http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...TfXKI&refer=uk
first the Danish government now the EU with much higher fees, not so sure if Intel will have a positive revenue this year......
what will be the influence on the US lawsuit?
Printable View
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...TfXKI&refer=uk
first the Danish government now the EU with much higher fees, not so sure if Intel will have a positive revenue this year......
what will be the influence on the US lawsuit?
I think every decision that forces the big players to rethink their cartel like strategies is a good one.
For anyone who doubts wheter Intel really did something wrong, it is no coincidence that Intel is getting in trouble at multiple places. I think the influence on the American case is definately there, but indirectly at best. The case in the US is conerning actions in the US, I presume. The EU and Korea handle their own jurisdiction.
I really hate that the x86 CPU industry is a pure Oligopoly. It is the definition of the term. Barriers to entry are so high, they're Intel-high (thats high!).
Please remove the "land" from the title.
EU isn't an island, it is an entire continent.
Hopefully this accountability can come stateside after the free pass corporations have been getting lately.
Perkam
+1 perkam
I do think its totally correct to use "EU land". Land doesnt automatically mean "island". Or "country" or stuff like that. EU land would mean just a piece of land (opposite to sea/ocean?) that territorially belongs to the EU :p. Dunno, sounds fine to me
I just hope ALL rebates become illegal:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
It probably puts some extra pressure on US regulators to put an end to what's been going on. But at the end of the day what happens in the US will be decided by who knows who and what favor they decide to call in. The rule of law is flexible these days, provided you have enough money.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
What intel did back in the K8 era was wrong... now they are doing nothing wrong.
yup, it's perfectly ok to useQuote:
Originally Posted by Neuuubeh
Nah its not continent.. Europe =! EU :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
it actualy isnt ok.
Not all of Europe belongs to the EU. The EU is a grp of countrys that are working together in some areas.
In some ways im happy that the EU is taking care of this. mostly cause the EU is known for proper punishment of corporations that break the law.
Im afraid that in other areas of the world where Intel is facing the same charges they will get away with a slap on the wrist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EurasiaQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Eurasia is a large landmass covering about 53,990,000 kmē or about 10.6% of the Earth's surface (36.2% of the land area). Often considered a single continent, Eurasia comprises the traditional continents of Europe and Asia (and Eurasia is a portmanteau of the two).
Just depends on who you talk to.
Either way, this is the wrong time to be trying to squeeze large corporations for Back Door tax increases:down: This does NOTHING but drives up costs for the EU consumers because Intel will simply pass on any fine/s to folks buying their products. Unlike the EU, the Koreans aren't stupid enough to try and pull something like that, hince 25 million dollar fine, Intel does away with rebates there. Yes, it will help AMD as well as they'll finally be able to do in courts, something they couldn't do in the Boardroom, raise prices and or get higher ASP's:up:
Meanwhile, the same old scam of rebate companies ripping off Consumers while paying off not only the US, but the EU as well, will continue:rofl: Yes, rebate companies split taxes with the respective governments.
225 euros with 100 euro Rebate, yet you still pay the 10% vat on 225. 22.50 when the tax should have been 10 euros. Who gets the 12.50?;)
Only some highly delusional or drunk think those folks running the EU are completely honest. One thread you guys say they are, on the thread about TPB, that judge isn't LOL! Talking about having your cake and eating too:rofl::ROTF:
im more interested in what intel did, and not the definition of EU
Your complete lack of knowledge on everything that you talk about is a gift that keeps on giving. This is from start to end a perfectly absurd post, congrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Your complete lack of knowledge on everything that you talk about is a gift that keeps on giving. This is from start to end a perfectly absurd post, congrats!Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleZero
could a mod please clean this up
Well, Perkam started it all.. he should've just let the OP look dumb with the title! (just kidding with ya, Perkam)
Yet AMD is still paying the price for not having that $ available for all those years resulting in their current situation (although bad decisions on their part played an equal role).Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
finally intel in trouble
I HATE INTEL !
AMD wouldn't do stupid stuff to intel just to sell more but intel did and i say they are cheap
AMD WILL WIN the LAWSUIT!
Then why the hell did you register here, this is not a hate Intel forum :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ILikeCosmosS
AMD is no different than Intel when they can afford to.Quote:
Originally Posted by ILikeCosmosS
And Hating Intel? After C2D, C2Q and Nehalem? I hope you mean dislike at worst.
umm........okQuote:
Originally Posted by ILikeCosmosS
Uhmm..newsflash. AMD=Intel. They would both do the same. AMD even blatantly with benchmarks etc on 65nm K10. Had spec numbers pulled down in disgrace when they was in trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by ILikeCosmosS
And they make up stuff like:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...-core_duel.pdf
Trust me, one aint better than the other. Both AMD and Intel would stab your eyes out with icepicks if it was legal and gave money. Or just gave money and would most likely not be detected and could be payed with a smallish fine if they did.
