Intel gets raided by the EU!

[initialised]

From BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7241022.stm).

"Intel has been accused of trying to abuse its dominant market position by selling its products below cost price"

The Q6600 G0 'loss leader' springs to mind.

Guess who tipped them off?
"The investigation started after a complaint from Intel's smaller rival AMD."

[mstp2009]

yawn



They might have found something in a raid 5 years ago. With all the litigation now, doubtful.

[aMp]

From BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7241022.stm).

"Intel has been accused of trying to abuse its dominant market position by selling its products below cost price"

The Q6600 G0 'loss leader' springs to mind.

The EU investigation isn't looking at Core-based chips. Also from the article:

The initial findings of a probe by the Commission unveiled last summer concluded that the chip firm engaged in anti-competitive action to thwart AMD.

In other words, they've been working on this for a couple of years.

[RAMMAN]

q6600 g0 costs more than $266usd each to manufacture? not likely.

[n00b 0f l337]

Yeah selling below price is not predatory pricing until it causes a direct under cut of competitor sales.

[Omastar]

And where is AMD's substantiative proof that any given Intel chip is selling for less than its manufacturing costs?

I'm sorry, AMD, but you need to cut this stopgap litigation nonsense out and dedicate 100% of your manpower and spending power to intercompany affairs. You're not doing anything but giving Intel more free publicity.

[Envydia007]

This is just silly

[Zytek_Fan]

And where is AMD's substantiative proof that any given Intel chip is selling for less than its manufacturing costs?

I'm sorry, AMD, but you need to cut this stopgap litigation nonsense out and dedicate 100% of your manpower and spending power to intercompany affairs. You're not doing anything but giving Intel more free publicity.

QFT!

It's time AMD stops spending money on legal pursuits and focus on what is important, BRINGING COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS TO THE MARKET.

It would have worked 5 years ago, but any evidence has probably been destroyed.

[aMp]

And where is AMD's substantiative proof that any given Intel chip is selling for less than its manufacturing costs?

I'm sorry, AMD, but you need to cut this stopgap litigation nonsense out and dedicate 100% of your manpower and spending power to intercompany affairs. You're not doing anything but giving Intel more free publicity.

This isn't an AMD lawsuit, it's an EU antitrust enforcement investigation. Antitrust enforcement by government regulators is taken a good deal more seriously in the EU.

[Omastar]

This isn't an AMD lawsuit, it's an EU antitrust enforcement investigation. Antitrust enforcement by government regulators is taken a good deal more seriously in the EU.

Ah, my mistake, then. It's not an AMD lawsuit, but AMD is the responsible party for putting it in action. The point is...what's the point? :shrug:

[RAMMAN]

while i am sure intel have done many bad things in the past, i dont think they have ever sold a cpu below manufacturing cost.i mean a64,s cost more to manufacture than c2d,s and they sell for less :shrug:

[Asgard_thor]

so what will happen to our beloved intel :(

[n00b 0f l337]

Nothing at all.

[ziddey]

yawn



They might have found something in a raid 5 years ago. With all the litigation now, doubtful.

which raid5? and what would they have found in it? :lol:

[ToTTenTranz]

This has nothing to do with the current core family of processors. It comes from the "bad" times for Intel when they were stuck with the Netburst architecture.
No one ever wonders how they had more energy demanding and lower performance CPUs and yet they managed to keep their sales numbers well above AMD for 3 and a half years in these conditions?



These news are SO old... These investigations have started in 2006.
The same thing has been done in Japan and South Korea. In South Korea Intel has already been declared guilty and in Japan and Europe it's probably going to happen the same. It has been estimated that Intel may have to pay more than 3 thousand million dollars (3 billion in the american way) only in Europe.




And for those 'itching about AMD:
DUH! Who do you think was going to complain about Intel's illegal monopolist actions??
If AMD goes to a distributor and the former says "I'm sorry, we're not selling your CPUs anymore, we've been paid by Intel for exclusivity", who is in position to complain to the authorities, other than AMD?

[turtletrax]

Nothing at all.


QFT!

[happychappy]

This has nothing to do with the current core family of processors. It comes from the "bad" times for Intel when they were stuck with the Netburst architecture.
No one ever wonders how they had more energy demanding and lower performance CPUs and yet they managed to keep their sales numbers well above AMD for 3 and a half years in these conditions?



These news are SO old... These investigations have started in 2006.
The same thing has been done in Japan and North Korea. In North Korea Intel has already been declared guilty and in Japan and Europe it's probably going to happen the same. It has been estimated that Intel may have to pay more than 3 thousand million dollars (3 billion in the american way) only in Europe.




And for those 'itching about AMD:
DUH! Who do you think was going to complain about Intel's illegal monopolist actions??
If AMD goes to a distributor and the former says "I'm sorry, we're not selling your CPUs anymore, we've been paid by Intel for exclusivity", who is in position to complain to the authorities, other than AMD?
There's computers in North Korea!?:eek: :p:

[[cTx]Raptor22]

My first thought... "Again?" :rofl:

[Brian MP5T]

I got 5 Q6600's because of the price..

[Omastar]

And for those 'itching about AMD:
DUH! Who do you think was going to complain about Intel's illegal monopolist actions??
If AMD goes to a distributor and the former says "I'm sorry, we're not selling your CPUs anymore, we've been paid by Intel for exclusivity", who is in position to complain to the authorities, other than AMD?

Would a distributor actually ever admit something like that? Seems to me admitting kickbacks means no more incentive to favor one CPU maker over the other.

[Syn.]

Guess who tipped them off?
"The investigation started after a complaint from Intel's smaller rival AMD."

Same thing happened with Microsoft. Adobe, McAffe, Symantec and others complained and then EU took up the investigation to see what went on. AMD did the same they put up a formal complain with EU years ago, the EU is the one paying for the investigation and prosecution not AMD.

If you actually read further you would know that is about the P4 vs A64, not Core vs K10.

Intel's main rival in the CPU market, AMD, had originally filed a complaint to the EU Commission in 2000, claiming that Intel abuses its position as market leader.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=11764

[Shadowmage]

Intel still makes a ton of money on the Q6600 chips. They cost less than $50 to make.

[ToTTenTranz]

Would a distributor actually ever admit something like that? Seems to me admitting kickbacks means no more incentive to favor one CPU maker over the other.

Of course the distributors would never admit something like this oficially..
But in something as big as this, there are always information leaks.



Intel still makes a ton of money on the Q6600 chips. They cost less than $50 to make.
Again: the lawsuits are about Pentium 4 vs Athlon 64.

[Calmatory]

10 PRINT "And even someone talks AGAIN about Q6600 or alike, this is about NetBurst vs. K8."
20 GOTO 10

[StealthyFish]

if AMD wants to stop failing, they could just spend some time looking for who to boot to better their efficiency? I'd kick hector's dumb ass out of office and find a competent CEO.

[ethernal]

I have to admit that I find the investigation rather interesting. While I'm not acquitting Intel of backdoor deals, and there is a good chance that some form of prosecutable anti-trust violation exists, I don't think there will be a great deal to go on.

People always wondered why Intel managed to maintain market share. And the reason is simple: they provided on time and they actually could provide. AMD, when A64 was released, had a reputation for delays and manufacturing problems that made them miss target delivery dates for products. That is why, at first, OEM's did not buy AMD products when they became superior to Intel's for an extended period of time during the Netburst fiasco.

