Wall Street Jounal Blasts EU over Intel Decision

[Nemesis 1]

http://www.geek.com/articles/g...g-innovation-20090527/

I don't agree but a big ass can of worms has been opened. Once opened there is no closing.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
http://www.geek.com/articles/g...g-innovation-20090527/

I don't agree but a big ass can of worms has been opened. Once opened there is no closing.

Sorry mate, but you're quoting a Theo Valich piece...there are very few people who can read his stuff without rolling their eyes. I don't know if I've ever actually seen him get a single fact correct...

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
http://www.geek.com/articles/g...g-innovation-20090527/

I don't agree but a big ass can of worms has been opened. Once opened there is no closing.

BTW that has to do with AMD not allowing Gainward/Palit to build Overclocked 4850 ddr5 cards because it undercuts it's 4870 segment. When you license a technology there are certain restrictions that may go with it. Intel very famously restricts the use of it's atom boards and chipsets. For example they don't allow them to be used in full sized notebooks.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
http://www.geek.com/articles/g...g-innovation-20090527/

I don't agree but a big ass can of worms has been opened. Once opened there is no closing.

Sorry mate, but you're quoting a Theo Valich piece...there are very few people who can read his stuff without rolling their eyes. I don't know if I've ever actually seen him get a single fact correct...

Ya I agree with ya . But to be honest I trust Theo10x more than EU policy makers. But as long as things go the way you want . You be blinded. Not a problem . As you lookaround yourself . You can clearly see world policy makers got it right. The rest of us need there guidance. LOL,

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
http://www.geek.com/articles/g...g-innovation-20090527/

I don't agree but a big ass can of worms has been opened. Once opened there is no closing.

BTW that has to do with AMD not allowing Gainward/Palit to build Overclocked 4850 ddr5 cards because it undercuts it's 4870 segment. When you license a technology there are certain restrictions that may go with it. Intel very famously restricts the use of it's atom boards and chipsets. For example they don't allow them to be used in full sized notebooks.

Yes yes . But I can see were that would hurt the CONSUMER. Because its about = to 4870 at lower consumer cost. BON"T YOU SEE THAT? EU won't like this according to there ruling . It doesn't matter how AMD views the undercutting . It HURT consumers.Were going to file charges on that bases in EU.

 

[Keysplayr]

Nemesis, AFAICT, AMD hasn't paid Gainward to not stock or sell competitors GPUs, or CPUs which is really what this is about. AMD probably permits o/c'd versions of their GPU models to all of their OEM partners. Probably also allowing modifications to the cooling solutions to them and memory sizes as well. But when a OEM changes the GDDR3 memory to GDDR5 on a 4850, essentially making it a 4870, and if offered at a cheaper price point than a 4870, that sort of shakes the foundations of AMDs pricing structure and can really mess things up through the whole pricing chain and immediately halt all 4870 sales. It really doesn't hurt the customer. AMD has not stifled innovation by killing Gainwards card, because AMD already has this card on the market. Its called a 4870.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
http://www.geek.com/articles/g...g-innovation-20090527/

I don't agree but a big ass can of worms has been opened. Once opened there is no closing.

BTW that has to do with AMD not allowing Gainward/Palit to build Overclocked 4850 ddr5 cards because it undercuts it's 4870 segment. When you license a technology there are certain restrictions that may go with it. Intel very famously restricts the use of it's atom boards and chipsets. For example they don't allow them to be used in full sized notebooks.

Yes yes . But I can see were that would hurt the CONSUMER. Because its about = to 4870 at lower consumer cost. BON"T YOU SEE THAT? EU won't like this according to there ruling . It doesn't matter how AMD views the undercutting . It HURT consumers.Were going to file charges on that bases in EU.

You are arguing that any business upholding their specifications for implementation and usage of their parts is harming the consumer?

This is a non-story, but because someone wants to make some sensationalistic headlines they are trying to tie this in as somehow a parallel to Intel's troubles in Europe.

I fail to see the parallels.

 

[Keysplayr]

IDC: It's good you do not see the parallels. Because there aren't any. And also, why does Nemesis bash the EU and says their policies are crap, then in the next breathe threatens to go to the EU with this AMD/Gainward business? "Were going to file charges on that bases in EU"
Who is this "we"?

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
http://www.geek.com/articles/g...g-innovation-20090527/

I don't agree but a big ass can of worms has been opened. Once opened there is no closing.