Welcome to capitalism.
Also this is EU vs Intel. AMD gets nothing. Intel will get a slap over its fingers at best. Just like MS.
Its also controversal if AMD even lost anything about it. Since AMD sold everything their fabs could make.
mmm... Not quite sure how a 'comical' pdf, or unrealistic marketing compares to unfair trade practices.. or stabbing people in the eyes for that matter.
The things intel have been convicted of are Illegal.. The PDF, and Bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: marketing are not There's a reason for that. Those things can be easily counter-attacked by Intel. If AMD BS or exagerate performance claims, then fine, launch a marketing campaign to show everyone why it's bs and your product is better... The things intel have done are unable to be counteracted by AMD (legally).
I agree, companies everywhere pull tactics, push the boundries of what's legal, and often are at the least unethical.. it's capitalism, it's business, but neither you or anyone else has proof that "AMD would do the same".. perhaps they would, perhaps they wouldnt. There are Plenty of leading companies out their that DON'T though.
Like who? IBM? No. Apple? No. Coca Cola? No. Siemens? No. Samsung? No. Who?Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
And AMD is only a CPU manufactor due to stolen technology and making clones.
isn't that because of IBM... that was ture a long time ago, but I think they've moved to new deigns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
and you forgot sun micro systems.
I would have to write page after page if all companies that did or do unethical business had to be included. You dont become big by being nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Also the OP is misleading (surprise). Its allegations, not being guildty in anything (yet).
:rolleyes::rolleyes::eek::eek::(:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Fanboyism reach itīs climax. I think this is the oficial new signature of XS members to replace the Nvidia one.
I'm trying to choose if I put this one or the: "AMD is the new VIA", but this one looks the winner for this month.
Grow up v_rr. Quoting others in your sig to bash them is a bit childish isn't it?
I'm sure there is a way to normally discuss things.
Ye and AM386 and AM486 wasnt clones and made by reverse engeering Intels tech? Good one. You are right, you did just reach your climax.Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
Jesus Christ don't you guy's ever give it a break? All of ya S.T.F.U and give it a break already with this juvenile drama.:shakes:
Shintai? Is that you? Or is someone posting on your account? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I remember you made some pretty wild points, but I didn't know as an Intel fanboy :confused:
The word is cross licensing agreement. And if you really think AMD is the one copying, AMD had an integrated memory controller LONG before Intel did, so both companies try to innovate in different ways.
Frankly, I'd rather have some competition. I wouldn't want this industry to end up like the 3d animation industry at the moment with all major software licenses belonging to Autodesk, which lovingly increased the price of the cheapest and most well known animation tool (softimage) by 5-6 times just to bring it par with their other solutions (Maya and 3ds max).
Monopolies never think of the customer m8, they only care about profits.
Perkam
I agree. :ROTF: Hasn't a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleZero
You should know your history about 386SL etc. Or even 4004 with "IMC" for that matter. What came first? K8 or 4004 or SL386? Talk about wild points...Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
And turn the time back to 1991. See what it brings. You talk about legal rullings in an aftermath.
I dont like Intel because I know how they do business. However I am not blind and thinking AMD is the pure holy saviour. Does that make me a fanboy? The fanboy must be the one that feels offended. But even then, there is a reality to live in. just like you cant have great graphics performance without AMD or nVidia atm.
And you dont need to be a monopol to give a rats rear end about consumers.
We should let all the murderers and rapists go because what they did was in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
:rolleyes:
Unfortunately the justice system does not work that way.
Incorrect information. Intel had one i386 with an IMC. AMD never had anything that early w/ an IMC.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Neither Intel nor AMD invented the integrated memory controller. But it was AMD that implemented in a modern CPU with substantial increases in memory performance and it would be naive to think that Intel's decision to have an IMC on the Nehalem wasn't influenced by AMD's successes with the technology.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstp2009
Perkam
Yeah they had it in i386SL and then dropped it for good(until i7 last year).AMD's approach was the right one at the right time since it propelled them into server market in which they had 0(zero) percent share.Not to mention that,on desktop, K8 was healthy faster than anything K7 or netbUst(P4 had some stuff that it did better,but a small number of them).Quote:
Originally Posted by mstp2009
To call AMD a copy cat after K7,K8,AMD64,serial HT bus,IMC is really something else...
