Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
First lets get this pricing thing out of the way . Because this is a real sore spot for me . I wish people would take the time to understand this. When Intel and AMD 64 were battling . Intel couldn't lower their prices any more than they were. Its against the law . Intels monoply position does not allow it to undercut a superior product by a smaller maker (AMD) . Had Intel priced the P4P were it belonged according to performance Intel would have been breaking the monoply laws.
No, they wouldn't have been breaking the law at all. Intel was simply just greedy. Something that you can't seem to understand in all of this. I still can't understand why you think Intel is such a saint.
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
As far as exclusive deals . Yes Intel can make exclusive deals based on volumn. Lets say Dell want X amount of cpus per qt . Inorder for AMD to come even close to suppling Dell with cpu's they first needed fab capicity which they didn't have . By the time they did have the capicity to supply DEll Only . It was to late . C2D was upon us . END game.
Forcing exclusivity IS illegal. Saying that if you want to buy processors from us, then you can ONLY buy processors from us, is restraint of trade.
Well part of the reason I am such an intel fanbois is AMD fanbois. But the biggest and most important reason is intel has the resources to push us ahead . Thats exactly whats happening .
If you look at the Bolded underlined statement you made . I disagree and would like to see were INTEL FORCED anyone to do anything . FORCED is a strong word and its a lie.
Why cann't you except the fact AMD was capicity constrained . Prior to AND 64 how long did AMD maintain a performance lead.over intel . Whats the longest period of time AMD lead and how hot did those chips get? This lawsuite isn't about AMD 64 check the file date of the suite . Its about befor AMD64 . AMD is like people who barely get rearended and claim injuries that never occurred at that time.
Yes intel can make exclusive deals . Lets say a new startup wants x amount of cpus per QT. Intel can supply all these cpu's . AMD cann't because they don't have the capcity . Intel wins the contract AMD loses . Their is nothing wrong in the law with this kind of deal . If so sight one case . As I discribed above. For Dell to recieve favored statis from Intel thats what was required of them .
Today Apple gets favored by intel. Apple is on the rise Dell is on the fall . So dell actually screwed themselves big time and its showing up now.
Hector said AMD well be inside Apples . He must of meant Gpus because Apple is exclusive to intel and its legeal. Hector might be right tho someday AMD cpus might go into apples, But not for the next 2 intel generations thats for sure.
Your use of the word forced is what makes me what I am . Forced I cann't even imagine what you mean by that word . Intel couldn't cut Dell off but the supply line could be severly hindered. and thats not illegeal.
The payments Dell recieved from intel every QT were advertizement moneys . Every dell commercial you see said INTEL inside. Thats what the money was for . Thats exactly how that money shows up on intels books . No one is argueing that. What has people concerned is how dell carried those payments on their books . Intel didn't have anything to do with how Dell reported these payments . Whats important is how Intel carried these payments on their books . Ya never here much about that . Only how Dell hide the payments . Intel hide nothing its on their books for all to see. Thats how Dell got caught.