Now US Inclines to Fine Intel for Antitrust Malpractice

[Benetanegia]

According to only one "unnamed" source that has been repeated a dozen times. The law doesn't work on rumors and speculation. I quote myself: It ain't official until it is filed.

Need I also mention that "source" is in the UK. Last time I checked, the FTC doesn't operate outside of the USA.

Source is not in the UK. Thomson-Reuters the firm behind this "speculation" is a multinational news company with HQ in New York. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_Reuters *

Anyway let's forget about that for a moment: did you ever heard of what a press correspondent is? I sincerely can't understand what matters from which country comes the info as long as it comes from a reputable and big news company like this... You have paranoia about the EU my friend.

* It's funny they are under anti-trust investigation too BTW, but that means that Reuters journalists may have a closer relation wth the FTC than many other media.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Source is not in the UK. Thomson-Reuters the firm behind this "speculation" is a multinational news company with HQ in New York. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_Reuters

My mistake, it did originate at Reuters. FYI: Routers is UK-based and was recently bought out by Thomas Corporation (Canadian).

 

[Benetanegia]

My mistake, it did originate at Reuters. FYI: Routers is UK-based and was recently bought out by Thomas Corporation (Canadian).

Yeah I know Reuters (Routers lol ) is from the UK, but now forms part of Thomson and both are based on NY. My point still persists that the origin of the info doesn't matter as long as we are talking about an information giant. I would trust the New York Times over more than half the publications from Spain even for Spain related things, but that's something I can say about US publications, UK publications, Ugandan publications, you get the idea, all countries.

By Diane Bartz

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. antitrust regulators are moving toward filing a complaint against Intel Corp after the Europ

 

[urban_black_redneck]

I agree that it will not benefit the consumer, but they need to be punished in some way for underhand practices so they dont happen again. If this was allowed to happen without punishment, then in the long run this would hurt the consumer as the competition would go under and intel would create (as stated above) a monopoly.

Its unfair and un lawful for companys to do this.

True, this needs to be proven, but this has already been proven in europe and other contries, so i think this will be the case in the US also.

How would this have prevented you from getting an AMD processor if you wanted one?

What is unfair about companies deciding to do what they want with THEIR products and services?

 

[Benetanegia]

How would this have prevented you from getting an AMD processor if you wanted one?

What is unfair about companies deciding to do what they want with THEIR products and services?

Because if you* wanted an HP or Dell PC you could not take AMD. And comanies didn't decide, that's the problem. Intel forced them to use only Intel, because if they didn't go Intel exclusive they would not be competitive on Intel platform, which was 80-90% of the market. No small comany with less than 20% of market share can make a big jump to 50% or even 30% in just few months, because it's limited by their fabs. On a free market AMD wouldn't be able to exceed that 30%, so PC vendors would be forced to use a 70% Intel no matter what. Intel took advantage of this by offering exclusive rebates to those who didn't use AMD, because a small rebate in 95-100% of a vendor's products is much better than than no rebates on %70-80 and bargain prices on 20-30%. That goes against anti-trust laws in all the countries around the globe.


* Average joe and also average enthusiast. Why? All companies make most of their money from OEM market, so by excluding AMD from those markets, AMD profits go down, R&D goes down, innovation goes down, no competition, prices go up up up up...

 

[urban_black_redneck]

Because if you wanted an HP or Dell PC you could not take AMD. And comanies didn't decide, that's the problem. Intel forced them to use only Intel, because if they didn't go Intel exclusive they would not be competitive on Intel platform, which was 80-90% of the market. No small comany with less than 20% of market share can make a big jump to 50% or even 30% in just few months, because it's limited by their fabs. On a free market AMD wouldn't be able to exceed that 30%, so PC vendors would be forced to use a 70% Intel no matter what. Intel took advantage of this by offering exclusive rebates to those who didn't use AMD, because a small rebate in 95-100% of a vendor's products is much better than than no rebates on %70-80 and bargain prices on 20-30%. That goes against anti-trust laws in all the countries around the globe.