:eek::eek: how do you know all these? Now they are doing nothing wrong?:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
that Double O Three has no idea what he is talking about....:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.
"Jesus Christ don't you guy's ever give it a break? All of ya S.T.F.U and give it a break already with this juvenile drama."Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] riptide
Even if Intel broke every law they are accused of, it isn't in the same league as any of the things you mentioned. There is such a thing as Statute of Limitations, look it up? Maybe Double Clueless can look it up as well:rofl::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by B.E.E.F. View Post
We should let all the murderers and rapists go because what they did was in the past.
I mean come on, how simple minded can you be if you have no clue that businesses pass on expenses like fines to consumers. That means higher prices so even if AMD is under cutting Intel that still equals higher prices as well. Maybe some little kid might think Intel isn't going to raise prices if pushed. Only someone who's been drinking thinks AMD isn't going to raise prices to levels just below Intel's now higher prices. Only a misguided Fans or AMD employee can see any good in that. So come Double Zero, point out the cluelessness instead of childishly off topic flame baiting:rolleyes: yea mods, clean it up LOL!:rofl:
If it weren't for Alpha, what you're saying would be true about the copy cat thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
:sofa:
look at all the trolls....
so let me get this straight, because amd is undercutting intel's prices, intel is going to raise prices. and i think this is wrong because i'm a drunk fanboi. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
i'm glad intel has been fined for unethical business practices, but i doubt this will "scare them straight." i don't recall the amount intel has been fined, but i'm sure they still made more money because of these backdoor deals. it's going to take some very aggresive prosicutors and regulators to clean the market up.
NO! Let's say Intel is fined X million US Dollars. They determine what they need to cover that, they raise prices by Y amount to cover said fine. Now let's just pick one out of many examples. One example: A $279 i920 prices is raised to $360 and Q9550 is set at about $335. X4 955BE would then increase from around $250 to $310. Anyone thinking AMD isn't going to follow Intel prices increases are setting themselves up to look silly!Quote:
Originally Posted by 570091D
Both Japan and Korea wanted Intel to change its business model and Intel did! Talking about squeezing companies for billions when Japan and Korea both collected less than 100 million combined should send up red flags! Hate for some large faceless company while cheering for another is almost a form of retardation!
yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
i don't think you understand modern business economics. the old model was cost + profit = price, but in todays highly competitive market that no longer applies. the new formula: profit = cost - price. the price remains constant and drops after prolonged market exposer. modern companies make money by reducing the cost to make the product (nvidia's simplified 9800gtx/gts250). the only market that does not act this way is raw materials (oil, milk, grain, lumber). intel would be foolish to increase prices in this economy, and it's not like no-one would notice the reason for the price hike. additionally, amd WOULD NOT increase prices to match intel's. if intel were to increase prices that would only increase demand for amd product. amd would maintain their current price structure and watch their market share rise because their products would be more competitive.:yepp:
AMD and intel developed x86 kinda "together" then intel gave AMD the cold shoulder and took it all. AMD balked at that (rightfully so) courtroom decision I believe it was forced intel to let AMD have their share of the IP. That was in the very beginning of the x86 development and intel was already trying to kill AMD back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Surely you knew that.
??Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
The K5 was the 1st AMD product that wasn't a reversed engineered Intel one. AMD copied Intel's previous designs down to the microcode ( I remember a lawsuit on this ).
1st attempt ended in utter disaster; than they bought the cores from outside ( Nextgen ). Even then, they used the lead designer of Pentium to get to the K6.
So no, Intel and AMD did not develop x86 together. By the time AMD actually figured to do something on its own, Intel was designing the Pentium 4.
You are so correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
Shintai is still in my sig:D
Come on, without AMD Intel wouldn't have Nehalem today, they'd b so far behind then it is today.
Without competition on the x86 market, Intel might've just stayed with Pentium 4 to achieve it's 10ghz dream or something
Without Intel and IBM's pushing, AMD would still be making BIOS chips. Need to read up on history before history comes back to bite you a new one.
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
what a nice post to start the day with, a good lauch is always welcome :ROTF:
Feeling a bit blue these days because there is some positive news and competition from AMD?
the OP is correct, perhaps read it again, there is still a question mark behind the sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
perhaps also read the full article again, for the EU commission they are already found guilty, now it is just a matter of global approval.
