enough to be fined under their laws.

    Maybe if the CEO's, etc. would have to pay the fines out of their own pocket, then trade might be more fair, who knows.

    As they say that's life.
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2009
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  22. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    Nooo... The better business move for the vendors would have been to buy a 20% of their chips from AMD and if Intel still wanted to sell the volume of chips that previously was 100%, they would have needed to offer a better rebate. That is, if the vendor had projected they would sell 100 chips, they wanted to buy 20 from AMD and 80 from Intel. If Intel still wanted to sell them 100 chips as they were doing previously, they would had to offer a rebate good enough, so that the vendor didn't mind buying 120 chips instead of the projected 100. That is bussiness.
    WarEagleAU says thanks.
  23. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,406 (4.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,233
    but the vendors still had a choice. THAT is business.
  24. Easy Rhino

    Easy Rhino Linux Advocate

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,406 (4.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,233
    yea, i dont want to talk about this anymore! afterall it is a tech site and i dont want to piss anyone off or give the wrong impression.

    if anything i am pissed at intel for either

    A) knowing the law and breakng it anyway or

    B) not knowing the law and being retarded about defending themselves.

    i dont condone breaking the law. i think that it should not have even been law and if intel knew about it they should have gone through the proper channels to challenge the law rather than resort to this tactic. im just pissed it came to this and i hope that AMD can organize itself and grow into a profitable company that makes great chips and creates more competition pushing intel to make even better chips.
    gumpty and WarEagleAU say thanks.
  25. CyberDruid

    CyberDruid New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,888 (1.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,100
    Location:
    On top of a mountain
    Intel is finally getting their skeletons dragged out of the closet. We've all heard about this for years but now we finally see some action.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page