Sorry mate, but you're quoting a Theo Valich piece...there are very few people who can read his stuff without rolling their eyes. I don't know if I've ever actually seen him get a single fact correct...

I'll remember that next time you link him.

 

[Keysplayr]

Phynaz, am I getting that you feel Intel did not do what they were accused of? Or is it that you feel what they did wasn't wrong and in no way did it inhibit the growth of AMD and the EU ruling was totally of base?
Because anyway you look at it, at least from a neutral point of view, Intel did something they knowingly shouldn't have. They knew exactly what they were doing during the P4 vs. A64 days. Trying to minimize their loss of market share to a superior competitor (at the time, and might have been today if AMD had the sales they could of had if it wasn't for Intel paying OEMs not to carry AMD CPUs).

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
http://www.geek.com/articles/g...g-innovation-20090527/

I don't agree but a big ass can of worms has been opened. Once opened there is no closing.

Sorry mate, but you're quoting a Theo Valich piece...there are very few people who can read his stuff without rolling their eyes. I don't know if I've ever actually seen him get a single fact correct...

I'll remember that next time you link him.

LOL...well said...well spoken...
Thread you started by linking Theo...

Throwing stones...glass houses...bad combination.

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Phynaz, am I getting that you feel Intel did not do what they were accused of? Or is it that you feel what they did wasn't wrong and in no way did it inhibit the growth of AMD and the EU ruling was totally of base?
Because anyway you look at it, at least from a neutral point of view, Intel did something they knowingly shouldn't have. They knew exactly what they were doing during the P4 vs. A64 days. Trying to minimize their loss of market share to a superior competitor (at the time, and might have been today if AMD had the sales they could of had if it wasn't for Intel paying OEMs not to carry AMD CPUs).

I feel that too many people convict on accusation. Nothing has been proven against Intel in a court of law. The day it is proven I'll be the first to sign on to the class action suit that will follow.

I also feel that AMD's current position is largely due to their own actions.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
IDC: It's good you do not see the parallels. Because there aren't any. And also, why does Nemesis bash the EU and says their policies are crap, then in the next breathe threatens to go to the EU with this AMD/Gainward business? "Were going to file charges on that bases in EU"
Who is this "we"?

Hay Keys . Did you see were I said I don't Agree with this. But. Now I see you guys see no parrallel to Intel deal . If I wanted I could post article underline thing the EU sats is wrong with dealing with other venders. But I think EU is full of shit . Yes Keys I belong to organization that watches Big Brother. They slip we move . The moment the EU came out with decision . We started putting to gether companies and Vendors who do the same as intel was accused. IBM being main target but many many other . Coke Pepsi . Car manufactories the list is hugh . You will read about the fillings . We only need members with ownership to file on there behalf . Lets see how it turns out for NV on the class action we brought. Along with others.

 

[zsdersw]

Originally posted by: classy
There is just no way to defend what Intel did. When you start paying folks to not carry a competitor's products that is way over the top and illegal. Their fine was justified IMO. What they did was cheat everyone, especially the consumer. And if they did the same thing here in the states, I hope the fine here is just as heavy. That kind of stuff is along the line of consumer fraud.

Intel owns its products until they are purchased. As such, Intel gets to decide who to sell them to and for how much (or how little).. and since we have free markets (for now), there's nothing wrong with what Intel did.

Business transactions are always mutual responsibility scenarios; the buyer has to be willing to buy and the seller has to be willing to sell. If the buyer is more interested in buying than the seller is interested in selling, the price will go up and other conditions may exist. If the seller is more interested to sell than the buyer is interested to buy, the price will drop and other conditions may exist.

The consumer who buys a computer cannot use ignorance or apathy as an excuse. If the computer owner was foolish enough to purchase an inferior product, that is not Intel's fault. The comparative information between AMD's and Intel's products at that time was plentiful and easy to acquire. This is not the Dark Ages; information is not hard to find. It does require effort, though, and the consumer not doing their homework is not Intel's fault or responsibility to mitigate.

One more thing... AMD sold every chip it could make as soon as it could be made. They weren't sitting on a pile of chips that no vendor would accept and no consumer would purchase.

 

[Nemesis 1]

You forget After C2D AMD tried to give HP 1,ooo.ooo chips or dollars worth of chips. don't recall HP turned those chips down . LOL But that move by AMD is going to way in on this fair business practice thing in court of law.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: zsdersw
Intel owns its products until they are purchased. As such, Intel gets to decide who to sell them to and for how much (or how little).. and since we have free markets (for now), there's nothing wrong with what Intel did.