Intel has been entangled in a dispute with EU antitrust regulators since 2001, following a complaint by rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc. The Brussels-based European Commission accused Intel last July of giving computer sellers “substantial rebates” not to sell machines using AMD chips.
A final ruling may come in the next few weeks, the people said. The commission, the EU’s antitrust authority, allows national competition officials to review decisions before a final ruling is made.
“That’s speculative and we decline to comment,” said Chuck Mulloy, a spokesman for Santa Clara, California-based Intel.
Jonathan Todd, a commission spokesman, said “we have an ongoing antitrust investigation” and declined to comment further.
Fine Amount
EU antitrust officials will disclose the amount of the fine at a meeting with national regulators to discuss the draft decision. The fine must then be approved by the full commission.
It happened in 2005. Do you know what the statute of limitations time limit is for a case like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
No. Go sit in the corner and be quiet.
Do you work for the Intel Finance department? Didn't think so. This is useless garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
This is not about cheering for your favourite company. This is about business practices. Intel broke the law. they tried to squeeze AMD's out with anti-competitive practices. Monopolies kill innovation and decent prices.Quote:
Both Japan and Korea wanted Intel to change its business model and Intel did! Talking about squeezing companies for billions when Japan and Korea both collected less than 100 million combined should send up red flags! Hate for some large faceless company while cheering for another is almost a form of retardation!
Look, if you think Intel will simply soak up millions in losses its you who don't quite understand anything about business & finances. There is no old or new formulas there's simple and plain business=P I don't need to work for AMD or Intel to know that! Your milk, grains and etc.. is called "Commodities" and if the fine is large enough, Intel will raise prices across the board. AMD would be stupid to not follow suite when they need higher margins. The EU's competition committee knows AMD can't recover at current price levels and this is a move to get prices raised for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by 570091D
Your kind of misstaken thinking is what had folks left in shock when A64 and then X2 showed what AMD really thought of consumers. They shocked their Fans who blindly loved them. Yes they'd follow Intel with higher prices and I don't blame, hell, I would too!
Korea = $25 mil, Japan = $50.
My IQ dropped from reading this whole thread. Stop under-clocking my brain!
All I'd said was that if they're found guilty, the costs will be passed on to the consumers as they ALWAYS are. Only one of AMD's complaints was brought in 2005, other started via proxy in Japan in 2002 and Korea in 2004. The statute of limitations was brought up about something else as well as your idiotic comparing Rape to Rebates :rofl:LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.
I love this new concept
Companies should be above the Law, they should be allowed to do anything, because if they are fined, it's us, the consumers that will get hurt.
hey let them do everything that's ilegal, everything that gives them more money so things can be cheaper for us.
So can you then explain us all, why Intel don't raise the prices right now? Why Intel isn't making more money right now, because AMD would raised the prices also, guaranteed, so Intel would still be competitive. Try please so i can lmao againQuote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
We all know how Windows and Linux got more expensive after microsoft was fined.
Point out the cluelessness on your posts would be like a day job, and it's no worth it, since often your pals delete the posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
And the Pentium Pro, which everything since, was not based on stolen IP from Alpha? In which a court of law decided, in which Intel had to compensate and even hired some of their engineers as part of the settlement, in which the new arch for i7 came from......Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Right :up:
Neither side has done anything ethical in regards to design. But this topic is not about that, it is about one company having an inferior product and using its market position to keep its competitor down.
I wouldnt say that AMD would be as big as Intel is now, but they sure wouldnt be in the financial position that they have been. What Intel did was exactly what these laws are in place to prevent or punish.
People who think that Intel should be let off because of passing on the cost to the us are no better than judges taking bribes.
Intel passing on the costs would be reducing the next price cut they plan by $1-2. I doubt it would be anything that a single consumer would notice because if it was they would start looking at the competition.
I'm NOT saying Intel is innocent but there are folks here who seem to have more proof than AMD and their lawyers combined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aberration
If you're talking about something like the $25 mil Korea fined Intel, or the 50 million Japan did, that's not the problem!
http://www.instantnews.net/intel-sla...no-tickle.aspxQuote:
The Eurocrats have been chewing on the issue of Intel's anti-competiveness (or not?) since way back in 2001 when AMD first cried ‘Uncle' on the firm's arm twisting tactics. Intel, it said, was keeping AMD out of the market by offering "substantial rebates" to computer makers who didn't sell kit with AMD chips inside.
You get a double whammy something that other guy can't seem to figure out. No more rebates means the first increase comes from the OEM and VARs as they add their usual market ups on now more expensive products. Intel will re-coup whatever the EU charges and that includes up to 10% of Intel's profits for a year!Quote:
"They are sitting on $14 billion in cash and generated close to $10 billion in cash last year ... any fine would be more a hit to the mind than a hit to the balance sheet," he said.
