EU conducts antitrust raid on Intel and retailers

[Viditor]

Reuters

"The raids come as Intel faces a closed hearing in Brussels on March 11 and 12 on charges that it slashed prices below cost and offered huge rebates in an attempt to drive smaller competitor Advanced Micro Devices Inc out of the market"

 

[The-Noid]

EU hates monopolies.

Monopolies can be good for society.

 

[Peelback79]

Isn't that the whole point of owning a business? Being No.1? Sigh. Oh, wait, this story is comes to us from Europe. Can't say I'm suprised.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
EU hates monopolies.

Monopolies can be good for society.

I wish you could explain that. If it wasn't for AMD, we would be paying $500-$1000 for most Intel chips like back in the 90's.

If we had some real competition in the OS field, then we wouldn't be paying $150 for a buggy bloated OS like Vista.

 

[The-Noid]

That is the reason you are paying less now for Intel chips.

When monopoly powers do not innovate or overcharge no competitors come into the market.

Intel is a monopoly right now and is putting AMD out of business. Once AMD does go out of business a new chipmaker will come out from the ashes that will actually give Intel a run for its money going forwards.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
EU hates monopolies.

Monopolies can be good for society.

I wish you could explain that. If it wasn't for AMD, we would be paying $500-$1000 for most Intel chips like back in the 90's.

If we had some real competition in the OS field, then we wouldn't be paying $150 for a buggy bloated OS like Vista.

$150? I thought it was $400 for something actually worth using.

 

[waffleironhead]

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
That is the reason you are paying less now for Intel chips.

When monopoly powers do not innovate or overcharge no competitors come into the market.

Intel is a monopoly right now and is putting AMD out of business. Once AMD does go out of business a new chipmaker will come out from the ashes that will actually give Intel a run for its money going forwards.

Intel is NOT a monoply right now.

 

[The-Noid]

Originally posted by: waffleironhead

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
That is the reason you are paying less now for Intel chips.

When monopoly powers do not innovate or overcharge no competitors come into the market.

Intel is a monopoly right now and is putting AMD out of business. Once AMD does go out of business a new chipmaker will come out from the ashes that will actually give Intel a run for its money going forwards.

Intel is NOT a monoply right now.

Generally if you want to use the theory of oligopolies, Intel is already a monopoly by taking more than 80% market share in a duopoly. (YES VIA/IBM do take a small share).

There are also barriers to entries because of the X86 license.

You are confusing "Pure Monopoly" with "Monopolistic (Monopoly) Competition"

Monopoly does not mean only one player in a single market.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Markfw900


If we had some real competition in the OS field, then we wouldn't be paying $150 for a buggy bloated OS like Vista.

Uh, you don't actually have to pay anything for an OS. We choose to pay MS for Vista/XP. There are plenty of other choices in the OS field.

 

[waffleironhead]

Originally posted by: Yoxxy


Generally if you want to use the theory of oligopolies, Intel is already a monopoly by taking more than 80% market share in a duopoly. (YES VIA/IBM do take a small share).

There are also barriers to entries because of the X86 license.

You are confusing "Pure Monopoly" with "Monopolistic (Monopoly) Competition"

Monopoly does not mean only one player in a single market.

Im refering to monopoly as

Monopoly: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service

Repeat: Intel is not a Monopoly.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Originally posted by: Bateluer

Originally posted by: Markfw900


If we had some real competition in the OS field, then we wouldn't be paying $150 for a buggy bloated OS like Vista.

Uh, you don't actually have to pay anything for an OS. We choose to pay MS for Vista/XP. There are plenty of other choices in the OS field.

That may be true but how much software is built to run on anything but Windows OSs? In that sense a lot of people are forced to buy a Windows OS.

 

[Tempered81]

between amd and intel, what % do they control of the cpus out there in the world?

like 60% intel, 30% amd, and 10% the rest

 

[The-Noid]

Originally posted by: waffleironhead

Originally posted by: Yoxxy


Generally if you want to use the theory of oligopolies, Intel is already a monopoly by taking more than 80% market share in a duopoly. (YES VIA/IBM do take a small share).

There are also barriers to entries because of the X86 license.

You are confusing "Pure Monopoly" with "Monopolistic (Monopoly) Competition"

Monopoly does not mean only one player in a single market.

Im refering to monopoly as

Monopoly: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service

Repeat: Intel is not a Monopoly.