Guess you won't be buying from HP or Dell then...if you want an AMD processor...

How did Intel "force" them?

Intel is paying people money not to go with AMD...

 

[urban_black_redneck]

* Average joe and also average enthusiast. Why? All companies make most of their money from OEM market, so by excluding AMD from those markets, AMD profits go down, R&D goes down, innovation goes down, no competition, prices go up up up up...

AMD needs to manage its spending...

If you are really interested in AMD products, and none of the PRE-BUILT companies are offering computers with AMD products, then you have to buy AMD parts and build your own computer.

 

[Benetanegia]

Guess you won't be buying from HP or Dell then...if you want an AMD processor...

How did Intel "force" them?

Intel is paying people money not to go with AMD...

Acer, Lenovo, MediaMarkt (big Euro retailer)... And who knows how many others. From who would you buy then? Asus didn't make PCs back then, Samsung I don't remember, Sony way overpriced like always, Toshiba was very small and elitist/proffesional.

AMD needs to manage its spending...

LOL And they do! So much better than Intel! Think that they have to spend the same in R&D but their revenues are 1/10th of Intels.

If you are really interested in AMD products, and none of the PRE-BUILT companies are offering computers with AMD products, then you have to buy AMD parts and build your own computer.

Now that is a stupid thing to say. 95% of people don't even dare to change their graphics cards and they are going to build their own PC? Using third party builders isn't an option either because it costs way more on the low end.

 

[urban_black_redneck]

Now that is a stupid thing to say. 95% of people don't even dare to change their graphics cards and they are going to buyld their own PC? Using third party builders isn't an option either because it costs way more on the low end.

I guess those people have to settle with what the pre-built companies have to offer.

It is their choice. Nobody is forcing them to not build their own PCs.

 

[Benetanegia]

I guess those people have to settle with what the pre-built companies have to offer.

It is their choice. Nobody is forcing them to not build their own PCs.

Man it's just about getting the best bang for your buck. At the time that was AMD but Intel didn't let PC vendors sell AMD PCs. That way consumers didn't get the best they could. Building is much more expensive than buying OEM in the low-end market, especially if you don't pretend to upgrade, which is 95% of the people.

Imagine that Acer decided to use AMD. Like I said AMD couldn't provide more than 30% of the chips that PC vendors needed, so they would have to offer Intel PCs too, without the advantage in price that rebates offered to the competitors. In a store we would see the next stock of comparable PCs:

30 Acer AMD PCs $500.
70 Acer Intel PCs $600.
100 HP Intel PCs $550.

There are 150 consumers. Which one is the PC vendor that didn't sell 50 PCs and went bankrupt?
Now we introduce some factual info, like that those 30 AMD PCs used Athlon 64s and the other 170 PCs were using the vastly inferior P4s and now: which is the company that was offering by far the best product to customers, but on the other hand went bankrupt?

So that's how Intel forced PC vendor to use only Intel. And again, that goes again anti-trust laws of any country.

 

[urban_black_redneck]

Man it's just about getting the best bang for your buck. At the time that was AMD but Intel didn't let PC vendors sell AMD PCs. That way consumers didn't get the best they could. Building is much more expensive than buying OEM in the low-end market, especially if you don't pretend to upgrade, which is 95% of the people.

I don't care about PC vendors.

Intel is paying the vendors to reject AMD. The vendors are getting something out of this.

Consumers are getting what they want.

Those who want AMD are getting their AMD PCs...

 

[Benetanegia]

I don't care about PC vendors.

PC vendors = 95% of what people get/can afford.

Intel is paying the vendors to reject AMD. The vendors are getting something out of this.

They are not getting anything. If AMD had been able to compete and gain a 50% market share over the years, AMD could have sold the example PCs from above for $400, but PC vendors would sell them for $450 instead and make $50 more than with Intel.