Dryden also said Intel would likely retain its more than 80 per cent share of the computer chip market, even if the EU places restrictions on its rebates which could make products more expensive for consumers.
The under lined part shows you don't pay attention too well. I just pointed how some of Intel prices are Flat when they should be going down. Others like the Q6600 are up (part not in short supply according two different VARs). But here we go again just another person with a personal grudge. Is that what keeps you from thinking clearly?Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleZero
It's not an all day Job because you CAN'T LOL! It would absolutely absurd to try and prove costs aren't passed on to consumers and that costs minus rebates will not change prices for the worse. It only takes a few minutes to that point out.
Linux doesn't have the same market share size compared to Microsoft as AMD compared to Intel. Surely you can do better? That's not apples and oranges, that's Apples and Nuts:D Yet, par for the course for you:up:
Dewd, competition is won by foundries and engineers, not marketing and or courts. Fans tell themselves such crap to feel better for some silly reason!
A64 and X2 works against AMD's claims when High Prices and being factory constrained hurt them more than Intel ever did. Not an Opinion, but a fact. Even while Conroe was pimp slapping them, Dell dried up their measly shipping volumes:ROTF: Yes, good old beloved AMD forsook their beloved Fans and Channel partners for that evil hated Dell.:rofl::ROTF: Dewd, stop hating:rofl:
Donnie27 is partly right and partly wrong IMO. Sure, Intel could pass the cost to the consumers but it would probably render a slight dip in sales if they did assuming the fine is a big one that would actually be noticeable to Intel (such as the Danish taxes of what, $500million?). If Intel was to raise the prices by lets say $15-20 on all CPUs, AMD probably would be able to sell a lot more chips which is probably what they would want to since that equals bigger market share, instead of raising prices.
Punish Intel by forcing Intel to give up the x86 license to the public so that Nvidia can use it!
ooooooooooooohhh!!! (evil laughter, with a pinkie in my mouth)
This is TRUE too!Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
I don't want to see higher prices from anyone! Look at how much complaining I've done about X58:mad:? Price increases MIGHT be tied to how large the Tax, erum Fine is:D Even if prices stayed the same and rebates are done away with, that still causes an increase in prices. Something else we ALL know, Intel shares marketing costs. Will that be the next complaint?
Low prices happen naturally in a free market, you don't need a cartel giving out illegal rebates. If Intel isn't fined and forced to obey the law they'll dominate the market (too late). They'll be able to force competition into bankruptcy by making them sell off fabs and other assets to raise capital (opps). Eventually there won't be any competition so the rebates will end, prices will skyrocket and people will :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: AMD is out of business.
One mistake in your brilliant theorie... PCs (cpus) aren't are luxurious item any more, they are on the way (or better they are nearly there) to be a commodity...Quote:
Originally Posted by lockee
Can we not all be friends?
QFTQuote:
Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.
Intel did something very wrong, and yet intel fanboys can still argue over that fact is just funny
And there were SO many countries where the law is not strict at all(especially with regard to anti-competitive practices by foreign firms), and intel capitalised on those majorly. In the south eastern parts of Asia, where a major IT revolution was/is taking place, intel did all that they could possibly do to sell the P4 by their silly anti-competitive practices
Sure, i applaud them for their technology and innovation, but shame on them for their shady practices, especially since AMD is less than half their size
Again. Not about size. It's about competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightSpeed
When companies compete for dollars and performance, the consumer wins big time. The companies also win. A competitive company is a healthy and well functioning company. Free of corruption, inefficiencies.. etc. Not so with fat lazy monopolies.
One guy said it best, it is NOT just Black AMD and White Intel for or against either.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8215
Quote:
According to a 2004 article in BusinessWeek, the European Commission began investigating Intel as early as 2001, although the initial probe was dropped. Things picked up again in 2004, which culminated in a raid of Intel’s European offices in 2005.
AMD hopes the charges filed will benefit consumers. "We are confident that this statement of objections will be a catalyst in opening the global microprocessor markets for the benefit of consumers and PC companies alike,” says AMD EMEA president Giuliano Meroni.