Repeat Intel is a Monopoly, why do you think Anti-Trust is coming from the State of New York and EC, just for fun?

Again read up on Pure Monopoly and the definition of Monopoly.

Intel is a Monopoly...

I have never said I disprove of Monopolies, as barring the salt monopolies of the 17th Century they are actually quite good for society. As they become lax in their production of new and innovative goods and services there is always another power that comes into market share.

<--- Graduated Summa in Econ.

 

[The-Noid]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
between amd and intel, what % do they control of the cpus out there in the world?

like 60% intel, 30% amd, and 10% the rest

Depending on which stats you read Intel is between 76.7%-81.3%. AMD 23.1-19.5% and the rest take an astonishing .28% but for rounding sake we will say .3%.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Wow .3%, Intel better keep an eye on all that competition

 

[Modelworks]

This is about antitrust not a monopoly.
A monopoly is what results when antitrust laws are not upheld.
Right now intel is not at that point, close, but not there.
This isn't about pricing or trying to produce products at a lower cost to push out your competitors. Its about doing things that are illegal like:

Paying a store to only sell intel products even though amd might offer the business a better deal.
Telling stores that if they don't sell a certain percentage of intel versus amd that you will penalize them for it.
Forcing retailers to display intel advertisements over amd.

Its very very similar to the movies you see about the mafia.
You don't go in and point a gun at the business owner, but you post one of your thugs at the door who is constantly serving as a reminder of your 'business arrangement'

 

[Duvie]

One thing I know...is that Viditor's investments atnds better by this raid on Intel.....j/k


I think INtel is guilty of monopolistic tactics that violate anti-trust laws.....Whether I own intel or not right now that doesn't change my opinion on that. The tactics in japan and europe were well documented. I am not surprised, except for the slowness of this. AMD could use some cash....

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
Once AMD does go out of business a new chipmaker will come out from the ashes that will actually give Intel a run for its money going forwards.

There is a HUGE massive gargantuan barrier to entry in the form of capital investment necessary to produce technologically competitive semiconductors.

No one will rise from the ashes to compete in a market that requires $4B-6B to build a leading edge 32nm volume fab...let alone the $3B-4B needed to do the R&D to develop a process competitive 32nm technology node.

I'm not making these numbers up, I was part of the 32nm development team at TI when the company ($50B in market cap mind you) decided the investment simply could not be recouped.

No one is going to be so loaded wealthy AND so silly stupid to walk in off the street and belly-up $10B to start-up a company from scratch to go toe-to-toe with Intel.

If you had $10B to do such then there are far far far more lucrative markets to with lower capital requirements to attempt to create a startup and gain a toehold in.

At best you could be a fabless design house, but your access to leading edge foundry technology will still put you 1+ years behind even AMD's current technology node curve. (I also know this because at TI we worked closely with the foundries)

Simply put Intel will enjoy the x86 market to themselves to the end of the market's lifetime but I doubt we should care. At the end of the day no one cared that Polaroid held a monopoly on instant photos, it did nothing to prevent the development of disruptive digital cameraphones...and the personal computer is going to peak too no matter what Intel does to dominate the market.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Simply put Intel will enjoy the x86 market to themselves to the end of the market's lifetime but I doubt we should care. At the end of the day no one cared that Polaroid held a monopoly on instant photos, it did nothing to prevent the development of disruptive digital cameraphones...and the personal computer is going to peak too no matter what Intel does to dominate the market.

Very true.
Polaroid announced yesterday that they would no longer produce the instant film anymore.
I guess digital was the final nail in the coffin for them.

There are companies that could compete with Intel that already have the capital, but like you said, why would they ? . There are easier ways to make money with the capital they have.

People need to remember that these are businesses that want to make money. Many companies could enter the x86 market if they wanted to . But for them to do it, they have to have very good reasons for the shareholders, not just that it would be cool to have another x86 supplier.

I worked for GE and I can tell you they more than have the money and technology to produce their own x86 line, but why would they ? They make much more doing other things.


Only people I could see investing in x86 would be someone like microsoft.
Imagine Windows 8 or 9 with a requirement that it had to use a microsoft cpu

 

[Viditor]

A few points here...