When people did finally begin demanding AMD's product, because of its far superior performance and efficiency, AMD couldn't supply it. Remember when X2's cost $380 for a 3800? Or $600 for a 5000+? AMD was producing as many X2's as they could with their constrained capacity and was able to sell them at outrageous prices. The share of lower end AMD chips (while still large due to previous commitments and a desire for market share) decreased during the 2004-2006 timeframe and AMD focused on server and higher end desktop chips. But the simple fact of the matter was that they didn't have the capacity that Intel could provide. Even if OEM's wanted to use AMD systems, they ran into problems with how many chips they could get their hands on at a price that they wanted. For a new platform and new supplier to become cost effective, a certain volume of shipments must be reached. If AMD couldn't supply the number that an OEM required, then it was a no-go for the OEM. Simple as that. Dell enjoyed their massive and arguably "questionable" high-volume Intel prices and it probably wouldn't have been cost-effective to use AMD chips if they couldn't provide enough at a price that would match their low-priced Intel shipments for dedicating an entire new product line and platform. A new product line means more inventory (that will eventually have to be marked down if it can't get sold), more R&D (as ridiculous as it sounds for a PC builder), as well as product line confusion amongst clients, which is especially prominent in a company that does a lot of direct-to-small-customer sales like Dell. Simply put, Intel had an advantage in the ability to deliver, both in history of delivering as well as the volume available to deliver.

Finally, whether or not we like to admit it, people are stupid (or simply apathetic, or a mixture of both, take your pick). Intel is a strong brand, and still is. Having a strong brand means that even if you don't always have the best product, you can still maintain a market foothold. It won't last forever, but it can provide a band-aid to cover a bad period of time when it comes to products. Take, for example, the former strength of US auto manufacturers that allowed them to sell an inferior product at an inflated price because no one wanted "foreign rustbuckets." Is it fair or truly competitive? No, but it's the way things work, especially in a duopoly of an oligopoly that most large industries exist as.

[duploxxx]

q6600 g0 costs more than $266usd each to manufacture? not likely.

you really have no clue what is going on in huge OEM sales world do you... if i would tell you the prices at which rate my firm buys cpu's and systems from large oem's you will feel ripped all the time and will never buy a system.

[strange|ife]

pretty low blow.

and where are these 266$ USD chips? The lowtest ive seen lately is around the 280 mark...has been this way for a few months now.

this suit is frivolous

[saaya]

Intel gets raided by the EU!
again? :p:

*police enters intel office*
Intel employee: "hey jim, hey jack, hey sarah... how are your kids?"
police man1: "hey joe, sup man? hey do you still have the terminator3 dvd i gave you during last weeks raid? frank wants it, so would be cool if you can return it"
Intel employee: "no, you gave it to me at the raid 3 weeks ago, and i passed it on to frank already during last weeks raid"

:lol:

[Jakko]

Some of the replies in this thread are mind staggering.

By making shady deals with companies like Dell, Intel made sure AMD now has a LOT less money.
What Intel did, goes against fair competition, innovation, and more importantly, fair prices for your computer parts.

Intel should pay for their illegal actions, and AMD should be getting a part of intels 2000 profits.

[FischOderAal]

I don't think Intel has been selling it's processors under production costs for years. I think what's bothering the EU is that Intel made special contracts if the pc builders sell "Intel only" ;)

[KTE]

Well here's a litigation and now we'll wait to see if there is any proof found for it...

[Syn.]

if AMD wants to stop failing, they could just spend some time looking for who to boot to better their efficiency? I'd kick hector's dumb ass out of office and find a competent CEO.

Before Hector came AMD had A64 which owned P4 chips and even after years of having a superior CPU AMD made little to no progress in x86 market share.

So your comment is unjustified. The only reason why companies are making even smallest efforts with K10 CPU's is because Intel is now under review and they can not afford to do deals like they did before.

[RADCOM]

Some of the replies in this thread are mind staggering.

By making shady deals with companies like Dell, Intel made sure AMD now has a LOT less money.
What Intel did, goes against fair competition, innovation, and more importantly, fair prices for your computer parts.

Intel should pay for their illegal actions, and AMD should be getting a part of intels 2000 profits.

Indeed! Some folk seem to want to drive without the car in gear.......
I sometimes wonder if it is natural for business and other groups with some sort of power to act outside the rules we set down for them.:shrug:

[STaRGaZeR]

Indeed! Some folk seem to want to drive without the car in gear.......
I sometimes wonder if it is natural for business and other groups with some sort of power to act outside the rules we set down for them.:shrug:

If it produces more money, then yes of course.

[Machinus]

again? :p:

*police enters intel office*
Intel employee: "hey jim, hey jack, hey sarah... how are your kids?"
police man1: "hey joe, sup man? hey do you still have the terminator3 dvd i gave you during last weeks raid? frank wants it, so would be cool if you can return it"
Intel employee: "no, you gave it to me at the raid 3 weeks ago, and i passed it on to frank already during last weeks raid"

:lol:

lolol

[ethernal]

Some of the replies in this thread are mind staggering.

By making shady deals with companies like Dell, Intel made sure AMD now has a LOT less money.

Once again, I am not saying that Intel did not partake in antitrust violations. There is certainly a possibility that they did, and as I said, I am sure that if the EU investigators dig deep enough, they will find something to prosecute them with. There are a couple of things that are important to understand. First, exclusivity deals are not inherently illegal. They are used across many facets of industry. Exclusivity deals become illegal when a company has control of enough of the market that they can effectively stifle competition through their exclusivity deals. That is what Intel is most likely being investigated for, and it's a somewhat of a gray area. The EU has been pretty anti-trust sue happy against foreign companies, so there is a good chance that Intel will face some kind of punishment for whatever is turned up. This is simply because virtually any exclusivity deal could be considered as exploiting their market position. To say that such deals are inherently "shady", however, is a misnomer because exclusivity deals are such a common part of business. Obviously, Intel should know that they have to tread lightly because of potential anti-trust accusations, such as what we are seeing now. That is why I doubt that there will be anything huge to turn up.



What Intel did, goes against fair competition, innovation, and more importantly, fair prices for your computer parts.

Intel should pay for their illegal actions, and AMD should be getting a part of intels 2000 profits.


I find it ironic that someone claiming that AMD should be receiving a part of Intel's profits for ruining fair prices. When AMD had position on Intel, they milked their products for everything they were worth. Remember the $700 X2 5000+? Here's a little secret I'll let you in on: companies are out there to make money. While some companies may act slightly more moral than others when it comes to treatment of employees or whatever, for the most part, companies can be considered evil. There is nothing special about AMD that makes them "nicer", other than the fact that we perceive them as the cute David fighting Goliath. There is nothing special about Intel that makes them great, other than that they managed to get in at the right time on the right market to become a powerful company. Both are just companies that are trying to design a product that you will buy. Not to make you happy, but to make money.

The simple fact of the matter is that you're not going to have real good competition in a duopoly. In a truly competitive market, the good being produced is effectively a commodity with virtually identical properties. Truly competitive markets haven't existed for a long time, if they ever did. Most large industries (oil, motor, financial, and in this case, x86 processors) are controlled by a couple of large companies in an oligopoly. The x86 field is relatively special because it is a duopoly, which is pretty rare in modern industry.

