Intel has been dubbed EVIL

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: apoppin
do their employees share intel's lack of ethics?

i am beginning to think so

your sense of ethics is sick and perverse to me because unlike you, i believe property rights are absolute and universal. you can keep posting those little roses and put "criminal" in big bold stars, i won't be responding to you any more. have a nice day.

who wants to listen to you defend criminal behavior and extreme lack of ethics? - not me or any sane consumer
Your "belief" is equal to religious and it is outdated and an Epic Fail
:thumbsdown:

 

[palladium]

Interesting rants from AMD Zone ( here):

I saw some guestimates of what the fine might be - and it seemed the guestimates were like a slap on the rest. After years of huge profits, the SMALL PERCENTAGE fine estimates were insignificant. Essentially, a reward for a dirty job well done. They need to go further than that. Perhaps it will be heavier than that. Perhaps the ruling makes it easy for AMD to drag spintel into court.

I really would like to see benchmarketing, paid shill sites, compilers, and a ton of other crawp thrown into the mix
- REVEAL ALL OF IT.

The EU should have fined them twice what they did. $1.4 billion is small change to them and it's certainly less than AMD lost.

I fail to see how Intel can be more "successful" financially, when it has been so unsuccessful technically.
- It failed the 64-bit evolution (Itanium).
- It failed the memory evolution (twice, RDRAM & FB-DIMM)
- It failed the multi-thread implementation (is hyperthreading turned on in your Netburst?)
- It failed the graphical evolution (poor GPU platform)
- It's 5 years late on platform evolution (FSB to direct connect)
- It's 2 years late on virtualization acceleration
- It's still late on sufficient large-page TLB support

The 1st poster amuses me the most - is 'benchmarketing' even practised..?

 

[bgeh]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: bgeh

While I can agree with that statement I also have to bring up something I consider to be a flaw in the efficient market hypothesis or equivalently your statement above - namely that while these things happen, it does take a long time for it to happen, and the truth is most of us don't live long enough lives to see the end of this monopoly (or equivalently, market returning to some semblence of efficiency). In effect what we have is some generations of people profiting from an efficient market/lack of monopoly and others suffering under an inefficient market/monopoly. Is that truly fair?

There is no proof one way or another because it has never happened. The only long-lasting huge monopolies in history have been government created, funded and mandated.

To address your last question, what is fair? Is it fair to deprive the property rights of a person or group in an attempt to benefit another group? The monopoly only "wins" if consumers buy their goods and services regardless of price. The consumers' most effective tactic is to simply opt out.

But at the exact same time, government allowed monopolies also tend to have an element of what to you would be pretty heavy handed government regulation to control the prices, so it can't exactly be called a pure rip off from the 'fairness' perspective.

Nope, the monopoly also 'wins' if consumers buy their goods at a cost which would've been higher compared to if there existed competition in a free market context.

Also, what then is your position on patents, since they are some form of government regulation intended on promoting innovation? Should they not exist at all since they represent a form of government regulation?

 

[Gikaseixas]

This is simple people, Intel was found guilty in Japan, in Korea and now in Europe. Only difference is that now they have to pay a very high price for their practices. Next could be the US and from what i saw up to now it looks like it will be another fine aimed at Intel.

 

[ir0x0r]

I've seen a lot of people asking questions about how this rebate thing worked and what effect it had/will have on pricing. If Intel was paying people to stock their stuff with a rebate, wouldn't that make the price lower to consumers?

To understand this better let me give you a scaled back example. I own a small computer store in a small town and there are five such stores in this town.

If I were to identify the three biggest purchasers of computers and computer services in my area I could do the same kind of thing that Intel has. Lets say I make $100 from each PC I build in profit and they buy 10 PCs each every month.

If I create an agreement with these three top customers (who could otherwise buy from any of the five of us) so that if they agree to buy at least 90% of their computers from me I will rebate them $90 I could capture a fair amount of business. Specifically, I would get at least 27 PC builds per month which would leave only 3 PCs for everyone else.

That would also effectively destroy or cripple the other four computer stores. It has the added impact of showing all the other businesses that buy PCs and service that the most successful guys all buy from one place. This would result in me getting business from other sources as well. Yay, even more sales.

But here's where it gets sideways. The other sources don't get these rebates. If the 3 big customers were smart, they would sell some of their extra PCs for more than they paid.

Because I do so much more volume than anyone else, I can get my parts cheaper and I can push some of my suppliers around claiming that if they don't sell me parts at a certain price, I will go somewhere else. Of course, they don't want to lose my business so they comply.

But to make up for the lost revenue with me, they have to charge other people more.

In the end, we're left with one guy holding all the cards and everyone else has no chance to create a competitive product because I have the market cornered. Cornered like a rabid dog.

What if the PCs I sell aren't quite what the customers need? If they go buy the parts they actually need they will be unable to hit their target purchasing amounts and would lose their rebates. That raises their cost since they wouldn't get their rebate.

They now have to explain to everyone, falsely, how the other PCs don't really work better or are not better suited to their task.

 

[ir0x0r]

And the story continues.

Now that I'm complacent in my number one position I have less of a need to innovate on my product line and more of a need to keep costs from changing. I also need to focus on maintaining my #1 status more than I need to focus on keeping these three customers by providing the best product.

