CCI completes probe into Intel malpractice [The Times of India]

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

This lack of competition is a continuing argument in these forums, but no one really knows the answer. TBH intel has plenty of competition, but it is mainly not from AMD, it is from ARM and the entire ecosystem that surrounds it.

But when you consider the extensive research and validation that goes into producing a cpu, the cost of building foundaries, and precisely machining a chip with such small tolerences, can you really say that the cost is "SKY HIGH"? For the cost of a single night out on the town or the cost of a concert ticket you can buy a pentium cpu that has a tremendous performance except for the very most demanding users. And AMD is even cheaper, but I didnt bring that into the discussion because your comments seem to be directed only at intel.

Does it really need to cost $999, for the current top 6 core, Socket 2011 consumer/enthusiast chip (I know there are cheaper versions) ?

Why can't we have all 8 cores which are already on the chip we buy (they may not always be working cores, I don't know) ?

Why can't Socket 2011, be Haswell, at the same time as the lower Haswell parts became available ?

Why can't we have $20 X86 chips (for making simple, low end computers) ?

My observations are that Intel are currently giving desktop users a bleak and raw deal, both now, and from what I can glean is coming in the future.

With decent competition, would Intel be acting exactly the same ?, or would consumers greatly benefit ?

It's generally considered a very bad thing for a company to have little or no competition, which is why there are so many laws against monopolies.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Does it really need to cost $999, for the current top 6 core, Socket 2011 consumer/enthusiast chip (I know there are cheaper versions) ?

Why can't we have all 8 cores which are already on the chip we buy (they may not always be working cores, I don't know) ?

Why can't Socket 2011, be Haswell, at the same time as the lower Haswell parts became available ?

Why can't we have $20 X86 chips (for making simple, low end computers) ?

My observations are that Intel are currently giving desktop users a bleak and raw deal, both now, and from what I can glean is coming in the future.

With decent competition, would Intel be acting exactly the same ?, or would consumers greatly benefit ?

It's generally considered a very bad thing for a company to have little or no competition, which is why there are so many laws against monopolies.

You already got down to 31$ listprice x86 CPUs.

What you seem to ask for is basically to get a Ferrari for 2000$ like another car you can get.

Intel is already in competition with itself and the CPU prices have never been lower in the history for x86. Maybe you lack the history. But back in 2004/2005. A mainstream dualcore started at just under 600$.

Your problem is that you want something the overall market dont want. Yet you accuse everything to be wrong just because YOU dont get your will. And servers that you want a spinoff CPU from requires longer validation, hence longer release time. Not to mention Intel cant just release all products on a new process node just because you want.

 

[ShintaiDK]

What I meant was, IF Intel continue down the road of becoming a MONOPOLY.

THEN
It may well cause Intel to charge "SKY HIGH" (if INTEL=MONOPOLY) prices for some/all of their cpu's.

Also, computers have been around for a long time, so even the $80 or $200 price points you mentioned, may be overly expensive (but I perfectly accept that, that is a much more contentious proposition).

EDIT: Arguably, if Intel were currently much less of a monopoly, e.g. If Steamroller (i.e. better competition) was with us now, and it was significantly better than the existing piledriver FX's, then maybe Haswell would be a lot less of a disappointment, for some people, in the enthusiasts market.
E.g. Solder, rather than TIM.

No, no and just no.

You fail to understand how business works. Intels prices if a monopoly would not change. Its a price/volume vs profit ratio. And AMD is completely irrelevant. And its Intel who needs to give you a reason to upgrade. But your problem is that you belong to a dying segment. You seem to confuse the market with a fixed demand one.

There are only 2 ways for you to get cheaper CPUs. One is cutting R&D. But that means the segment commits suicide. The other way is higher volume. In the long run I dont see any room for other companies. Simply due to expense costs. You can have 1 healthy company or you can get 2 or more dying companies that cant produce anything good.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

You already got down to 31$ listprice x86 CPUs.

What you seem to ask for is basically to get a Ferrari for 2000$ like another car you can get.

Intel is already in competition with itself and the CPU prices have never been lower in the history for x86. Maybe you lack the history. But back in 2004/2005. A mainstream dualcore started at just under 600$.

Your problem is that you want something the overall market dont want. Yet you accuse everything to be wrong just because YOU dont get your will. And servers that you want a spinoff CPU from requires longer validation, hence longer release time. Not to mention Intel cant just release all products on a new process node just because you want.

My previous post was too greedy, and self centred. I, completely agree!

But there are lots of small (but still significant) things, which Intel could improve upon, which would not apparently cost Intel much money, to make happen.