Anyways, the biggest reason why AMD didn't gain market share from 2004-2006 when they had a far superior product is because they simply didn't have the capacity. I'm not saying that Intel didn't stifle competition, because they did. It's their job to. They don't want to let AMD get a foothold. They want to have the largest market share possible with the highest profits possible. They want to tread the line between legality and anti-trust violations, which is where this investigation comes in.

Take a look at this market share graph:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2007-07/cpu_mkt_shr_trends_q2_2007.png

Notice something? Prescott was launched Q1 2005, with real volume hitting late Q3. Intel's market share took a nosedive, but who picked up the slack? It was VIA, not AMD. The reason was because AMD was trying to supply 20% of the x86 market with a single 200mm fab. Their market share increased to 21% and then couldn't move, simply because they were already pushing Fab 30 to its limits. It was running far over capacity, and it is truly an achievement that they were able to produce as many chips as they did. Fab 36 began shipments of processors in Q1 '06, with real volume hitting Q2-Q3. Notice how market share darts up to 25% in only half a year? They were no longer capacity constrained and their market share grew. Unfortunately for AMD, Intel actually released a competitive product. They were about a year too late with Fab 36. If they had managed to finish it sooner, things could very well be far better for AMD than they are now.

That is the primary cause of the market share stagnation of AMD during the Netburst era. Intel may have been stifling competition, but to be honest, it wouldn't have hurt AMD much. They were selling as many processors as they could make.

[Yoxxy]

Hello 1999!

[saaya]

the problem with this really is, that the mfg costs are tiny, less than 50$, but you cant look at it that way cause you need to pay for research and testing, qualification and the fab etc.

so how do you calculate how much it really costs amd or intel to make a cpu?
how do you calculate how much they have to sell their cpus for to get even or make a profit after all bills are paid? you cant... you dont know how many chips for what asp will get sold in the next months or years...

the only thing you can sue them for is if they sell the cpus even below the direct mfging cost, ie less than 40$ or something like that.
and i havent seen any cpus from intel even close to that price point...

[Starscream]

For those that stil dotn understand it. This has nothing todo with Core CPUs but about the P2, P3 and P4 era.

@Informal.
The EU also raided the Hqs of several of the big retailers in the EU.
And its pretty much proven that the bigger retail chains had exclusive contracts with Intel for years it was pretty much impossible to find AMD based PCs in retail stores simply cause all the big chains had exclusive contracts with Intel going.
System builders that sold their PCs in those retail stores ofc didnt want to use AMD CPus cause their main outlet the retail stores had an Intel exclusive deal going on.

ofc people like us can always get our hardware we simply order online. But the masses buy their PCs in retail stores and for years they only sold Intel.
ofc exclusive deals arent bad thing per se but it does suck if you have entire regions were you cant get a certain product simply cause all stores got the same crappy exclusive deal.

Btw the EU isnt only sue happy vs big forgeign companys.
I know it looks that way to many people in the US but the EU also hands out plenty of fines and warnings to EU based companys.
Its just that usualy those EU based companys act on the warning and correct the problem or when they are fined the news doesnt reach the US.

[Ubermann]

Who cares if AMD had gained more marketshare ?
They still would have lost it all to Intel cuz AMD was sleeping and was taking all your money and thought they had won the battle for ever.

[WeStSiDePLaYa]

pretty low blow.

and where are these 266$ USD chips? The lowtest ive seen lately is around the 280 mark...has been this way for a few months now.

this suit is frivolous

It isn't a lawsuit.

Maybe if you read the article.

Good to know you like to publicly display your ignorance though.

[ethernal]

It isn't a lawsuit.

Maybe if you read the article.

Good to know you like to publicly display your ignorance though.


Since you're being pedantic, I'm going to be too!

Technically, a case brought by the European Commission against a corporation takes the realm of a civil case. In the United States, almost all anti-trust cases are civil, although the Justice Department does have the power to file criminal charges as it sees fit.

When dealing with an anti-trust case, the government takes the roll of the plaintiff and the corporation the defendant. While this structure is less defined in the EU proceedings when compared to the US corollary, it still exists. Since a lawsuit is simply defined as legal actions in a civil court in search of remedies, the definition of a lawsuit is effectively met.

Since a hearing has already been planned (March 11/12th in Brussels), it is fair to say that a lawsuit has been brought against Intel, as a hearing is part of the litigation process.

Maybe you could have provided something useful to the thread, rather than just insult someone and spew out your own factually incorrect bits and pieces? I'm not saying that the person you quoted provided a useful or insightful addition to the thread, but at least he didn't decide to publicly insult someone for pretty much no reason.

[xlink]

Ah, my mistake, then. It's not an AMD lawsuit, but AMD is the responsible party for putting it in action. The point is...what's the point? :shrug:

it stalls intel slowing their progress
AMD stands to gain $$$

[Donnie27]

There's computers in North Korea!?:eek: :p:

:rofl: :ROTF: and a hearty hehehehe!

[Donnie27]

@ethernal

Simply, thank you for both posts! Some folks here enjoy being rude.

The EU and the Germans have more at stake with AMD in Dresden than Intel in Ireland where folks are flocking to for Jobs.

[duploxxx]

Before Hector came AMD had A64 which owned P4 chips and even after years of having a superior CPU AMD made little to no progress in x86 market share.

So your comment is unjustified. The only reason why companies are making even smallest efforts with K10 CPU's is because Intel is now under review and they can not afford to do deals like they did before.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

no its because there are still huge demands for AMD procs in OEM sales, server wise AMD is able to maintain its market share even without quadcore, @ mobile sales it is still gaining market share and desktop sales its only gaming market and oc market that chooses intel rather then AMD, I can assure you that all OEM's are waiting on proper launch of K10 and have several systems @ each range for K10 support ready and even new systems yes even dell. Not because of intel lawsuits but because of demand for AMD. ALL IO applications, non multicore scaling, VM based aplpications are still better of with AMD based systems even if they don't have quad core, why you think intel is going towards nehalem???? And this gap will even increase when k10 is launched, who cares if there is a 3.0GHZ on server proc it is too expensive against a 2.4 version price/performance, these lower versions are even pushed by oem as major sales cpu so you will have an additional price reduction.

[Machinus]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

no its because there are still huge demands for AMD procs in OEM sales, server wise AMD is able to maintain its market share even without quadcore, @ mobile sales it is still gaining market share and desktop sales its only gaming market and oc market that chooses intel rather then AMD, I can assure you that all OEM's are waiting on proper launch of K10 and have several systems @ each range for K10 support ready and even new systems yes even dell. Not because of intel lawsuits but because of demand for AMD. ALL IO applications, non multicore scaling, VM based aplpications are still better of with AMD based systems even if they don't have quad core, why you think intel is going towards nehalem???? And this gap will even increase when k10 is launched, who cares if there is a 3.0GHZ on server proc it is too expensive against a 2.4 version price/performance, these lower versions are even pushed by oem as major sales cpu so you will have an additional price reduction.

Have you ever even used a core 2 chip?

[keiths]

Intel's chips are overpriced, not under.