Consumers are getting what they want.

They are not. Following the example above, consumers wanted (even if they didn't know) a $400-450 AMD Athlon 64 PC. They got $550 and $600 slower Intel PCs instead.

Those who want AMD are getting their AMD PCs...

No.

 

[Lazzer408]

They need it

HA!

 

[urban_black_redneck]

PC vendors = 95% of what people get/can afford.



They are not getting anything. If AMD had been able to compete and gain a 50% market share over the years, AMD could have sold the example PCs from above for $400, but PC vendors would sell them for $450 instead and make $50 more than with Intel.



They are not. Following the example above, consumers wanted (even if they didn't know) a $400-450 AMD Athlon 64 PC. They got $550 and $600 slower Intel PCs instead.



No.

You can buy parts from Frys to make a $500-600 AMD tower that can play 95% of the games on the market.

The $450 PC from vendors that you are referring to, I suspect, don't even have integrated graphics! The rest of the specs might be bottom of the barrel.

 

[Benetanegia]

You can buy parts from Frys to make a $500-600 AMD tower that can play 90% of the games on the market.

The $450 PC from vendors that you are referring to, I suspect, don't even have integrated graphics! The rest of the specs might be bottom of the barrel.

OMG forget about building your own PC!!! 95% of people don't know how to do it and paying for it is expensive. Not to mention how much a Windows license costs. You don't take Windows into account because you are an enthusiast and spend much more on hardware upgrades and install it several times. If you build your own PC it doesn't cost $500-600 it costs $500-600 + $100 for windows, whereas you get everything for $500 from a PC vendor. Building is only better for the price in mid to high end PCs.

And the $450 PCs that I'm talking about is the exact same $500-600 one you are talking about, except for the fact that competition has taken down the price to those levels in the hypothetical free market scenario.

 

[urban_black_redneck]

OMG forget about building your own PC!!! 95% of people don't know how to do it and paying for it is expensive. Not to mention how much a Windows license costs. You don't take Windows into account because you are an enthusiast and spend much more on hardware upgrades and install it several times. If you build your own PC it doesn't cost $500-600 it costs $500-600 + $100 for windows, whereas you get everything for $500 from a PC vendor. Building is only better for the price in mid to high end PCs.

And the $450 PCs that I'm talking about is the exact same $500-600 one you are talking about, except for the fact that competition has taken down the price to those levels in the hypothetical free market scenario.

There was a time in everyone's life when they didn't know how to wipe their ass. What is your point?

I suspect that the $450 PC you are talking about is NOT the same.

Does it have an ATI 4850?

 

[WhiteLotus]

There was a time in everyone's life when they didn't know how to wipe their ass. What is your point?

I suspect that the $450 PC you are talking about is NOT the same.

Does it have an ATI 4850?

So you expect EVERYONE in the world that wants a computer to know how to build one from scratch, know where to get the best prices, what components are the best for your money etc.??

I've built a fair few computers and before i do i ALWAYS have to do some research on just what hardware is the "best for buck". You expecting everyone to a) want to go through this hassle, and b) actually have the know how to do it is very narrow minded and quite simply, stupid.

 

[urban_black_redneck]

So you expect EVERYONE in the world that wants a computer to know how to build one from scratch, know where to get the best prices, what components are the best for your money etc.??

I've built a fair few computers and before i do i ALWAYS have to do some research on just what hardware is the "best for buck". You expecting everyone to a) want to go through this hassle, and b) actually have the know how to do it is very narrow minded and quite simply, stupid.

Welcome to reality.

Sitting on your ass waiting for someone to build your computer for you. When they don't put what you want in there, then start complaining. You have to be kidding me.

It is YOUR responsibility to get what you want.

You have to be an overgrown child to think these PC vendors have an obligation to put AMD parts in their computers.