Examples:

1. Soldered rather than TIM, or decent material TIM, for at least K series processors
2. Top models, such as 4770K, have ALL practicable options ENABLED, such as full virtualization
3. Why not allow Socket2011 owners to re-enable the extra 2 cores, and see if they are working well enough. A bit like AMD Phenoms, with motherboard core unlockers
4. Have at least some processors, which are BOTH medium cost AND 8 threads
5. Have lower cost Quad core cpu's, currently cheapest Quads, seem excessively high
6. Give us back the 5(?) bin 4770-non-K partial overclock capabilty, deleted in current Haswells

I don't have detailed insider Intel information, so none/some/all of what I have suggested, may either be in-practicable and/or too expensive.

 

[ShintaiDK]

My previous post was too greedy, and self centred. I, completely agree!

But there are lots of small (but still significant) things, which Intel could improve upon, which would not apparently cost Intel much money, to make happen.



Examples:

1. Soldered rather than TIM, or decent material TIM, for at least K series processors
2. Top models, such as 4770K, have ALL practicable options ENABLED, such as full virtualization
3. Why not allow Socket2011 owners to re-enable the extra 2 cores, and see if they are working well enough. A bit like AMD Phenoms, with motherboard core unlockers
4. Have at least some processors, which are BOTH medium cost AND 8 threads
5. Have lower cost Quad core cpu's, currently cheapest Quads, seem excessively high
6. Give us back the 5(?) bin 4770-non-K partial overclock capabilty, deleted in current Haswells

I don't have detailed insider Intel information, so none/some/all of what I have suggested, may either be in-practicable and/or too expensive.

1. You dont know the technical reasons behind. None of us do.
2. Same as 1.
3. Are you able to enable cores in FX4xxx/FX6xxx CPUs? Or is it already a thing of the past with AMD?
4. Again, this is where you project your wishes. 8 threads is useless for the "99%" crowd.
5. Quadcores are already cheap. But you can get 4 threads for cheaper than real quadcores. Again, its a demand factor from the consumers.
6. Again you ask for something free for a niche. But not willing to pay?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

No, no and just no.

You fail to understand how business works. Intels prices if a monopoly would not change. Its a price/volume vs profit ratio. And AMD is completely irrelevant. And its Intel who needs to give you a reason to upgrade. But your problem is that you belong to a dying segment. You seem to confuse the market with a fixed demand one.

There are only 2 ways for you to get cheaper CPUs. One is cutting R&D. But that means the segment commits suicide. The other way is higher volume. In the long run I dont see any room for other companies. Simply due to expense costs. You can have 1 healthy company or you can get 2 or more dying companies that cant produce anything good.

The point I was trying to make was, LACK OF COMPETITION = BAD FOR CONSUMERS.
The post was not referring to the CURRENT Intel cpu prices, but the theoretical ones, if ALL existing competition were to disappear overnight, AND Intel significantly increasing prices as well.

In terms of the question that I think, my post appeared as (based on your answer), I tend to agree with all of what you said, EXCEPT the bit about 1 company being healthier than 2.
The problem in that case would be that 1 company, has NO competition, which is generally considered to be an UNHEALTH thing, business wise.

Whereas, 2 companies, has at least some competition, between themselves.

But an interesting point, that if there was only 1 company, it would have ALL the revenues for itself.

Perhaps the alleged illegal activity(s) at the start of this thread, show the dangers, of what could happen (and worse), if Intel was to end up being the ONLY cpu supplier in the world.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

1. You dont know the technical reasons behind. None of us do.
2. Same as 1.
3. Are you able to enable cores in FX4xxx/FX6xxx CPUs? Or is it already a thing of the past with AMD?
4. Again, this is where you project your wishes. 8 threads is useless for the "99%" crowd.
5. Quadcores are already cheap. But you can get 4 threads for cheaper than real quadcores. Again, its a demand factor from the consumers.
6. Again you ask for something free for a niche. But not willing to pay?

You are making me feel, REALLY SELF-CENTRED! right now. But, I am probably not alone on these forums, with these wants.

So I guess the question is, What does the average/typical Intel cpu user want/need that they are not currently getting from Intel ?

And would be improved with by better/more competition ?

Maybe, lower prices, where possible, without hurting R&D, and other legitimate Intel running costs, and reasonable profitability.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The point I was trying to make was, LACK OF COMPETITION = BAD FOR CONSUMERS.

This is certainly not true. Competition is far from always good. We might talk a 70-80% ratio when its good or destructive.