[Syn.]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

no its because there are still huge demands for AMD procs in OEM sales, server wise AMD is able to maintain its market share even without quadcore, @ mobile sales it is still gaining market share and desktop sales its only gaming market and oc market that chooses intel rather then AMD, I can assure you that all OEM's are waiting on proper launch of K10 and have several systems @ each range for K10 support ready and even new systems yes even dell. Not because of intel lawsuits but because of demand for AMD. ALL IO applications, non multicore scaling, VM based aplpications are still better of with AMD based systems even if they don't have quad core, why you think intel is going towards nehalem???? And this gap will even increase when k10 is launched, who cares if there is a 3.0GHZ on server proc it is too expensive against a 2.4 version price/performance, these lower versions are even pushed by oem as major sales cpu so you will have an additional price reduction.

Hence the reason why i said "smallest efforts".

[Donnie27]

Same thing happened with Microsoft. Adobe, McAffe, Symantec and others complained and then EU took up the investigation to see what went on. AMD did the same they put up a formal complain with EU years ago, the EU is the one paying for the investigation and prosecution not AMD.

If you actually read further you would know that is about the P4 vs A64, not Core vs K10.



http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=11764

Yea, they had to complain in 2000, they didn't have to $hit to compete with Intel:rolleyes:

[Donnie27]

I have to admit that I find the investigation rather interesting. While I'm not acquitting Intel of backdoor deals, and there is a good chance that some form of prosecutable anti-trust violation exists, I don't think there will be a great deal to go on.

People always wondered why Intel managed to maintain market share. And the reason is simple: they provided on time and they actually could provide. AMD, when A64 was released, had a reputation for delays and manufacturing problems that made them miss target delivery dates for products.

Great posts!:up:

But since when is exclusivity REBATES illegal? Sue the whole car Industry, Beverage i.e. Coke, Pepsi, their resturant chains like Taco bell, and even Liquour store as ALL SHELF SPACE is PAID for or divied up the same way as Intel buying up space at Best Buy or etc..

Hewlett Packard is living proof this is just a bunch of BS. HP competed well with Dell while NOT getting REBATES sure you can call it kick backs, rebates or anything else. I go to Germany about once every 18 months, never, I repeat, Never had any problem finding AMD Computers all over the place. They out number Intel's rigs at least four to one. That's in Stuttgart, Böblingen and or Sindelfingen. Böblingen alone had 4 Computer shops last time I was there. All had AMD stuff, all Intel stuff was limited and one shop didn't have any NO Intel Products at all.

ANY company could sell AMD and Intel processors even if they didn't get Dell like exclusive deals. Gateway sold AMD off and on depending how much AMD's platforms sucked. In the US, the Government has gotten too use to Payoffs to dump or get rid Rebates. Remember folks, rebates give the Government a Cut on what Buyers pay. Taxed added on before the rebate price. Companies getting Intel's Rebates aren't taxed Before the Intel Rebates, so who are the Crooks?

Dell pays more to advertise AMD based Products because AMD can't share in the cost of production of the ad or air time. Is that Intel's fault because they do?

[ToTTenTranz]

Take a look at this market share graph:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2007-07/cpu_mkt_shr_trends_q2_2007.png

Notice something? Prescott was launched Q1 2005, with real volume hitting late Q3. Intel's market share took a nosedive, but who picked up the slack? It was VIA, not AMD. The reason was because AMD was trying to supply 20% of the x86 market with a single 200mm fab. Their market share increased to 21% and then couldn't move, simply because they were already pushing Fab 30 to its limits. It was running far over capacity, and it is truly an achievement that they were able to produce as many chips as they did. Fab 36 began shipments of processors in Q1 '06, with real volume hitting Q2-Q3. Notice how market share darts up to 25% in only half a year? They were no longer capacity constrained and their market share grew. Unfortunately for AMD, Intel actually released a competitive product. They were about a year too late with Fab 36. If they had managed to finish it sooner, things could very well be far better for AMD than they are now.

That is the primary cause of the market share stagnation of AMD during the Netburst era. Intel may have been stifling competition, but to be honest, it wouldn't have hurt AMD much. They were selling as many processors as they could make.

You can either interpret AMD's stagnation from 05 to 06 as a capacity limit from AMD's fabs or as a result from Intel's monopolist actions.
The first was never declared by any company whatsoever (except some off-the-industry bloggers?) and the former has already been proved true at least in south korea.
I guess the choice here depends on either you're trying to backup Intel or just accepting the hard facts.





Great posts!:up:

But since when is exclusivity REBATES illegal? Sue the whole car Industry, Beverage i.e. Coke, Pepsi, their resturant chains like Taco bell, and even Liquour store as ALL SHELF SPACE is PAID for or divied up the same way as Intel buying up space at Best Buy or etc..


Intel is accused of paying directly (yes, I mean plain cash) to some distributors not to sell AMD products. And that is illegal, independently of the fact that you didn't get it... :P

[DeathReborn]

Great posts!:up:

But since when is exclusivity REBATES illegal? Sue the whole car Industry, Beverage i.e. Coke, Pepsi, their resturant chains like Taco bell, and even Liquour store as ALL SHELF SPACE is PAID for or divied up the same way as Intel buying up space at Best Buy or etc..

Hewlett Packard is living proof this is just a bunch of BS. HP competed well with Dell while NOT getting REBATES sure you can call it kick backs, rebates or anything else. I go to Germany about once every 18 months, never, I repeat, Never had any problem finding AMD Computers all over the place. They out number Intel's rigs at least four to one. That's in Stuttgart, Böblingen and or Sindelfingen. Böblingen alone had 4 Computer shops last time I was there. All had AMD stuff, all Intel stuff was limited and one shop didn't have any NO Intel Products at all.

ANY company could sell AMD and Intel processors even if they didn't get Dell like exclusive deals. Gateway sold AMD off and on depending how much AMD's platforms sucked. In the US, the Government has gotten too use to Payoffs to dump or get rid Rebates. Remember folks, rebates give the Government a Cut on what Buyers pay. Taxed added on before the rebate price. Companies getting Intel's Rebates aren't taxed Before the Intel Rebates, so who are the Crooks?

Dell pays more to advertise AMD based Products because AMD can't share in the cost of production of the ad or air time. Is that Intel's fault because they do?

Exclusivity rebates are illegal when their intention is to hurt a smaller competitor & when they are not declared fully to the regulators. I think most people know that Intel does it to hurt AMD, not to benefit the consumer.

FYI Taco Bell, Pepsi etc aren't controlling 75%+ of the market so they're not exactly in the same boat as AMD or Intel. Intel may have abused their position as market leader a step too far so I hope they get the maximum punishment of 10% earnings taken away plus whatever else the EU can manufacture.

[ethernal]

You can either interpret AMD's stagnation from 05 to 06 as a capacity limit from AMD's fabs or as a result from Intel's monopolist actions.
The first was never declared by any company whatsoever (except some off-the-industry bloggers?) and the former has already been proved true at least in south korea.
I guess the choice here depends on either you're trying to backup Intel or just accepting the hard facts.

Well, I really don't think that's the case.

