• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

There's a huge gap between preventing monopolies and "crippling a business"
Click to expand...

Intel is not a monopoly.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 😛
 
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.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: locutus12
Originally posted by: Amused

Intel is not a monopoly.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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


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.

 
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.
Click to expand...

These are pretty stupid comments.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top