We don't have free markets, We have regulated markets. Sorry.

Originally posted by: zsdersw
Business transactions are always mutual responsibility scenarios; the buyer has to be willing to buy and the seller has to be willing to sell. If the buyer is more interested in buying than the seller is interested in selling, the price will go up and other conditions may exist. If the seller is more interested to sell than the buyer is interested to buy, the price will drop and other conditions may exist.

I guess you missed the chapters on monopolies, anti-competitive practices, and market manipulation.

Originally posted by: zsdersw
The consumer who buys a computer cannot use ignorance or apathy as an excuse. If the computer owner was foolish enough to purchase an inferior product, that is not Intel's fault. The comparative information between AMD's and Intel's products at that time was plentiful and easy to acquire. This is not the Dark Ages; information is not hard to find. It does require effort, though, and the consumer not doing their homework is not Intel's fault or responsibility to mitigate.

Yes blame the consumer. Never under estimate the ignorance of the consumer.

Originally posted by: zsdersw
One more thing... AMD sold every chip it could make as soon as it could be made. They weren't sitting on a pile of chips that no vendor would accept and no consumer would purchase.

What if they were forced to sell them in markets where the made much less than they could in more lucrative markets? The totality of their sales, does not exclude anti-competitive activities.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Like applying leeches to the afflicted, antitrust affords pleasures to its practitioners and otherwise has little value.

The latest demonstration comes from Europe's bustling trustbuster, Neelie Kroes. Her $1.45 billion fine levied on Intel is vaporware in the first place, since collection would occur years from now only if a court agrees. Not a whit of due process has yet taken place: Ms. Kroes's agency acts as prosecutor, judge and jury. One day the media will figure out that findings delivered under such circumstances are not a judicial outcome, and not deserving of the news fanfare they now receive.

Full Article

Fairly predictable now that the owner of Fox News is running the WSJ. It's why I cancelled my subscription...🙂

I should add that the Op-Ed listed was written by HOLMAN W. JENKINS, the leading right-wing editor for the WSJ. Read some of his other pieces, and you'll see what I mean. You have to consider the source...

The way you defend AMD seems like you have as much of a horse in this race as anyone else.

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: OCguy

The way you defend AMD seems like you have as much of a horse in this race as anyone else.

I have to defend Viditor here. Viditor's posts have been on subject and informative, very little bias. Shame on you.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: OCguy

The way you defend AMD seems like you have as much of a horse in this race as anyone else.

I have to defend Viditor here. Viditor's posts have been on subject and informative, very little bias. Shame on you.

Dismissing the article outright due to the author/publisher/etc, instead of discussing what the article is presenting, is a tactic often used in P&N. 😉

 

[Schmide]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Dismissing the article outright due to the author/publisher/etc, instead of discussing what the article is presenting, is a tactic often used in P&N. 😉

Taking one post out of context without considering every post Viditor has made in this thread, a tactic that is often used by those who wish to attack the messenger rather than the message. :shocked:

Example

Originally posted by: OCguy
:music: Trollin' , Trollin
Trollin down a river :music:

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: zsdersw

Originally posted by: classy
There is just no way to defend what Intel did. When you start paying folks to not carry a competitor's products that is way over the top and illegal. Their fine was justified IMO. What they did was cheat everyone, especially the consumer. And if they did the same thing here in the states, I hope the fine here is just as heavy. That kind of stuff is along the line of consumer fraud.

Intel owns its products until they are purchased. As such, Intel gets to decide who to sell them to and for how much (or how little).. and since we have free markets (for now), there's nothing wrong with what Intel did.

I think that's the problem you're having...we actually DO NOT have a free market system. Our markets have very stringent rules, so they're really not "free" (that's why there's an SEC, and FTC for example).
Those rules are especially tight when you achieve monopoly status...

Business transactions are always mutual responsibility scenarios; the buyer has to be willing to buy and the seller has to be willing to sell. If the buyer is more interested in buying than the seller is interested in selling, the price will go up and other conditions may exist. If the seller is more interested to sell than the buyer is interested to buy, the price will drop and other conditions may exist.

This theory SHOULD work, but there is a caveat...
What if the seller is a vendor whose goods are vital to the buyer's business, and there is no substitute available in the quantities required. Then the seller uses this situation to garner exclusivity and maintain their monopoly...the question is, what happens to the pricing model at that point?

