There is something wrong with it when you have 85 percent of the market and are using the money to perpetuate a virtual monoply.I'm not seeing anything wrong here at all. This is normal when you sign an agreement of this magnitude that incentives are offered to stay exclusive. Dell could use AMD to entice better deals from intel. This is totally normal and happens all the time.
But there's nothing wrong here, it's just business.
Yes, it would be ironic. If you had any evidence to show for it.
The real question is why we Americans have forgotten what happens when companies that are hugely dominant in their field use their economic power to prevent competition.
The bad old days are here again.
The trusts of Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, etc, that prevented competiton not buy making or producing a better product or at a lower price, but by preventing competiton thru the use of their size and money.What bad old days are you referring to?
The trusts of Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, etc, that prevented competiton not buy making or producing a better product or at a lower price, but by preventing competiton thru the use of their size and money.
Lordy, what DO they teach in schools these days?
Cry all you want, have you seen how ridiculously cheap and powerful computers are these days?
Why is this any different than DirectTV being the only Sunday Ticket Carrier. Xbox360 being the only game console with Netflix or AT&T being the only iphone carrier.
Is it because it wasn't disclosed to the public?
This is no different than giving them a price discount such that offering the competitor is not worthwile which seems to happen all the time in business.
I'm not seeing anything wrong here at all. This is normal when you sign an agreement of this magnitude that incentives are offered to stay exclusive. Dell could use AMD to entice better deals from intel. This is totally normal and happens all the time.
But there's nothing wrong here, it's just business.
Things trolls say for 1000, Alex
OMG THE DAILY DOUBLE!
We get a huge discount here for exclusive use of Honeywell temperature controllers. Every controller mfg offers such agreements. The more controllers we buy, the better the deal gets. Until this agreement ends, other controller mfgs are basically locked out of our business.
We also have customers who will not order from us unless we agree to use their components when we build. GE comes to mind. Have to use GE motors, contactors, switches, etc., to get the GE order.
read the thread.I don't know what you're talking about. I've signed many such exclusivity agreements to get better discounts and rebates from suppliers. It's just business. And like I said you can use their competitors against them to get better discounts. It's up to dell to decide if they want to sign such an agreement or not...well technically it's up to both parties, but you get the idea.
And they could be even cheaper and more powerful IF Intel allowed AMD to be more competitive.
How cheap would they be if Intel kept doing this nonsense and caused AMD to shut their doors? I don't want to even think about how expensive computers would be with only one key producer/supplier.
I can't believe you're trying to defend Intel's anti-competitive behavior.
And I knew you would post that.I know all about those companies and baited you into answering my question.
Price to consumers fell by over 50% while Standard Oil rose to power. Sure they used unlikeable business practices but in the long run they provided a much better service to Americans for a MUCH lower price.
Cry all you want, have you seen how ridiculously cheap and powerful computers are these days?
And I knew you would post that.
Computers were advancing in speed far faster when there was real competition between Intel and AMD.
As to Standard Oil, prices went down as more efficient drilling and transporting methods were invented. You are nuts if you think monopolies don't exist to get more for their product than they would with competition.
And that's why this country is in trouble. We have let too many industries become controlled by two few companies. Even when you have 2-3 big companies that still is a situation where they collude to fix prices artificially high.
Unbelievable that anyone would actually argue for monopolies. I blame our poor educational system and corporate propaganda.
I blame you for having an unhappy life for worrying to much about this stuff. I'm gonna get on with my day now. Really I don't care if either of us is right, I'm not a policy maker or politician.
*adds techs to ignore list*
they will make more money after fines when AMD closes their company. sleezy but it works
This deal requires at least 2 participants, so why isn't Dell being sued? Dell apparently agreed to lock out AMD.
Actually I don't think the law would prohibit Dell from taking the money, only from Intel offering it.What law are you implying Dell broke?
This deal requires at least 2 participants, so why isn't Dell being sued? Dell apparently agreed to lock out AMD.
again, there is a difference between a volume discount and an exclusivity discount for a firm with big time market power.AMD doesn't even have to die, as long as Intel gets a leg up in the market it will be worth it.
Also, from the sound of it what's in the article may or may not be illegal. Manufacturers give volume discounts all the time, and they can change those discounts whenever they want.
This deal requires at least 2 participants, so why isn't Dell being sued? Dell apparently agreed to lock out AMD.