Paying off Judges?Quote:
Silverman wouldn't say Monday whether AMD has petitioned the FTC but did acknowledge that the company had filed a complaint in 2000 in Europe. The company's lawsuit against Intel is scheduled to go to trial in a Delaware federal court in April 2009.
http://management.silicon.com/govern...9131454,00.htmQuote:
According to a disclosure report filed with Congress, AMD paid a lobbying firm $200,000 in the first half of 2007 to lobby Congress, the White House, U.S. Trade Representative's office and Departments of Commerce and State on "antitrust issues in the semiconductor industry."
:lol:Quote:
In the 48-page filing, which has an exasperated tone, AMD highlights its efforts - most of which it claims were rebuffed - to persuade major original equipment manufacturers to use its processors. For instance, when AMD offered HP, the biggest computer maker in the world, a million processors for free, HP took only 160,000, said AMD.
Excuse me, isn't that dumping? They say Intel sold processors under costs, how can you undercut free? Saying Intel forced HP to do anything when HP as been AMD's largest partner is pretty silly!
A very good read that tries to explain both side's issues and some history!
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...507442,00.html
The 2002 decision against Michelin also makes life tricky for Intel. The tire maker was found to have abused its market dominance by offering rebates and incentives to dealers that had the effect of excluding competitors. The comparisons to the Intel-AMD situation are striking because much of AMD's argument is built on the allegedly predatory impact of Intel's "market development" rebates to PC makers, also known as the Intel Inside program, which include payments to offset the cost of advertising. Intel responds that consumers have benefited from these rebates through lower prices.
When all is said and done, it is commie style legislated competition and it will increase to help AMD, just as it was when it first showed up in 2000, almost nine years ago.
http://www.crn.com/hardware/19360083...OSKHSCJUNN2JVN
Not just something Donnie27 and others are making up! I can back up every frakkin' thing I've said! Or they can believe Hector as he'd said their market share would be larger. If AMD had the volume they could have gained up to about 35% of the market, only to see the Merom based notebook and Conroes hand them their @$$! Then end up right back At about 13%. Just as Intel didn't have to pay off Apple to go Intel.Quote:
By Steven Burke, ChannelWeb
9:00 AM EST Mon. Nov. 13, 2006
From the November 13, 2006 issue of CRN
One hallmark of any good channel program is fairness to all classes of partners from the smallest to the biggest. VARs are businesspeople. They understand that vendors have to do what's right for the business. But they also know when partnerships are just plain inequitable. That's the feeling of more than a few Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE:AMD) partners who are upset regarding a severe shortage of AMD Athlon 64 2X processors.
STEVEN BURKE
Can be reached at (781) 839-1221 or via e-mail at sburke@cmp.com.
What's curious about the AMD shortage is it comes in the wake of the chip maker's blockbuster deal to supply chips to longtime channel antagonist Dell (NSDQ:Dell). First off, it is system builders of all stripes that put AMD on the market-share map. These trusted partners saw the performance gains that could be had with the AMD processors, took them and ran with them. Dell, meanwhile, stuck its head in the sand. If you can't supply your current longtime loyal customers, why would you take on a large contract with a channel killer like Dell and then put the screws to the partners that were backing you?
AMD has acknowledged the shortage but has failed to address head-on the system builder fury. What we plainly have here is a failure to communicate that is all too common when it comes to vendors grappling with product shortages or channel policies that rub partners the wrong way.
Last but not least, all of Intel's rebates, promotions and etc was posted and NO secrete.
http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/rese...eng/306999.htm
If I worked for one of the SSD makers I'd get in some of the Tort LOL!:up:Quote:
New This Week!
* IntelŪ High Performance SSD promotion. Valid 4/26/09-6/20/09
* All Cores are NOT Created Equal Promotion! Valid: 4/19/09 - 7/18/09
* Think Big... Go Small Promotion! Valid: 4/19/09 - 7/18/09
* Instant Rebate on IntelŪ Q8400 Core™ 2 Quad processor Box: Valid 4/19/09-7/19/09 or while supplies last
Ending Soon!
* IntelŪ Core™ i7 processor plus an IntelŪ High-Performance Solid-State Drive (SSD) Promotion Valid: 1/25/09–4/25/09
I don't think you know what lobbying firms are. That has nothing to do with "paying off judges".
