| Forum Index > General Forum |
Peeano
Netherlands5630 Posts
By JAMES KANTER Published: May 13, 2009 BRUSSELS — The European Commission on Wednesday fined Intel a record €1.06 billion ($1.44 billion) for abusing its dominance in the market for computer chips to exclude Advanced Micro Devices, which is Intel’s only serious rival. The E.U. competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, said the penalty against Intel, the world’s largest chip maker, was justified because the company had skewed competition and robbed consumers of choice. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
Quite a fine they gave intel. But this is good, they should proceed and do their job better and throw more fines. There are many companies in many areas who are abusing their dominant stance on the market. | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
What exactly have Intel done to deserve this? Their products are just ... superior. Unlike microsoft who abuse the channel relationships, intel is actually worthy of their dominance. | ||
|
wo0py
Netherlands922 Posts
| ||
|
Peeano
Netherlands5630 Posts
Intel pays manufacturers to NOT manufacture/make any A.M.D. chips/parts | ||
|
Flyingdutchman
Netherlands858 Posts
On May 13 2009 19:55 haduken wrote: Intel have such strong ties in distributor channels that i don't see how this will change anything. What exactly have Intel done to deserve this? Their products are just ... superior. Unlike microsoft who abuse the channel relationships, intel is actually worthy of their dominance. That's not the point, although I do agree that Intel is better atm. What they did was to pay large companies to only use their products. Dell, Acer, HP, and Media Markt for example. This all happened between 2002 and 2007 (when the performance gap between AMD and Intel products wasn't as skewed). Intel has appealed, so who knows what they will eventually pay. | ||
|
gusbear
333 Posts
On May 13 2009 19:55 haduken wrote: What exactly have Intel done to deserve this? Their products are just ... superior. facepalm | ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
| ||
|
VarmVaffel
Norway378 Posts
| ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
my friend works at AMD is worried that the company may go down or hand out pink slips. | ||
|
nitram
Canada5412 Posts
Great that this fine happened. A single company dominating a market is never good. | ||
|
ramen247
United States1256 Posts
| ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32278 Posts
| ||
|
Gray[FH
152 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 14 2009 10:38 VarmVaffel wrote: Am I oldschool for supporting AMD instead of Intel? Yes. | ||
|
funkie
Venezuela9376 Posts
On May 14 2009 12:38 Gray[FH wrote: didnt this happen with microsoft? Yes. | ||
|
piskooooo
United States351 Posts
| ||
|
Torenhire
United States11681 Posts
| ||
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
On May 15 2009 01:36 Torenhire wrote: I don't think Intel really deserved it, but whatever. Even if Intel paid manufacturers to build using Intel chipsets, AMD could do just the same. that's not really a level playing field, and not a precedent that you want to establish. companies should compete on the product that they're selling for business, and not compete on what kind of subsidies or kickbacks they can give to the other people in the supply chain. | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
| ||
|
F[5]aLaMaT
United States71 Posts
| ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
On May 14 2009 10:53 dybydx wrote: while intel has been a bad boy, AMD isnt doing so hot lately largely because of its own stupidity. their purchase of ATI didnt time well with the economic slow down. my friend works at AMD is worried that the company may go down or hand out pink slips. QFT, AMD's troubles recently is largely due to its own issues (missing out on mobile computing much?). Intel just has such excellent economy of scale among all other things that its been smacking opponents silly for over a decade. | ||
|
Dariush
Romania330 Posts
On May 13 2009 19:55 haduken wrote: Intel have such strong ties in distributor channels that i don't see how this will change anything. What exactly have Intel done to deserve this? Their products are just ... superior. Unlike microsoft who abuse the channel relationships, intel is actually worthy of their dominance. AMD had the superior product in the P4 era...that's the period intel was most dirty  | ||
|
itzme_petey
United States1400 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On May 13 2009 19:40 s.Q.uelched wrote: Intel Fined Record $1.45 Billion in Antitrust Case By JAMES KANTER Published: May 13, 2009 BRUSSELS — The European Commission on Wednesday fined Intel a record €1.06 billion ($1.44 billion) for abusing its dominance in the market for computer chips to exclude Advanced Micro Devices, which is Intel’s only serious rival. The E.U. competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, said the penalty against Intel, the world’s largest chip maker, was justified because the company had skewed competition and robbed consumers of choice. + Show Spoiler + for anyone that doesn't know what abusing its dominance means, it is the European version of Monopoly. Why they don't use the word instead of the stupid phrase is retarded and baffling. And I heard on NPR that the specific charges were that it was paying companies/distributors of computers to delay releases of competitors chips/systems among other things. | ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
| ||
|
anTi_
United States499 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44074 Posts