From AMD's Q4 2005 conference call (http://seekingalpha.com/article/5946-advanced-micro-devices-q4-2005-earnings-conference-call-transcript-amd?page=5)

Well, there are a number of things going, we have a phenomenon organization in manufacturing that continues to look for ways to be more productive, and you know, we have been able to increase productivity in our factory, frankly to an incredible level, the factory is just running incredibly well. We have been able to also squeeze more; move an area out of the factories by doing more very creative, clever arrangement of the equipment, etc. Probably the transition will complete, completion of the transition to 90 nanometer was very helpful, and the yields are high. The yields remain at phenomenal levels. And as I've stated before, all of the leading industries that are benchmarked by some of them continue to show that our manufacturing is world class. A think of lot of that has allowed to have continued plan increase in unit capability. Going forward, our plans continue of course to emphasize capacity, productivity, etc; but in addition to that, this year, we have the addition of FAB 36, which is very significant, and the beginning of our foundry, which will start producing product in the second half of the year or revenue; and that will also contribute to our capacity.

I think that the only practical way to interpret that is to say that AMD was capacity constrained. They did everything possible to increase production, but they can only do so much with a certain sized facility. Later on in the conference call, Ruiz goes on to explain how they were shifting to higher margin products in an attempt to maximize revenue, once again a sign of capacity constraints.

It's almost a shame that it happened the way it did. For AMD, Intel's Core 2 Duo launch could not have come at a worse time. AMD was ramping up production in Fab 36 during 2006, and they now had excess capacity for the first time. That is why AMD chip prices fell so dramatically. Obviously, it was caused by Core 2 Duo's release, but it was also a result of the fact that AMD had to move chips. Fabs are capital intensive factories that depreciate very quickly. Almost all of it is done by machines, with humans running administration and maintenance work. What this means is that the marginal cost of producing another chip is very low. A fab that is sitting idle is a fab that is wasting money. You can't just say "Stop! I don't want these lithography tools to depreciate", nor can you say "Hey. Robotic arm C653? I'm afriad that we're going to have to let you go because of financial problems.. have a good day!"

With Core 2 Duo's release and volume production by Q1 '07, AMD's high end status was stripped meaning that they couldn't charge a premium for their chips. All the sudden, they had more supply, and people were demanding less. That is never a good situation to be in, especially when the fixed costs of production are high, and the marginal costs are low.



Intel is accused of paying directly (yes, I mean plain cash) to some distributors not to sell AMD products. And that is illegal, independently of the fact that you didn't get it... :P

Once again, this is not illegal in the vast majority of countries. It becomes illegal when the company is dominant enough that it is able to control the market through these exclusivity deals and rebates. Very few companies have the kind of market share that Intel has. That is why Intel is being investigated - not because the deals they made are illegal (well, they could be, I don't know the details and exactly how EU competition laws apply to the situation), but because the deals they made were combined with their market position. If Intel had a 6% share in a diverse and competitive market, exclusivity deals and such rebate programs would not be looked at. Anything over 40% (traditionally the EU boundary when anti-trust becomes involved) is usually subject to iffy circumstances regarding deals such as these.

As another poster pointed out, exclusivity deals are all around us. If you're a beer distributer and go exclusive, Anheuser-Busch will give you a 2 cent rebate on each case you buy from them and will even be so nice as to paint your trucks for free (with a pretty Bud Light logo, of course)! Gas stations tied to a certain oil company receive special pricing on gas under the condition that they don't buy wholesale but only from that company. Exclusivity deals are not, I repeat, not illegal by and of themselves. In Intel's case, they may be illegal because of Intel's market dominance that could result in an unfair barrier to entry by AMD or other competing companies.

Intel may be at fault, but it's not as simple as saying they had "shady deals" and exclusive rebates. Intel should perhaps know better than to go too far with exclusivity deals because of their market position, but it isn't like they're doing these deals in smoke-filled rooms with men with guns around them.

[freeloader]

It seems like the EU is raiding someone's office everyday! :rofl:

Europe must be a good place to do business. :rolleyes:

[Syn.]

It seems like the EU is raiding someone's office everyday! :rofl:

Europe must be a good place to do business. :rolleyes:

It is if you dont break the law.

[savantu]

...
Notice something? Prescott was launched Q1 2005........

Make that Feb 2004.

[Jakko]

I find it ironic that someone claiming that AMD should be receiving a part of Intel's profits for ruining fair prices. When AMD had position on Intel, they milked their products for everything they were worth. Remember the $700 X2 5000+? Here's a little secret I'll let you in on: companies are out there to make money.

This was never about milking products ethernal, this is about Intel making deals with companies NOT to use AMD processors.
This is illegal.

Exclusivity contracts are not really relevant either, for several reasons.
First of all, we're talking about a duopoly in which exclusivity contracts logicly make no sense for most OEMS. (both amd and intel serve a target audience)
Second, intels exclusivity deals are said to have made intel processors so extremely cheap for OEMS, saying no to intel would have ment losing a lot of profit compared to competition.

This leads to a situation in which intel can force companies not to use amd cpu's, just by throwing enough money at the company, undermining fair competition, fair prices, and even innovation.

Intel should pay I think.

[Donnie27]

This was never about milking products ethernal, this is about Intel making deals with companies NOT to use AMD processors.
This is illegal.

Exclusivity contracts are not really relevant either, for several reasons.
First of all, we're talking about a duopoly in which exclusivity contracts logicly make no sense for most OEMS. (both amd and intel serve a target audience)
Second, intels exclusivity deals are said to have made intel processors so extremely cheap for OEMS, saying no to intel would have ment losing a lot of profit compared to competition.

This leads to a situation in which intel can force companies not to use amd cpu's, just by throwing enough money at the company, undermining fair competition, fair prices, and even innovation.

Intel should pay I think.

Look at that graph a little closer? It was AMD's own ineptness that screwed them over, not Intel. When AMD did have a better product, they priced them out of a lot of folks' budgets. Trying to ignore that is big mistake. No matter what deals Intel made or how cheap they sold them for, here's a fact for ya'. Intel couldn't have Dumped or sold products competing with AMD for a loss and then average about 2 billion a Quarter for the last 10 years. That's NOT an opinion but a FACT.

You direct payment argument hold about as much water as a Fish Net. If there were monies paid like this, good luck proving it. Any Court would toss that out and might change the plaintiff a fine for silliness.


Exclusivity rebates are illegal when their intention is to hurt a smaller competitor & when they are not declared fully to the regulators. I think most people know that Intel does it to hurt AMD, not to benefit the consumer.

Intention, again, this is the way business is done, like it or not. Companies have tax records of their transactions. Companies like HP will tell you the same line made famous by Nancy Ray-Gun, "Just Say No". ER's are an Option, not an ultimatum. Any company could sell AMD stuff and pay the regular price for Intel products that's still cheaper than what you or I would pay. AMD gave large volume discounts to Dell was that illegal as well? Dell's NOT getting the exclusive rebates doesn't seem to be hurting them.

FYI Taco Bell, Pepsi etc aren't controlling 75%+ of the market so they're not exactly in the same boat as AMD or Intel. Intel may have abused their position as market leader a step too far so I hope they get the maximum punishment of 10% earnings taken away plus whatever else the EU can manufacture.

Moot! It's not Intel's fault Hector and the gang sucks and didn't grow AMD. No Court on this planet can prove Intel shut AMD out of any market. When AMD had better competing products they gained market. Opteron makes AMD's complaint look very weak.

Intel is accused of paying directly (yes, I mean plain cash) to some distributors not to sell AMD products. And that is illegal, independently of the fact that you didn't get it... :P

Prove it?