actually, i work for a multi-billion dollar multi-national buerocracy, so i do understand international business on a large scale. and if intel is SO opposed to taking losses, why didn't they incease thier prices to cover the 90% profit loss they took in Q4?Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany...2/daily72.html
so businesses today are run the same way they were in 1800? there is NO-ONE in the world willing to look at thier business model and make some adjustments? there is no business evolution? please, tell this to toyota and come on back with their response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
my milk and grains? where!?! i've been looking all over for those! actually processors, memory, toasters, televisions; these are considered commodities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
AH-HA!!! so the conspiracy has been revealed! this is all a plot to undo intel and raise amd to their rightful place as market leader! very clever of you to figure it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
so now amd would not raise prices because intel will? which is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
when did the q6600 price go up? also, i7 and x58 parts will not see a price reduction for some time (when volume starts to pick up). and i think this is the part you don't understand: prices are lowered on products that sell very well. the more of a certian product you sell, the less it costs you to make it. the concept is called "eceonomies of scale." and that is why intel WILL NOT raise prices because of the fine. if they raise prices (aside form bolstering amd's sales) they will reduce their sales making it more expensive to make the products. then they'd have to raise prices again. then even fewer people would buy their products.... and so the cycle of self-destruction goes. intel is aware of this process and will make business adjustments to avoid it. if this fine results in anything at intel, it will be layoffs. because profit = cost - price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Sir, what does EU stand for and Since when was TBP lawsuit handled by EU?Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
...and you have guts to call other people ignorant. :shakes:
Its called price elasticity. Change up the price 10%, loose 15% in monetary sales. Fail.
That's if the current price is already at a sweet spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] riptide
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Maybe I gave you too much credit and thought you were more mature than posting such BS. The Example was about some Anti-American BS about ALL U.S. Judges getting paid off or having personal interests in the case:rofl::ROTF:
A judge that close to a Case in the US wouldn't even started.Quote:
One of the biggest cases in file-sharing history ended last week with The Pirate Bay Four sentenced to huge fines and jail time. Today it is revealed that far from being impartial, the judge in the case is a member of pro-copyright groups - along with Henrik Pontén, Monique Wadsted and Peter Danowsky. There are loud calls for a retrial.
Part two of that was that maybe the EU should handle something that is KNOWN to be illegal and have been for about 50 years in the Music industry :rolleyes: That's reference to another poster talking about virtuous the EU was, oh brother! Not that the tried the case but that maybe they should have;) If the EU is so fair and yada yada!
Its great to see justice done in some parts of the world anyways. :)
So that's why AMD didn't gain market share when they jacked up prices on the Excellent X2? See, I think some of you guys are trying to have have you cake and eat your cake too, it doesn't work!Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] riptide
Plus, you don't loose sales when your competition raises their prices a smilar amount as well. AMD doesn't need more volume as much as they need higher ASP's. AMD can't create the extra volume to keep price the same and turn a profit worth talking about. Folks thinking killing rebates and Intel paying some large fine/s will lower prices are fooling themselves. This whole case is to get prices higher, NOT lower. Here's the shocker, even as I post this. I hope I'm as wrong as two right shoes:yepp:
AMD's offererings are fairly attractive at a certain price point nowadays. That means if/when Intel raises prices, many will flock to AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
What I think will happen as anti competitive rebates are discouraged in the EU and Asia, and AMD gain more market share, if and when they narrow their node-lag time with Intel, Intel will have to price more competitively. They'll make up for that loss, in the US by charging higher prices.
If fining Intel makes them increase their prices in the short term to OEM's then yes the consumer will lose out slightly but we will lose out one hell of a lot more if Intel's practices drive AMD out of business.
Just for the record, we only have about 6200 employees. Business isn't ran the way it was in the 1800 or there might have been a duel involved LOL! Thank you for the at least civil post. But your shot at comedy falls a little flat. I said, "Give AMD a hand up" and or "Help them", NOT take over the market LOL! That's the real leveling affect they talked about. It doesn't matter if Processor or any electronic are commodities or not! Cost in just about every market are passed on the customers=P Hell google it and get a few million hits!Quote:
Originally Posted by 570091D
We're in a world wide recession last time I checked, fewer people will be buying this stuff anyway!:shrug:
That's crux of my argument. If you think AMD's prices will stay where they are, you're fooling yourself. The whole schlock is to raise prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] riptide
^^^ Let me get this straight Donnie. And just for a moment can you leave your Anti-Europe sentiments at the door.
So you reckon that its a sort of a ploy with colusion to get both MANU's to raise their prices?
Whilst that will most likely happen, surely you aren't stating that higher prices in isolation was the motivating factor in the EU decision?Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Why won't consumers in the USA flock to AMD if prices are raised in the USA by Intel? :wth:Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] riptide
The whole schlock is to increase market share. Because profit = (price x units sold) - total costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Here's how pricing works:
http://www.ericsink.com/bos/curve.gif
Revenue = Price * Units
Please post something else but pages of useless drivel. Thanks.
