Intel paid Dell up to $1 billion a year not to use AMD chips

[RallyMaster]

bleh, I hate AMD for buying ATi and then screwing up the Catalyst drivers...and since my dad has shares in Intel, go Intel anyway.

 

[Regs]

But Dell is not the consumer?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Amused
You can either have free trade, or "fair" trade. Not both. "Fair" trade is like cutting the legs off all the football players so the legless man can compete. Crippling a business so other businesses con compete is absurd.

There's a huge gap between preventing monopolies and "crippling a business"

Intel is not a monopoly.

 

[DarkManX4lf]

Originally posted by: RallyMaster
bleh, I hate AMD for buying ATi and then screwing up the Catalyst drivers...and since my dad has shares in Intel, go Intel anyway.

The catalyst drivers are fine and I think its a good thing that AMD bought ATI.

 

[sanitydc]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Dell only started using AMD after they never got their last rebate check, despite sending in the forms and waiting 6 to 8 weeks.

lol.

 

[locutus12]

Originally posted by: Amused
Funny how everyone assumes this is true based on unsubstantiated allegations.

Meanwhile, addressing the Japan case, if AMD wanted to compete they would offer similar rebates for volume. It's not Intel's fault AMD can't compete.

lol, actually it is, for 3 years AMD had the fastest, cheapest and most efficient architecture, yet due to Intel paying off the big 3 pc suppliers AMD could not get the inroads it needed and as such despite having a better cheaper product, AMD`s market share didnt budge an inch in 3 years of having the best cheapest products!!!

and your telling me that was all perfectly normal ?? its basically saying if your richer and larger, feel free to simply BUY your market share instead of actually competing for it. Its bad for customers, bad for AMD and down right illegal.

Originally posted by: Amused

You can either have free trade, or "fair" trade. Not both. "Fair" trade is like cutting the legs off all the football players so the legless man can compete. Crippling a business so other businesses con compete is absurd.

you are correct apart from under one condition, that the dominant company holds a monopoly position, when that happens its fair trade not free trade, otherwise the dominant company will simple pay who it needs to pay to stay on top and remove competition by using its wallet, and all this stifles creativity and productivity.

Now before you point conroe out to me as an example of creativity, how long did it take Intel to get off its ass and come up with it ?? 3 and a half years, and only after a series of failed architectures, the less said about netburst the better. If the CPU markets had been allowed to grow in an ordinary competitive fashion during those 3 years without underhand deals from intel, things would be alot different today, but instead the market was simply distorted to favour intel via usage of illegal subsidies from a monopoly company.

 

[A554SS1N]

Originally posted by: Amused
Hell, for 20 million dollars I'd switch to Mac.

lol yeah

 

[locutus12]

Originally posted by: Amused

Intel is not a monopoly.

your living on a different planet my friend, Intel is a monopoly, the united states The Federal Trade Commission certainly seems to think so, however feel free to e-mail them with your arguments.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1998/06/intelc.htm

 

[SparkyJJO]

I don't buy intel for this reason. I don't like their business practices. Now if they cleaned up their act then fine I would buy from them but not at this point. Besides, getting 10 seconds taken off of a superPI 1M run isn't a big deal to me

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: locutus12

Originally posted by: Amused

Intel is not a monopoly.

your living on a different planet my friend, Intel is a monopoly, the united states The Federal Trade Commission certainly seems to think so, however feel free to e-mail them with your arguments.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1998/06/intelc.htm

A load of crap. If I can buy and use another processor, Intel is not a monopoly.

 

[BladeVenom]

You need to look up the legal and economic definition of a monopoly. They were a monopoly even if they didn't fit Webster's definition number one of what a monopoly is. They had monopoly power even though there was another competitor.

 

[locutus12]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: locutus12

Originally posted by: Amused

Intel is not a monopoly.

your living on a different planet my friend, Intel is a monopoly, the united states The Federal Trade Commission certainly seems to think so, however feel free to e-mail them with your arguments.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1998/06/intelc.htm

A load of crap. If I can buy and use another processor, Intel is not a monopoly.

i really dont care if you think its crap, i know im right, your government is also of the same opinion, as are the economics of the situation. However if your so correct and wish to drag the world to your view point go and argue the toss with The Federal Trade Commission.

 

[HurleyBird]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: HurleyBird

Originally posted by: Amused
Meanwhile, addressing the Japan case, if AMD wanted to compete they would offer similar rebates for volume. It's not Intel's fault AMD can't compete.

These are pretty stupid comments.

OK, now that you've called my comment "stupid" wanna explain why?

Sure thing. First stupid thing you said was that in regards to the Japan case Intel was using 'volume discounts', when they obviously weren't. The Japan FTC found Intel guilty because they were tying percentages of 80, 90 or 100 percent Intel shipments to manufacturers. Volume discounts would be giving companies discounts for the amount, and not the percentage of Intel processors that they buy. I'm pretty sure you knew that too, but just worded it the way you did to put a positive spin on Intel.

The second stupid thing (assuming that you do know about the 80/90% thing) is the absolutely moronic comment that AMD should offer similar rebates if they wish to compete. Anyone with half a brain knows that AMD doesn't have the capacity to go around to vendors like Sony, HP, Toshiba, and Fujitsu and offer them discounts if they use AMD's processors in 80% or more of their systems.