The FTC has closed its three year investigation of Intel.
Intel is one of the largest, richest, most successful companies in the world. In an unfetered market, wealth breeds wealth, making it nearly impossible for a dominant company NOT to remain the dominant company, and ensuring that their profits increase exponentially. And while Intel is definitely still the dominant company in the PC microprocessor industry, its market share has eroded and its products have been behind AMD in every measurable category: price, performance, availability, etc. Why?
Most agree that the main cause is not AMD's solid and steady performance but Intel's own technological stagnation and, in some cases, utter ineptitude.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that Intel simply "screwed up", and allowed AMD to consistently gain market share and outclass them with superior products. Instead, I find it more likely that Intel's recent snafu's are due, at least in part, to their correct interpretation of the FTC's objective. Intel realizes that the FTC cares little about "anticompetitive tactics" or "predatory business practices" -- which are accepted in a capitalist economy and actually impossible to prove when the perpetrators are clever enough -- but is actually a body who's main goal is to ensure that no one company ever becomes overly dominant in a given industry, regardless of whether that domination came by illegal means. (Incidentally, this is also the rationalle behind the Microsoft case. The FTC is correct in deciding that it is economically dangerous for so much money to be concentrated in such a small group of people, hence the break up of the company. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anticompetitive business practices and everything to do with a simple redistribution of wealth -- a kind of back door socialism that is in fact benefical, if not publically recognized or supported.)
So Intel determined to give AMD a little breathing room, and if you look back to when the FTC got to work in 1997, AMD certainly needed it. Their K6 line was a great value but certainly not a flagship product, and at this time the Celeron was reigning supreme, with Cyrix still battling for scraps below. AMD was posting significant losses and stock was low.
I think Intel just decided to let up a little. They realized that they could retain their massive marketting machine and play just nice enought to remain competitive with AMD's new technology while biding their time for when the FTC would turn away, satisfied that their was a seemingly worthy challenger.
Now that the FTC is out of the picture, look for Intel to once again use their superior established capital to put a strangehold on the market. . . until the FTC pokes them again and resumes the cycle.
Modus
Intel is one of the largest, richest, most successful companies in the world. In an unfetered market, wealth breeds wealth, making it nearly impossible for a dominant company NOT to remain the dominant company, and ensuring that their profits increase exponentially. And while Intel is definitely still the dominant company in the PC microprocessor industry, its market share has eroded and its products have been behind AMD in every measurable category: price, performance, availability, etc. Why?
Most agree that the main cause is not AMD's solid and steady performance but Intel's own technological stagnation and, in some cases, utter ineptitude.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that Intel simply "screwed up", and allowed AMD to consistently gain market share and outclass them with superior products. Instead, I find it more likely that Intel's recent snafu's are due, at least in part, to their correct interpretation of the FTC's objective. Intel realizes that the FTC cares little about "anticompetitive tactics" or "predatory business practices" -- which are accepted in a capitalist economy and actually impossible to prove when the perpetrators are clever enough -- but is actually a body who's main goal is to ensure that no one company ever becomes overly dominant in a given industry, regardless of whether that domination came by illegal means. (Incidentally, this is also the rationalle behind the Microsoft case. The FTC is correct in deciding that it is economically dangerous for so much money to be concentrated in such a small group of people, hence the break up of the company. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anticompetitive business practices and everything to do with a simple redistribution of wealth -- a kind of back door socialism that is in fact benefical, if not publically recognized or supported.)
So Intel determined to give AMD a little breathing room, and if you look back to when the FTC got to work in 1997, AMD certainly needed it. Their K6 line was a great value but certainly not a flagship product, and at this time the Celeron was reigning supreme, with Cyrix still battling for scraps below. AMD was posting significant losses and stock was low.
I think Intel just decided to let up a little. They realized that they could retain their massive marketting machine and play just nice enought to remain competitive with AMD's new technology while biding their time for when the FTC would turn away, satisfied that their was a seemingly worthy challenger.
Now that the FTC is out of the picture, look for Intel to once again use their superior established capital to put a strangehold on the market. . . until the FTC pokes them again and resumes the cycle.
Modus
Facebook
Twitter