Sure it's not all that important in the grand scheme of things but it's the principle of the thing. They deserve to be fined. | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On May 13 2009 19:55 haduken wrote: Intel have such strong ties in distributor channels that i don't see how this will change anything. What exactly have Intel done to deserve this? Their products are just ... superior. Unlike microsoft who abuse the channel relationships, intel is actually worthy of their dominance. this | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Xela
Canada203 Posts
On May 15 2009 09:02 travis wrote: Even if they are worthy of their dominance, and continue to pump out high qualidty products, a monopoly still is a bad thing. If they totally control the market then they get to set prices at whatever they want. /agree I don't know much about economy but I do know that a monopoly is the worst thing possible for the consumers in the long term. Even if Intel has better products, a monopoly will make them raise their price and lower the quality to make even more money, and small business trying to develop a new product would have no chance at all and eventually progress will completely stop for processors. | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
On May 15 2009 12:05 Xela wrote: /agree I don't know much about economy but I do know that a monopoly is the worst thing possible for the consumers in the long term. Even if Intel has better products, a monopoly will make them raise their price and lower the quality to make even more money, and small business trying to develop a new product would have no chance at all and eventually progress will completely stop for processors. haduken and savio spoke truly. We are hardly looking at the nightmare scenario of a monopoly here, and even if we will look at one, it won't be because of Intel's business practices, it'll be due to an unrevised patent policy. | ||
|
snorlax
United States755 Posts
| ||
|
WindCalibur
Canada938 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + and wow my core i7 is pwnage /brag | ||
|
FreeZEternal
Korea (South)3396 Posts
| ||
|
Etherone
United States1898 Posts
On May 15 2009 12:31 WindCalibur wrote: Intel is surperior. People should realize that regardless of intel's intentions of monopoly or not, they will still pwn AMD really badly. + Show Spoiler + and wow my core i7 is pwnage /brag regardless of this being the current case, if intel has no competition the can sit down for the next 10 years on their core i7 and not develop a single processor, simply muscling every other company out of business. they deserve the fine. | ||
|
FreeZEternal
Korea (South)3396 Posts
| ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
On May 15 2009 12:40 Etherone wrote: regardless of this being the current case, if intel has no competition the can sit down for the next 10 years on their core i7 and not develop a single processor, simply muscling every other company out of business. they deserve the fine. If Intel tries to sit for 10 years on core i7, even their economy of scale and awesome distributor channels won't save them. People are exaggerating the effects of a monopoly. | ||
|
MadNeSs
Denmark1507 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10905 Posts
Yes, AMD nowadays is BS (I remember back then, when I was the cool AMD kid).. But just think of this scenario: AMD (or any other company) overcomes it's problems and brings out a new *superchip* which is vastly superior to any Intel model. Now AMD wants to sell it but no one wants to buy it. Why? Intel has made exclusive contracts with every major customer and forces them to not accept any non Intel products. Monopolies aren't forbidden, as long as they come "naturally". Contracted monopolies are illegal. | ||
|
indecision
Germany818 Posts
They're still right to fine Intel though. It's just not right to make offers like: You can have 20% off our CPU price if you don't include AMD's products into your store. (apparently happened with some big German retailers) | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
 | ||
|
Luhh
Sweden2974 Posts
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/AMD-Intel_Full_Complaint.pdf | ||
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On May 13 2009 19:55 haduken wrote: Intel have such strong ties in distributor channels that i don't see how this will change anything. What exactly have Intel done to deserve this? Their products are just ... superior. Unlike microsoft who abuse the channel relationships, intel is actually worthy of their dominance. Not true back in the Pentium 4 days. Amd was superior both in price and power consumption then. You guys don't understand what Intel did. They set pricing guidelines for major computer manufacturers. If the manufacturers exclusively used Intel chips, then they get to buy the processors for $250 each. If they used 90%+ Intel chips. then the price is $275. If they used 80%+ then the price is $300 each. It wasn't be beneficial for computer manufacturers to buy AMD processors because they'll end up paying more money per processor. The same thing is happening right now with the Intel Atom processors. Nvidia is complaining about Intel's pricing policy for it's Atom processors. Intel is selling it's Atom processor individually to manufacturers for $45 each. But, if the manufacturers buy the the processor along with Intel's chipset/graphics bundle, it'll only cost $25. Nvidia developed a graphics chipset for the Intel Atom platform that supports HD playback. But despite it being superior to the Intel chipset, it isn't getting into many netbooks because Intel is giving away it's chipsets along with $20. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
GSL
Maru vs ShoWTimE
Classic vs Reynor
herO vs Lambo
Solar vs Clem
BSL22 NKC (BSL vs China)
XuanXuan vs Jaystar
Mihu vs Messiah
eOnzErG vs Dewalt
Bonyth vs Jaystar
TerrOr vs Messiah
XuanXuan vs Mihu
eOnzErG vs Jaystar
Replay Cast
GSL
Patches Events
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