Are anti-competitive "rebates" still practiced by Intel in the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Is every CPU AMD sells actually making a profit at current pricing? Why are they losing money qtr after qtr?Quote:
Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.
With some of the Duals and Tri-Cores they are selling they are likely to have to be using perfectly functioning Quads which due to the die size, is a damn expensive way to maintain presence in certain price segments until you hopefully eventually get your proper Dual Core and/or Tri Core masks rolling off the assembly line.
AMD would love to be able to raise the price of their CPU's, their current low ASP's are killing them, and I doubt an increase in volume(and keep in mind here they will only be able to increase that volume to certain extent due to not all segments of the market are that price sensitive beyond current pricing), would work as well as an increase in price.
Having said that, they most likely would benefit from increased volume compared to no increase, just not as much as they would benefit from being able to raise prices, IMHO.
I don't know, but as the US allows for such rebates, then technically they are not "anti-competitive".Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] riptide
Regardless, even if they are in place, Intel has already priced their CPU's in the USA to take that into account, thus already derive whatever benefit they bring, to then increase prices as you suggest they might, then surely invokes the argument you used for why they can't raise prices in the EU.
Selling below cost. They're taking a hit off each CPU. It's much less than if they stopped selling CPU's all together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
The fixed costs are killing them. If they increase market share, they should be able to turn a profit.
No. Because if Anti-Competitive rebates and other practises are, as you say, allowabale in the US, that means you have less to worry about losing market share..... <<< The reason one engages in anti-competitive rebating in the 1st place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
I don't rule out the possibility of increased volume alone being enough to enable them to turn a profit(but how much more volume at current pricing do they need and is it realistic to expect that they could achieve it?), but I suspect a small price increase if they felt they could get away with it would be more effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.
I hope they can survive until Bulldozer and that it either puts them back in the lead performance wise or at least makes things very close and gives them the sort of modular architecture where they can easily roll off Duals, Tri's, Quad's, Hex's etc, without having to use cost ineffective higher core dies for the low die market.
If the worry over loss of market share is lessened as you say, wouldn't Intel then already being currently pricing their CPU's at just below "breaking point", so that they maximise their profits?Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] riptide
I would suggest that to then try a further increase would change the dynamics beyond what the rebates can achieve.
Good question. A look at the internal financial reports is your answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
If there's enough demand. There isn't. Higher demand, you can increase price. ie: Apple computers. Expensive sh*t boxes, but people love them so they price them high.Quote:
a small price increase if they felt they could get away with it would be more effective
If Intel increases their prices as some suggest, then doesn't AMD get the chance to raise their prices to some extent and at least maintain existing demand?Quote:
Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.
Remember what these anti-competive rebates are about. They mean that if you do not sell only Intel the rebates are removed thereby making your Intel products costs hugely inflated. Inflated to such a degree that you go out of business. So going out of business versus another 10% of costs/price increase? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Further to your earlier point.... a companies profit structure can be composed of several things other than just Fixed, and Variable costs. A good Marketing and FInance team will very easily come up with stress tested pricing srtategy that can allow short term drops = long term market share.
It can be a tradeoff for example.... make 3% more profit this year... but risk loosing market share by 1% each year for the next 3 years by not enforcing anti-competitive rebates. Sure profits will be better now... but in 5 years and beyond, market share might be hurt. You get the idea. ;)
That is a good post, whilst there might be a few things I could say that draws into question an assumption or two you have made, I think on the balance of probabilities you have defeated most of my arguments. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] riptide
I could see Intel increasing prices on the Atom, and maybe other notebook CPUs. The Turion doesn't have much market penetration, and where in the hell is Via?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Desktop CPUs, I doubt it.
LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuuubeh
And now im proud to be Danish!
even with dual, tri and quad prices they are still making money, just looking at the bare costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
its all other sg&a and r&d cost that bring the global profit/loss. if the volume would be much higher the cost would reduce allot. if you can't raise volume you have to restructure in sg&a and r&d.
look at intel's latest result, still profit but way lower then usual, most because of pricedrop? no way. Just because of huge volume drop but global costs stay the same. If the market would shrink again like it did in last Q, even intel would start loosing money unless they stop some fabs.
that's why the say it is gearing up again :) if you see enough times it is getting better people will actually start to believe it.
At least it didn't land the whole world into recession, amirite?Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
I don't understand the "point" that people have been trying to make saying that AMD would follow Intel in raising their prices if Intel did so. What do you think AMD wants their market share to stay the same? If AMD was in a different position I would say that they probably would raise their prices as well but that just isn't the case.