 

[johnspack]

I've been building my own since my amd286. (Intel 8088 actually but switched to nec v20 cpu then the amd shhhh) Can't say I'll build another amd, as pii's are expensive, and the core i5's look same price or cheaper, with better performance. I struggled with my windsor x2 for a long time, my e8400 smokes it. I really hope amd pulls something out of their butts, because competition is needed bad! The anti-competition stance that intel and some companies has taken does concern me however, that will drive prices up if it's successful. I'm on a fixed income, I can't afford $300 for a low end dual core! Let's not allow that sort of thing.....

 

[Flyordie]

I've been building my own since my amd286. (Intel 8088 actually but switched to nec v20 cpu then the amd shhhh) Can't say I'll build another amd, as pii's are expensive, and the core i5's look same price or cheaper, with better performance. I struggled with my windsor x2 for a long time, my e8400 smokes it. I really hope amd pulls something out of their butts, because competition is needed bad! The anti-competition stance that intel and some companies has taken does concern me however, that will drive prices up if it's successful. I'm on a fixed income, I can't afford $300 for a low end dual core! Let's not allow that sort of thing.....

Just so you know, the $100 Phenom II X2 550 and Phenom II X2 555 smokes the E8400 your running now Clock for Clock... ;-) So does the $120 Phenom II X3 720.

 

[driver66]

I am so sick of this lame shit......... :shadedshu

Be a distributor of any sort, be it beer, chips .....Coke/pepsi.....Car paint.. etc.......... ALL OF THEM USE THE SAME PRACTICES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is business plain and simple.
Take the N.F.L. for example.... Try to wear nikes in a game ROFL..

I deal in the automotive finish industry and will give HUGE discounts to any bodyshop that will "EXCLUSIVELY" use my product. Same thing happens everywhere. If they choose to stock other brands ................. well we dont sell to them anymore F@#K em

 

[Benetanegia]

I am so sick of this lame shit......... :shadedshu

Be a distributor of any sort, be it beer, chips .....Coke/pepsi.....Car paint.. etc.......... ALL OF THEM USE THE SAME PRACTICES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is business plain and simple.
Take the N.F.L. for example.... Try to wear nikes in a game ROFL..

I deal in the automotive finish industry and will give HUGE discounts to any bodyshop that will "EXCLUSIVELY" use my product. Same thing happens everywhere. If they choose to stock other brands ................. well we dont sell to them anymore F@#K em

But you have >80% of worldwide market share? No. You have more than one competitor? Absolutely. It costs $5 billion to start a company like yours? Definately not. Then anti-trust laws don't apply because you can't abuse the market even if you tried it hard. Anti-trust laws are there for the comanies that abuse their dominant posisition to hamper the competitors advancement by eliminating the free election of their customers.

 

[WhiteLotus]

Welcome to reality.

Sitting on your ass waiting for someone to build your computer for you. When they don't put what you want in there, then start complaining. You have to be kidding me.

It is YOUR responsibility to get what you want.

You have to be an overgrown child to think these PC vendors have an obligation to put AMD parts in their computers.

No reality is a vast number, hell wild stab in the dark and say that 90% of all PC users, have NO clue about what is inside the PC that is happily chugging along allowing the user to go on the internet, do some online banking, play a few games and write some word documents every now and then. You saying that ALL the people that only use their PC for this purpose should know how to build one from scratch is completely stupid.

This isn't even on whether or not you should build your own PC, it's about competition in a market. Intel (if found guilty) purposefully providing vendors with discounts IF they DON'T sell a competitors products goes against market regulations. Hell you can give discounts all you want, but only doing so IF they don't have the competitors is wrong.

 

[mdm-adph]

Being the US i wouldn't be surprised if they imposed an even bigger fine.

I seriously doubt that.

 

[WhiteLotus]

I seriously doubt that.

Really? I always got the impression that USA only does things in large sizes or not at all. Hang on i'll try and find something to show you what i mean.

yea see here:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/25/man-sues-bank-of-america-for-1-784-billion-trillion/

Rather funny if you ask me.