The consumer who buys a computer cannot use ignorance or apathy as an excuse. If the computer owner was foolish enough to purchase an inferior product, that is not Intel's fault. The comparative information between AMD's and Intel's products at that time was plentiful and easy to acquire. This is not the Dark Ages; information is not hard to find. It does require effort, though, and the consumer not doing their homework is not Intel's fault or responsibility to mitigate.

While the information was easy to acquire (if you know how), how many people actually understood what it meant? I remember many informed posters arguing over which was faster...even with the information at hand. Also, keep in mind that many of those people had no access to the web (either through ignorance or assumed lack of opportunity)

One more thing... AMD sold every chip it could make as soon as it could be made. They weren't sitting on a pile of chips that no vendor would accept and no consumer would purchase.

Please link for me the source that AMD sold every chip it COULD make (not every chip it made). I agree that they avoided creating back inventories...

 

[GaiaHunter]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1



Yes yes . But I can see were that would hurt the CONSUMER. Because its about = to 4870 at lower consumer cost. BON"T YOU SEE THAT? EU won't like this according to there ruling . It doesn't matter how AMD views the undercutting . It HURT consumers.Were going to file charges on that bases in EU.

OH NOES!

Does that mean INTEL is HURTING THE CONSUMERS BY SELLING LAME i7 920 when they should be selling the 975 for the 920 price?

Or that INTEL is hurting the consumers by selling quad cores with less cache?

AMD/ATI doesn't want GDDR5 4850.

INTEL didn't want Athlons 64 in oem pcs.

AMD/ATI stops providing the technology.

INTEL pays the oems to not sell Athlons 64.

AMD/ATI is making decisions about their technology.

INTEL is making decisions about others technology.

Loads of parallelism.

I bet INTEL would be very happy if a third party would make i5 compatible with LGA 1366!

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: GaiaHunter

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1



Yes yes . But I can see were that would hurt the CONSUMER. Because its about = to 4870 at lower consumer cost. BON"T YOU SEE THAT? EU won't like this according to there ruling . It doesn't matter how AMD views the undercutting . It HURT consumers.Were going to file charges on that bases in EU.

OH NOES!

Does that mean INTEL is HURTING THE CONSUMERS BY SELLING LAME i7 920 when they should be selling the 975 for the 920 price?

Or that INTEL is hurting the consumers by selling quad cores with less cache?

AMD/ATI doesn't want GDDR5 4850.

INTEL didn't want Athlons 64 in oem pcs.

AMD/ATI stops providing the technology.

INTEL pays the oems to not sell Athlons 64.

AMD/ATI is making decisions about their technology.

INTEL is making decisions about others technology.

Loads of parallelism.

I bet INTEL would be very happy if a third party would make i5 compatible with LGA 1366!

If your looking for honest ans from me. In my world yes intel is doing wrong by selling at 2 differant scews. But thats not world we live in . If I sat on jury . Your question would cause me serious problems. I would likely ask to be dismissed because of bias.

As for the rest Intel needs to get away from amd its stinking place up. SUN IBM ARM none have this shit stuck to them. I really think your going to see just that . Will know for fact in 2010. But I believe intel is preparing to step out of X86 cpus. Why Because I think Intel is going to recompile all the X86 programms they can . Larrabee is starting the process to conversion and convirgence.. When everone wakes up . Than your going to here some serious crying. But this time no monopoly its going to be all about compilers . Many Many know somethings happening just not sure what. Many many more are talking about Intels compilers and their lusting for them . Strange behaviour for humans.
Wouldn't all of you like to see AMD stand on its own , I sure would. X86 is dieing . You all believe intel is trying to prop it up . But the details say differant . The Details say Intel is Recompiling X86 programs . Intel will likely do most all the work just as they did with OSX and the Apple team. But Program vendors will do the compiles also if its a benefit to selling. Lets not forget Intel tried once befor to leave x86 failed miserably at it because AMD/MS conspired against them . This time it looks like intel is not allowing for AMD /MS stoppage . Intel played the game to win. It got Apple Now it has an OS thats made for intel . They have open cl hugh for convirgence. Than Almost all are using C/C++ ARM apple power vr ect ect ect . MAC may not become PCs but they look to be ready for next gen programms crossplatiform style OH YA. So intel leaving X86 shortly is possiable . The only thing is we won't know till they say so. There not going to blab it to AMD. Intel only has to share X86 CPU info with AMD no other. That includes the GPGPU