[LowRun]

Like others said already, Intel was proved guilty in Korea, unless one thinks it was only local tactics :rolleyes: you can imagine why they are under scrutinies in other countries. I hope EU will prove them guilty too and will give them a huge penalty because they really deserve it.

[savantu]

This was never about milking products ethernal, this is about Intel making deals with companies NOT to use AMD processors.
This is illegal.

Exclusivity contracts are not really relevant either, for several reasons.
First of all, we're talking about a duopoly in which exclusivity contracts logicly make no sense for most OEMS. (both amd and intel serve a target audience)
Second, intels exclusivity deals are said to have made intel processors so extremely cheap for OEMS, saying no to intel would have ment losing a lot of profit compared to competition.

This leads to a situation in which intel can force companies not to use amd cpu's, just by throwing enough money at the company, undermining fair competition, fair prices, and even innovation.

Intel should pay I think.

How the hell does Intel make a profit if they offer extremely cheap CPUs and on top of that give a lot of money to others not to use AMD CPUs ? :confused:

[duploxxx]

Have you ever even used a core 2 chip?

more then you can imagine, its my daily work, testing server hardware and performance for such io and virtualized applications.

How the hell does Intel make a profit if they offer extremely cheap CPUs and on top of that give a lot of money to others not to use AMD CPUs ? :confused:

simple, what cpu @ what overpriced rate did you buy...... as i stated before, if you would see OEM discounts on CPU you will never ever buy a cpu anymore.

[accord99]

no its because there are still huge demands for AMD procs in OEM sales, server wise AMD is able to maintain its market share even without quadcore,
But it hasn't, using data from Mercury Research, AMD server sales have been annihilated by Clovertown, dropping 28% in units and 32% in revenue year over year from Q4 2006 to Q4 2007, meanwhile Intel server units have gone up by 26% and revenue by 21%. All this in one of the best years in CPUs since the dot.com era.

@ mobile sales it is still gaining market share
Not really, both companies are growing fast thanks to the booming mobile market, but recent AMD gains come on the heels of a disastrous Q1 2007. Year over year, Intel gains have been greater.

and desktop sales its only gaming market and oc market that chooses intel rather then AMD,
Which is a whole lot better than selling only in the low-end market.

I can assure you that all OEM's are waiting on proper launch of K10 and have several systems @ each range for K10 support ready and even new systems yes even dell.
Aren't they only ready because the Barcelona was supposed to be released in September?

[happychappy]

Which is a whole lot better than selling only in the low-end market.

Wrong, the ocing and gaming sectors are just a tiny segment of the market. Cheap computers is where the money to be made is, but i agree that Intel still dominate

[Donnie27]

Like others said already, Intel was proved guilty in Korea, unless one thinks it was only local tactics :rolleyes: you can imagine why they are under scrutinies in other countries. I hope EU will prove them guilty too and will give them a huge penalty because they really deserve it.

Deserve? The only thing Deserved is; AMD deserves better management than they currently have IMHO! No matter how many penalties Intel is Robbed of, AMD will still suck until they have better products and can over- charge, oh excuse me charge a premium like they did with X2=P

But there is no one law that fits all Countries, if there were, both Korea and Japan would have paid crap loads of fines for blocking US goods. Japan even fined the few Japanese shops who did trade goods with the US. Korea is not the EU or the US=P Just as the EU is not the US. Trying to tie Korea to anyone is a Joke at best.:rolleyes:

Cracked me up how little Nationalism exists in America. I sitting there watching as Japanese were saying stuff I like; When asked about X Box 360, "It's not Japanese or Made here so we're not touching it. Shame on the Japanese who did". Now, if both Countries would curb Warez-ing they'd be getting somewhere LOL!

Last but not least, Governments have been known to "Shake Down" companies, not just Intel have been victims of this hehehe! Let's see, the New York Case is legit too uh? Don't think the State of New York wants to recoup some of that LOST Tax Payer's money? Sad part is AMD fooled them and a bunch of you guys with all of the Barcelona will be 40% faster (and this key for folks like informal) IN A WIDE RANGE OF APPS BS. This deal was Finalized AFTER Conroe was kicking @$$.

[Donnie27]

But it hasn't, using data from Mercury Research, AMD server sales have been annihilated by Clovertown, dropping 28% in units and 32% in revenue year over year from Q4 2006 to Q4 2007, meanwhile Intel server units have gone up by 26% and revenue by 21%. All this in one of the best years in CPUs since the dot.com era.

QFT!


Not really, both companies are growing fast thanks to the booming mobile market, but recent AMD gains come on the heels of a disastrous Q1 2007. Year over year, Intel gains have been greater.

QFT again and Dell's deal with AMD was a Disaster as well! Gave AMD a Black Eye for turning their backs on the same folks who kept them afloat through hard times. So much for mutual Loyalty:rolleyes:


Which is a whole lot better than selling only in the low-end market.

Aren't they only ready because the Barcelona was supposed to be released in September?

No.

[duploxxx]

But it hasn't, using data from Mercury Research, AMD server sales have been annihilated by Clovertown, dropping 28% in units and 32% in revenue year over year from Q4 2006 to Q4 2007, meanwhile Intel server units have gone up by 26% and revenue by 21%. All this in one of the best years in CPUs since the dot.com era.

that was only in the first part of the year that IT people actually thought that they would have added value on those quadcores on crippled fsb, untill they started to test real i/o performance or noticed performance on there new machines and only gain 5-10% for 2s dualcore against 2s quadcore @ same speed.....

right.... clovertown, they must have sold lots of those in Q4 2007 and this without any amd quadcore shipping

In the PC server processor segment, Intel earned 85.4%, a loss of 0.6% and AMD earned 14.6%, a gain of 0.6%.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20080122223915_Intel_Gains_Market_Share_Thanks_to_ Demand_Towards_Speedier_Microprocessors.html

revenue off course is a different story.

Wrong, the ocing and gaming sectors are just a tiny segment of the market. Cheap computers is where the money to be made is, but i agree that Intel still dominate

sure they will always dominate, most user just buy it because of the name.

[WeStSiDePLaYa]

Here is a simple way to look at in.

The EU is a large multi-national group. Who thought it was justified to take action against Intel.

You people, are some forum jockies who have most likely never set foot in a university classroom, and have no knowledge of anything relating to this, except what you have read on the internet.

Who do you think better understands the situation?

[LowRun]

Deserve? The only thing Deserved is; AMD deserves better management than they currently have IMHO! No matter how many penalties Intel is Robbed of, AMD will still suck until they have better products and can over- charge, oh excuse me charge a premium like they did with X2=P

Yeah, poor Intel who get robbed :rolleyes:

But there is no one law that fits all Countries, if there were, both Korea and Japan would have paid crap loads of fines for blocking US goods. Japan even fined the few Japanese shops who did trade goods with the US. Korea is not the EU or the US=P Just as the EU is not the US. Trying to tie Korea to anyone is a Joke at best.:rolleyes:

WTO is in charge of that kind of stuff, if they had nothing to say about that so called blocus of US goods (that you don't seem to have any proof it ever took place) quit whining.

Cracked me up how little Nationalism exists in America. I sitting there watching as Japanese were saying stuff I like; When asked about X Box 360, "It's not Japanese or Made here so we're not touching it. Shame on the Japanese who did". Now, if both Countries would curb Warez-ing they'd be getting somewhere LOL!