The post was not referring to the CURRENT Intel cpu prices, but the theoretical ones, if ALL existing competition were to disappear overnight, AND Intel significantly increasing prices as well.

This is pure rubbish. And I told you it before. CPUs are not a fixed demand market. AMD gone would actually lower Intels average selling price. Else the volume would drop and hurt Intel. Volume is the key and higher prices equal lower volume.

In terms of the question that I think, my post appeared as (based on your answer), I tend to agree with all of what you said, EXCEPT the bit about 1 company being healthier than 2.

The problem in that case would be that 1 company, has NO competition, which is generally considered to be an UNHEALTH thing, business wise.

Whereas, 2 companies, has at least some competition, between themselves.

But an interesting point, that if there was only 1 company, it would have ALL the revenues for itself.

Perhaps the alleged illegal activity(s) at the start of this thread, show the dangers, of what could happen (and worse), if Intel was to end up being the ONLY cpu supplier in the world.

Again, you got a wrong mindset of competition always being good. Often competition simply gives you rubbish poor quality products due to the famous race to the bottom. or it gives you a stagnated market due to the lack of risk taking in fear of competitors takes over.

Competition works best in low to no R&D segments with fixed demand.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You are making me feel, REALLY SELF-CENTRED! right now. But, I am probably not alone on these forums, with these wants.

So I guess the question is, What does the average/typical Intel cpu user want/need that they are not currently getting from Intel ?

And would be improved with by better/more competition ?

Maybe, lower prices, where possible, without hurting R&D, and other legitimate Intel running costs, and reasonable profitability.

The market demands better performance/watt and higher integration for smaller factors.

To lower price, you need higher volume to not hurt R&D. Higher volume means the market either had to expand in the speed needed. or that someone else in the market needs to go belly up. Else you need to cut R&D and reduce product quality and innovation.

Also you didnt answer my question. Can you unlock cores on a FX CPU? Or was it just a fluke with Phenoms?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

This is certainly not true. Competition is far from always good. We might talk a 70-80% ratio when its good or destructive.
.......

I agree that there are theories about competition, NOT always being good.

And, more importantly, at the moment, don't think that I have enough "knowledge" to make an informed decision as to if those theories are RIGHT or WRONG.

So, I have little choice but to AGREE WITH YOU, since I don't have valid knowledge to disagree.

My current gut feeling is neutral, that is, I don't know if the competition is GOOD or BAD.

I have a tiny, and faint feeling, that maybe competition is still probably good, but that feeling is easily weak enough, for me to continue to AGREE WITH YOU (or at least I can't disagree, because I don't know enough about these "competition is NOT always good" theories).

So, we agree!

The market demands better performance/watt and higher integration for smaller factors.

To lower price, you need higher volume to not hurt R&D. Higher volume means the market either had to expand in the speed needed. or that someone else in the market needs to go belly up. Else you need to cut R&D and reduce product quality and innovation.

Also you didnt answer my question. Can you unlock cores on a FX CPU? Or was it just a fluke with Phenoms?

Sounds good. The market is changing , and this complicates the current situation a lot.


(Sorry for NOT answering this before, but .....)

"Can you unlock cores on a FX CPU? Or was it just a fluke with Phenoms?"

You CAN'T (to the best of my knowledge) unlock them on the FX's.

But my counter argument would be that you have just paid $999, for the TOP consumer Socket2011 chip, why not let the user play with the possible extra pair of cores ? (Of course this is again, PURE GREEDINESS of me on this forum).
Maybe it WOULD cost Intel money, as it may impact on real 8 core Xeon sales (which command a far higher price).

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

So, to summarize.

We seem to have ended up discussing (what seems to me) to be VERY complicated economics issues, going significantly beyond my current knowledge and capabilities in economics.
Therefore, I definitely can't DISAGREE (currently), and on reflection, I should have said that I am unsure to what extent I AGREE, because we have gone beyond my knowledge of economics (if that is even the right subject area).

Anyway, it sounds plausible to me that you have a valid point worth pursuing, i.e. Intel NOT needing competition.

To give you a better answer, I would have to research 'competition', and think about it for a while, which, unfortunately (for this discussion), I am not planning to do.

EDIT: I've had a somewhat quick look into articles on the net, on the lines of "Is competition good for businesses".
I've provisionally made up my mind, YES it is good for businesses, but I am open to the possibility of me being wrong here, as there is the odd article about why it is not always good (from a quick glance).
So, I now think competition IS good for Intel and the rest of the world, Sorry!