Wouldn't be nice to see AMD at the top of the X86 heap all by its self . Its insane to think intel would pull out . What did intel do withAVX . They showed 2 papers. AMD choose the one with FMA on it . First of all thats false AMD had NO choice its try FMA or take critical ass whooping/ No matter what AMD says EVER . They can not do the same things with a cpu that Intel can . Its all about compilers. From here on out . Not just Intel . NV ARM ATI Apple MS. Everyone. right now Intel stands alone it can do it all faster than you. Than intels working partners very good choices . APPLE is scary. But Jobs is no fool.

Well the jobs thing maybe a little wacky. Heres an example of Jobs wacky crazy self. Read how they did Snow . To match that up to intel processor is saying alot. Infact I new they had good compilers . But holy shit.

 

[ST4RCUTTER]

Hey, it sure has been a while since I've posted to AT...I guess since it's been so long since my last post you will all get to be victims to the glut of text to which I am about to regurgitate.

I find it interesting to see that Mr. Jenkins seems to raise the ire of the reader by casting the EU as some dictatorial headsman without any notion of due process as we tend to outline it in the American judicial system. The EU pretty much did what was within their jurisdiction to do, which is to say investigate the claims of the suite, verify them if possible, and assign the compensatory damages. We shall see what does occur once the due process portions of this scenario play out.


Looking back over the corporate maneuverings of AMD and Intel over the last two decades you have to wonder where so much of the skepticism comes from with regard to what practices Intel did and did not engage in...for it is only through the lens of this history that you can critically see the impacts of Intel's actions on the entire semiconductor industry.

Back in the K6-2/3 days it was clear that Intel was actively pushing AMD from the marketplace through inventory price cuts and/or artificial limits on new product to resellers who did not cooperate with Intel's Inside program. For those who don't remember the times then, the major OEMs were just becoming the powerhouses they are today, or were in the late 90's in the case of some. There also existed a huge white box market where small shops competed hotly against each other for every sale. It was here that Intel's practices spelled disaster for the reseller who dared to carry AMD and were regularly on the rolls to receive Intel's latest processor shipments.

The only reason there is an AMD at all today is because of the first Athlon. The fact that such a superb product came about was through the great decision making by AMD at the time. Looking again at the resellers at this time shows that the market had changed slightly since the K6 days. There were clear powerhouses in the reseller market. Dell, HP, Gateway, and a very short list of others were demanding large volumes at reliable intervals. Were all of these OEMs taking serious looks at AMD? I believe the record supports that they were significantly dissuaded by their larger supplier.

For those familiar with the basic supply/demand theory it must be a given that competitive forces exist to drive price in opposition to the quantity demanded by consumers (resellers or OEMs). In this regard Intel was influencing price to gain a competitive advantage among resellers all the way back to the K6 days. Now what impact did this have on AMD and other semiconductor manufacturers? You must apply this cumulatively; revenue, fabrication resources, retooling capability...etc...etc.

Now with all this said, is Intel responsible for AMD's current woes? Not by a long shot. Most of AMD's recent problems can be attributed to several bad "rolls of the dice", poor planning, and bad execution. Ultimately what Intel did was wrong, and for any other player in a competitive field to do likewise (including AMD) it should be equally wrong and such actions be penalized to the fullest extent of the law...ultimately with the preservation of the supply/demand model and the protection of the consumer in mind.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: ST4RCUTTER

Now with all this said, is Intel responsible for AMD's current woes? Not by a long shot. Most of AMD's recent problems can be attributed to several bad "rolls of the dice", poor planning, and bad execution. Ultimately what Intel did was wrong, and for any other player in a competitive field to do likewise (including AMD) it should be equally wrong and such actions be penalized to the fullest extent of the law...ultimately with the preservation of the supply/demand model and the protection of the consumer in mind.

Firstly, very nice post...
It is with this last section that I take some issue. The need to take those dice rolls and the limited ability to deal with any adversity is (IMHO) a direct result of the financial stranglehold Intel had placed on AMD through their illegal practices.
For example, the reason AMD did not release an MCM of Opteron during the early C2D days was purely financial. They did not have enough cash to develop the mask sets and design (this was actually mentioned in their Conference Call). That one point alone would have greatly reduced the need to get Barcelona out so fast...