Just :rofl: :ROTF: This one is by far the funniest thing i've read in a long time.

Last but not least, Governments have been known to "Shake Down" companies, not just Intel have been victims of this hehehe! Let's see, the New York Case is legit too uh? Don't think the State of New York wants to recoup some of that LOST Tax Payer's money? Sad part is AMD fooled them and a bunch of you guys with all of the Barcelona will be 40% faster (and this key for folks like informal) IN A WIDE RANGE OF APPS BS. This deal was Finalized AFTER Conroe was kicking @$$.

Again, the poor Intel, victim of evil governments :clap:

Seriously, this whole post was a joke and i'll say again, i hope EU will not only catch Intel with it's pants down but will also badly spank that sh*tty arse :yepp:

[accord99]

that was only in the first part of the year that IT people actually thought that they would have added value on those quadcores on crippled fsb, untill they started to test real i/o performance or noticed performance on there new machines and only gain 5-10% for 2s dualcore against 2s quadcore @ same speed.....
Except Intel server unit sales have been increasing every quarter of 2007.


right.... clovertown, they must have sold lots of those in Q4 2007 and this without any amd quadcore shipping
A large number, seing as how Intel shipped 25% more server units in the 4th quarter of 2007 compared to the 4th quarter of 2006.


In the PC server processor segment, Intel earned 85.4%, a loss of 0.6% and AMD earned 14.6%, a gain of 0.6%.
A year ago, AMD had 22.3% of the PC server market by unit. You can clearly see the effect of the spectacular success of Clovertown, combined with the long delay, and ultimate failure of Barcelona.

[Jakko]

Look at that graph a little closer? It was AMD's own ineptness that screwed them over, not Intel. When AMD did have a better product, they priced them out of a lot of folks' budgets. Trying to ignore that is big mistake. No matter what deals Intel made or how cheap they sold them for, here's a fact for ya'. Intel couldn't have Dumped or sold products competing with AMD for a loss and then average about 2 billion a Quarter for the last 10 years. That's NOT an opinion but a FACT.

Uhm, the graph has nothing to do with 2000, look at it...
Also, intel did screw over AMD by making Dell and other companies not do business with AMD.
This was weak of intel, and it damaged AMD a lot.
Intel owes AMD some money.

[Jakko]

How the hell does Intel make a profit if they offer extremely cheap CPUs and on top of that give a lot of money to others not to use AMD CPUs ? :confused:

By forcing AMD out of the market, obviously.
Indirect profits.

[Donnie27]

Uhm, the graph has nothing to do with 2000, look at it...
Also, intel did screw over AMD by making Dell and other companies not do business with AMD.
This was weak of intel, and it damaged AMD a lot.
Intel owes AMD some money.

At least I'll reply to yours since LowRun's was stupid:rofl: HP proves most of this BS about Intel forcing anyone to be a hoax. It's not called a free market without good reason.
Intel giving Dell deals
that HP didn't get
didn't hurt HP at all.

So you're saying Forced means getting a rebate or NOT? Many companies told Intel to stick their rebate where the sun don't shine. Ask Rahul at VooDoo PC?

Yes, Intel screwed over AMD when it launched Conroe. Dell made a choice to either; A. Get Intel Rebates and Marketing assistance or B. Just settle for Marketing assistance that Dell still gets BTW. Dell choose B. So Intel is forcing Dell to do what?

[savantu]

...

simple, what cpu @ what overpriced rate did you buy...... as i stated before, if you would see OEM discounts on CPU you will never ever buy a cpu anymore.

As usual you make no sense whatsoever.
How does Intel make such profits if they price offer their CPUs so cheaply ? It doesn't matter how much I pay for the CPU since the money go in the pockets of distributors , not Intel.

[savantu]

By forcing AMD out of the market, obviously.
Indirect profits.

That's a new one , do you study economics by any chance ?
Intel should feel pain while forcing AMD out of the market ; instead they earn $2B per quarter.

[noXqzs]

The simple truth is that the majority of the folks here are still living at home, do not have career jobs, and are limited by education. Realistically, I can only count a couple dozen people here which distinguished themselves somehow, without standing on the shoulders of another person. Food for thought when trying to convince someone, with limited experience, about big business.

If you are going to make a point, at least provide credible information to support your claim, and explain how it supports your argument.

It would be interesting to see some analytical test scores from the posters in this thread.

[Jakko]

That's a new one , do you study economics by any chance ?
Intel should feel pain while forcing AMD out of the market ; instead they earn $2B per quarter.

I think intel did feel "pain" when giving away their cpu's for dirt cheap to companies like Dell. But Intel, being big, can afford such pain, where AMD could (at that point especially) not afford to not gain market share as soon as would have been possible without intels illegal practices.

It doesn't take an economics study to understand why some things are not considered legal by the EU, fortunately.

[Donnie27]

I think intel did feel "pain" when giving away their cpu's for dirt cheap to companies like Dell. But Intel, being big, can afford such pain, where AMD could (at that point especially) not afford to not gain market share as soon as would have been possible without intels illegal practices.

It doesn't take an economics study to understand why some things are not considered legal by the EU, fortunately.

If you don't profit from what you're selling you don't make money=P For proof ask AMD? You don't need to work on Wall-Street to have comon sense LOL!

The simple truth is that the majority of the folks here are still living at home^&#(#$&###(&(&#?>?$>%?#$>?>%^#$###t scores from the posters in this thread.

I live at my home with my wife and daughter. Simple truth is most of what you're asking and trying to point out has been posted Hundreds of Times. There are hundreds of posts here right after every Intel and AMD earnings calls, now if you missed it, tuff $hit LOL! Do a search? Anything needing to be looked into can be found here. (http://www.intel.com/capital/news/earnings.htm)


I think intel did feel "pain" when giving away their cpu's for dirt cheap to companies like Dell. But Intel, being big, can afford such pain, where AMD could (at that point especially) not afford to not gain market share as soon as would have been possible without intels illegal practices.

It doesn't take an economics study to understand why some things are not considered legal by the EU, fortunately.


So AMD is the Victim uh? You never explain how Rebates equal Forced. One case had AMD sueing Intel for 55 million Dollars, Intel gave Micron 4 times that amount. I'm sure if AMD had asked Intel, they might have given AMD 55 mil. Now just so you and the other guy thing I'm making this up.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nb20050701a9.html

Friday, July 1, 2005

AMD sues Intel for damages in Japan
The Associated Press

Advanced Micro Devices Inc.'s Japan unit said Thursday that it has filed two lawsuits against Intel Corp.'s Japanese unit for $55 million in damages.

Under the lawsuits, AMD Japan accuses Intel of violating Japan's antitrust laws, and says Intel's trading practices have caused damage to AMD.

The exact date is when AMD was gaining Server Contracts and selling every MP Opteron made. Sadly, this was the height of their Price Gouging folks who loved them.

[RottenMutt]

This isn't an AMD lawsuit, it's an EU antitrust enforcement investigation. Antitrust enforcement by government regulators is taken a good deal more seriously in the EU.

Oh, then we can expect a lawsuit any time now against airbus:rofl: :ROTF: :shrug:

[GAR]

i doubt they are going to find anything, intel isnt stupid.

[Zaxis01]

From BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7241022.stm).