Competition is by no means perfect. But, it currently seems to be the best "of the bad" techniques, for regulating/controlling/optimizing etc businesses, such as Intel.

I think it is likely, we will have to agree, to disagree on this issue.

 

[galego]

Some more info on the thread main topic.

The distributor that filled the complaint by malpractices is eSys Technologies. The kind of activities under investigation "could have adverse effects on the growth of either the channels or the competition."

I also found that this is not the first time when Intel is being investigated by CCI. Earlier in 2009, AMD had filed a complaint with the CCI against Intel for using illegal tactics for influencing government tenders.

http://itvoir.com/portal/news/News/Intel-India-under-CCI-scrutiny--21-046.asp

 

[Phynaz]

I also found that this is not the first time when Intel is being investigated by CCI. Earlier in 2009, AMD had filed a complaint with the CCI against Intel for using illegal tactics for influencing government tenders.

http://itvoir.com/portal/news/News/Intel-India-under-CCI-scrutiny--21-046.asp

What was the outcome of that investigation?

 

[galego]

What was the outcome of that investigation?

The link doesn't say.

 

[podspi]

The argument that the market is healthier without competition is similar to that of the U.S. cable companies. Everyone who lives in the U.S. knows how that turned out.

Its true that the economic hypothetical "perfectly competitive" market (where price is equal to the marginal cost of production) would be detrimental to innovation in the semiconductor industry due to R&D starvation, but it does NOT follow that innovation rate is maximized at monopoly.

Edit: And the same argument can be made for any product that requires R&D. Imagine the Chevy GM could design if they were an auto monopoly and so received all the profits in the auto industry.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The argument that the market is healthier without competition is similar to that of the U.S. cable companies. Everyone who lives in the U.S. knows how that turned out.

Its true that the economic hypothetical "perfectly competitive" market (where price is equal to the marginal cost of production) would be detrimental to innovation in the semiconductor industry due to R&D starvation, but it does NOT follow that innovation rate is maximized at monopoly.

Cable companies is an entirely different business, different distribution, close to fixed demand and with ultra minimalistic R&D.

 

[Idontcare]

I read the link in the OP. Did I miss it or is there actually nothing being reported here regarding any of the findings as being bad, good or otherwise?

 

[ShintaiDK]

I read the link in the OP. Did I miss it or is there actually nothing being reported here regarding any of the findings as being bad, good or otherwise?

Classic thread with a sole purpose :|

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I read the link in the OP. Did I miss it or is there actually nothing being reported here regarding any of the findings as being bad, good or otherwise?

You didn't miss anything. All there is here so far is an allegation.

As a side note, I find it ironic that there's a thread complaining about Intel not having enough competition going on at the same time as a thread claiming that Intel is going to go the way of DEC.

 

[guskline]

:biggrin:

I read the link in the OP. Did I miss it or is there actually nothing being reported here regarding any of the findings as being bad, good or otherwise?

I thought the same thing. I call this thread a "post builder".

 

[Phynaz]

The link doesn't say.

So your link equates to unfounded accusation.

 

[frozentundra123456]

So your link equates to unfounded accusation.

Yea, but if you are intel apparently you are guilty until proven innocent, at least to a number of posters in the forums lately.

Also, seems ironic that the same people who predict with great fanfare that AMDs HSA/Gaming evolved/console wins will shut out Intel and nvidia think that is a great thing, while unproven accusations against Intel are dug up from obscure publications to condemn them.

 

[TuxDave]

I read the link in the OP. Did I miss it or is there actually nothing being reported here regarding any of the findings as being bad, good or otherwise?

Competition Commission of India's probe arm, Director General (DG), has submitted its "voluminous" report to the regulator, a source said. However, the findings of the DG could not be immediately ascertained.

You'd think they would have a high level summary on the first page or something.

 

[aigomorla]

why is every government trying to take a piece of intel?

Apple right now has bigger stakes then intel.

Sue apple a couple of times while there vulnerable to google.


If i was an investigator, i would just say ENOUGH.
If u want a piece of the settlement, take it from US, and EU's settlement.

 

[Pandamonia]

Yea, but if you are intel apparently you are guilty until proven innocent, at least to a number of posters in the forums lately.

Also, seems ironic that the same people who predict with great fanfare that AMDs HSA/Gaming evolved/console wins will shut out Intel and nvidia think that is a great thing, while unproven accusations against Intel are dug up from obscure publications to condemn them.

Im pretty sure that intel was proven guilty a long time ago.

Intel has a track record for doing illegal things all over the world at the expense of its competitors. It doesnt play fair and its been proven time and time again.