Yoxxy - Expecting that "a new chipmaker will come out from the ashes" is quite unrealistic. The reason that the other CPU makers are so low in marketshare is that the "barriers to entry" on CPU manufacturing is so high. To be financially competitive in anything but a niche processer, a rival would need to own at least one cutting edge Fab.
IBM could do it, but if you look closely you'll note that they're scaling back significantly on their microelectronics business.
To even think of challenging Intel at this point, you'd need a good $15 Billion in cash, covering Fab building, R&D, and running costs for the 3+ years it would take to build and ramp up...that's quite an investment for something that unsure.

Edit - Damn...IDC beet me to it!

waffleironhead - I think you misunderstand what a Monopoly is...

"A monopoly power is defined as the ability of a business to control a price within its relevant product market or its geographic market or to exclude a competitor from doing business within its relevant product market or geographic market. It is only necessary to prove the business had the "power" to raise prices or exclude competitors. The plaintiff does not need to prove that prices were actually raised or that competitors were actually excluded from the market"
Business Law Definition

Duvie - No, I don't think you were j/k at all...even better, you were correct!
As to the speed, remember that the really big suit still doesn't happen for 1 year (April 2009). I don't expect a settlement until near that time (and I DO expect Intel to settle...they aren't stupid people). A settlement might cost Intel $4 billion or so, but a judgement could be in the $30-40 billion range, and allow the FTC and Justice dept to file as well, using whatever AMD digs up.

 

[Zenoth]

Intel could buy AMD is they really wanted to, but they don't, it wouldn't be good for overall products development, no more competition, no reasons to make "better" chips that increase performance by 30% to 50% each years, and the liberty to overprice a whole family of chips for no apparent reasons other than mere profit, so right now Intel is "playing the game", a two-players one, with AMD, and perhaps with IMB too, but overall they're still just playing the game, or else it'd be treated like "unfair competition", but the point is they could destroy any so called "competition" tomorrow, but they aren't that stupid.

 

[The-Noid]

I won't argue with either of you, but this is the same argument that Cyrix and their supporters used in the first round of Monopoly talks in 1999.

Since that time what happened?

AMD became the chip leader in performance and has since fallen.

As is the way all it takes is an idea. Who knows if Intel is even going the right way with all their resources right now.

 

[Angerisagift]

I'm always conflicted by this argument,

I know if I buy intel I'm contributing to them taking an even larger percentage of the market share.

But at the moment and for a while now Intel has been unbeatable in the performance spectrum, and AMD even toe to toe at clock speeds still doesn't seem to top intel in the benches.

I was actually waiting to see what happened with Phenom before buying my Core 2, but it seemed very disappointing in the benches considering last gen processors from intel were running laps around AMD's new kid on the street.

I realize AMD is a neccesary force and just how important that their mere existences is to the entire microprocessor market

There is a part of me that want's to root for the underdog, drive a hybrid, reduce my carbon footprint and buy AMD stock because it will make me feel good inside.

but there's also the part of me that wants to drive around in an full size low mpg sequoia/expedition etc, not sort my recycles from my trash and buy intel stock because I'll
probably make a buck on it.

from the consumer standpoint, I would love to buy AMD, but AMD currently doesn't offer the product I want.

on a side note I heard from some speculation articles that AMD is going for the price to performance dominance strategy.

 

[Nemesis 1]

So many pointing at intel saying they selling at below cost . or rebates. Yet point out to me a year they lost money or even a qt. Seems to me they can sell at any price they want as Long as they make money on the chips.

Look at how AMD has slashed their prices to TRY to hold market share . When was the last time AMD made any money. Yet some can't see that AMD slashed its prices to the bone and are bleeding hard.

Intel didn't slash prices when AMD was on top in performance . Why because AMD couldn't sell anymore chips . They couldn't make them fast enough.

Why didn't AMD have Charter make chips befor C2D was released.


The US government will find Intel has done nothing wrong. When it will be shown that AMD couldn't produce enough chips.

Really doesn't matter what the EU does as AMD won't see 1 penny from the EU. AMD won't see 1 penny from the US lawsuite . Basicly AMD has failed and now their cring .

 

[Nemesis 1]

Couldn't Via if they want start a lawsuite against intel and AMD , After their new chipis out for a year. Saying AMD slashed prices and lost money in so doing . From what I understand Via chip is = to Dothan . Thats not a bad chip at all. But to compete against AMDs prices it is hurting Via. Yes I know Via chip is new . But in a year couldn't VIA make the same case against AMD's present pricng. When Via comes out with their 2 core chip it gets even more interesting.

Give a theif enough rope and they will hang themseves.