"Intel has been accused of trying to abuse its dominant market position by selling its products below cost price"

The Q6600 G0 'loss leader' springs to mind.

Guess who tipped them off?
"The investigation started after a complaint from Intel's smaller rival AMD."

Okay, i would like to know what competitor in the marketing business doesn't cut costs to boost sales?
Intel made it possible to manufacture cheaper hardware, with better technology that is more efficient and can afford to sale their products at an incredibly low price.
that's corporate america for you!:D
specs________________
windows xp pro sp2
mobo-msi p35d3 platinum
cpu-core 2 extreme qx6700 at 3.5ghz
ram-ocz 2gb dual ch ddr3 1600mhz
gpu-nvidia 8800gtxOC
hd-wd320gb
psu-ocz 750w
case-antec 900
cool-it eliminator liquid cooling system

[cegras]

Oh, then we can expect a lawsuit any time now against airbus:rofl: :ROTF: :shrug:

Nah, airbus is backed by EU and competes against Boeing of the States.

[Jakko]

If you don't profit from what you're selling you don't make money=P For proof ask AMD? You don't need to work on Wall-Street to have comon sense LOL!

Which is why intels business practices are unhealthy. The goal was to damage AMD, at the cost of money. Maybe making them gain money in the long run, if their actions would have put AMD out of business.


So AMD is the Victim uh? You never explain how Rebates equal Forced. One case had AMD sueing Intel for 55 million Dollars, Intel gave Micron 4 times that amount. I'm sure if AMD had asked Intel, they might have given AMD 55 mil. Now just so you and the other guy thing I'm making this up.

AMD is the victim in this case yes. And rebates were never forced, but I think you can imagine that many companies wouldn't say no to a very good offer.
Basicly intel said, I will pay you money to not do anything with AMD. Money in the form of extreme rebates. This is illegal.
And of course AMD will not ask intel for money, AMD damages intels reputation by making a big deal out of this, and rightly so.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nb20050701a9.html


The exact date is when AMD was gaining Server Contracts and selling every MP Opteron made. Sadly, this was the height of their Price Gouging folks who loved them.

Maybe you should check what in period of time the illegal practices supposedly took place. Hint: it's not 2005.

[Donnie27]

Which is why intels business practices are unhealthy. The goal was to damage AMD, at the cost of money. Maybe making them gain money in the long run, if their actions would have put AMD out of business.

AMD is the victim in this case yes. And rebates were never forced, but I think you can imagine that many companies wouldn't say no to a very good offer.

Basicly intel said, I will pay you money to not do anything with AMD. Money in the form of extreme rebates. This is illegal. No, it is NOT

And of course AMD will not ask intel for money, AMD damages intels reputation by making a big deal out of this, and rightly so.

Maybe you should check what in period of time the illegal practices supposedly took place. Hint: it's not 2005.

Last things first, come on now, I know that was the culmination and not the start. Please.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUKN1337305020070913?rpc=44


South Korea began investigating Intel's marketing and rebate practices for computer processors two years ago after similar probes by Japan and the European Union.


All of the Trade Commissions around the world could make INTEL Rebates illegal but then Consumers getting ripped off would have a case to dump their version as well. Ain't gonna happen. Ours and many Governments (State and Fed) love Consumer's paying extra taxes too much. The the Business world and Governments could stop ALL of Intel's Assisted marketing, Volume + Exclusive Rebates by changing the law/s. Until they change it, AMD's Lawsuits is little more than a weak shot as free marketing and smear against Intel. That's why the small amount was asked for. If they really meant it, they'd have done what Intergraph did.

Yes AMD is victim. They're a Victim of Hector Ruiz's incompetent management. His whole Pinky and Brain view of the market (World Domination) is what screwed AMD. See his rants about 50% of the market LOL!

But!

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383598/index.htm

Do you think Intel is playing fair?
Ruiz and his colleagues believe Intel's (Charts) monopolistic foul play is what sank AMD's (Charts) last bid for parity. That was in 2001, when the company had also gained share for five years straight. But once its unit share hit 21.8%-right around where it is today - the bottom suddenly fell out of its markets, Mercury Research data show. The contraction was especially severe in Japan, where AMD's unit share slid from 25% in mid-2002 to 9% in mid-2004, according to Gartner Dataquest.

In 1999 Intel produced 119 million Processors and AMD about 18 million. Even as AMD grew to 100% or 36 million, that means little because the market grew faster.

[Donnie27]

Oh, then we can expect a lawsuit any time now against airbus:rofl: :ROTF: :shrug:

:rofl: @ the irony!

[savantu]

I think intel did feel "pain" when giving away their cpu's for dirt cheap to companies like Dell. But Intel, being big, can afford such pain, where AMD could (at that point especially) not afford to not gain market share as soon as would have been possible without intels illegal practices.

It doesn't take an economics study to understand why some things are not considered legal by the EU, fortunately.

How could AMD gain any more MS when their production capacity was maxed out ?

As for Intel and dirt cheap prices ; you should check ASPs for Intel and AMD.IMO , AMD is close to dumping if not there yet.

[Jakko]

Market share and production capacity is irrelevant.
Intel made several companies not do business with AMD in an illegal way, simple as that.

This is also why the EU and some eastern countries started investigations against intel.

To me, intel tried to win by throwing money at companies, rather than to come with a good product. This is pathetic behavior for a company that is more than able to come with a good product, like they did with the core architecture.

Companies that work against fair competition, also work against innovation.
On a site like this I expected more people to understand these issues, and frown upon intels behavior in the last decade, but I guess I expected too much.

[savantu]

Market share and production capacity is irrelevant.

That's a new one.Why do you think Dell didn't went for AMD let's say , in 2005 ?


Intel made several companies not do business with AMD in an illegal way, simple as that.

And you know that how ?

This is also why the EU and some eastern countries started investigations against intel.

Investigations which led nowhere till now.Intel's actions are a problem only if Intel is a monopoly.Good luck to anyone in proving that.Otherwise , it's aggressive marketing , maybe unethical but totally legal.

To me, intel tried to win by throwing money at companies, rather than to come with a good product. This is pathetic behavior for a company that is more than able to come with a good product, like they did with the core architecture.

Rebates and discounts are SOP.They are as common as sand is in Sahara.If you do a little research there are plenty of companies with superior products which failed miserably.
It's not always about the technology , D'OH !

Companies that work against fair competition, also work against innovation.
On a site like this I expected more people to understand these issues, and frown upon intels behavior in the last decade, but I guess I expected too much.

Ah , so melodramatic.Fortunately for the rest of the world , laws and regulations aren't based on emotions otherwise we'd be totally FUBARed.

[Jakko]

Investigations which led nowhere till now.Intel's actions are a problem only if Intel is a monopoly.Good luck to anyone in proving that.Otherwise , it's aggressive marketing , maybe unethical but totally legal.


We'll see.
:)

[Donnie27]

We'll see.
:)

Originally Posted by RottenMutt
Oh, then we can expect a lawsuit any time now against airbus

:rofl: @ the irony!

No, we don't always see.

[Donnie27]

In 1999 Intel produced 119 million Processors and AMD about 18 million. Even as AMD grew to 100% or 36 million, that means little because the market grew faster.

Last year there were estimates of 269 million PC sold world wide. How many of them AMD built? Still wondering why they're stuck?