Think about it. It's much easier to remain a world record holder in pole vaulting if you can manipulate the location, specifications and requirements of the sport than if you just continue to outperform other people.

So some of these other companies may have a much better solution for one or more of these 3 big customers but it's simply impossible, financially, for them to buy those products.

Another aspect of this is what it takes for one of these companies to create said better solution. R&D costs money and if I'm keeping all of them down (by manipulating the market rather than through customer loyalty) it becomes VERY difficult for them to even devise a better solution than mine.

So, in this analogy, I have artificially pushed competition out of the marketplace. People buy from me because they HAVE to, not because they want to or because I provide the best product for them.

When people don't have the best product (tool) for the job it makes the cost of what they do with that tool go up.

Think about it. Roofers went from using a hammer to using an air nailer. That has allowed them, at least in my neck of the woods, to keep costs down. If the hammer companies got together and forced air nailers into a corner with Home Depot and Lowes so that roofers didn't buy them, the cost of putting your roof up would increase.

You could just as easily show that the cost of hammers has remained low and competitive.

 

[ir0x0r]

AMD has some interesting things to say on this subject. While I have no doubt they will sue Intel in a civil suit to try to recapture some of the funds Intel illegally captured (stole) what is more important is what they will do with those funds.

I don't think they will spend 100% of every dollar in the best way. No one is perfect so I'm sure there will be some folks wearing ties getting crazy bonuses.

But from my experience with them over many years, what they are saying in their blogs and what they have done in the past I have no doubt that their #1 goal would be to use any money they get out of the deal to continue to innovate new products and find ways to reduce the cost of existing products.

No, they are not supermen and they will not be responsible for saving the planet. They are still a business and will still be trying to make money. But their focus is not to do so artificially.

What AMD is most interested in from this case is that Intel stop their illegal practices. They don't care how much they discount their prices to their customers as long as they do it in a legal fashion.

And that is a really HUGE statement. It means that in a fair and legal marketplace AMD feels that they can meet any discount that Intel would care to offer. But the legal direction of that means that the discounts must be offered evenly to any customer without strings designed solely to keep another company out of the market.

In keeping with the previous analogy of my computer store, if one of the other stores produced a product that was better for one of those 3 big customers, I would lose sales but the other company would gain sales.

Most importantly, the company that strayed from me would still get whatever discount I offered them, they would know in advance what that discount was and that it would be in place.

That's called choice.

If the price of the other company's PC is more than mine, it stands to reason that the performance would be higher as well and that the purchaser needed that extra performance. In the business world (more so than in the consumer world) extra performance equates to lower cost of their product.

So this ruling benefits consumers both in the purchase of a PC AND in the products that come out of businesses that buy those PCs.

 

[ir0x0r]

Before everyone goes thinking I'm exclusively an AMD fan let me just admit that, yes, I am a fan of AMD.

But I'm not stupid either. When the Q6600 hit the sweet spot, I bought one. It was a better product than anything, IMO, than AMD had available at least as that applied to me.

Ya I felt bad and some people made fun of me for turning to the dark side, but I don't' care. It was the right thing to do so I did it.

The tide has shifted back to the AMD with the 955 and I'm back over there again.

I also think it's important to note that, IMO, AMD is responsible for the release of the Core2 CPU. Intel, despite their illegal activities, HAD to come up with a new product because they were losing market share in a major way.

It also happened with the 64-bit instruction set. They were all over the media, at the time, saying that there was no reason for 64-bit on the desktop. They also created a poop storm with people to NOT create 64-bit applications.

They said there wasn't any reason for two cores on the desktop and resisted that. Ya, we got HyperThreading but that was a joke. Now they are making quad-core chips and it's going to go up again.

What I'm saying is that Intel does innovate, they have just, historically, done it in response to something AMD had already done or was about to do.

AMD announced long ago they were going to put a GPU on the CPU. While that isn't helpful to gamers, it's very helpful to business. I have no doubt Intel will go down that path, too.

There is certainly space for both companies. They make different products in different ways for different purposes. We need both of them.

I just think we need both of them firing on all cylinders rather than one massive guy and a red headed stepchild.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: CTho9305
If large companies could push smaller companies out of the market on a whim, why would anyone invest in smaller companies? Abu Dhabi would be better off buying a large company (e.g. Walmart), squashing its competitors, and then using that money to buy a large company in the next market they want to dominate. We'd be in a straightforward "he who has the gold rules" situation.

In each market they seek to dominate they have to spend a lot of money for an uncertain return, then face the prospect of increased long-term competition if they tried to raise prices.

Besides, would it be fair to deny people with gold the right to invest as they wish? Property rights should be equally applied to all people.

To ensure that all people have the opportunity to exercise rights, you need to apply some limits.

No, people don't need to be buying many processors for the monopolist to maintain control. The monopolist only needs to keep the market big enough that a startup can't suddenly grab a large chunk of it (to keep the barrier to entry high). Additionally, if the large company can do something like add new instructions every 10 years and ensure software uses them, they can use patents to prevent anyone from producing alternatives compatible with existing software (further raising the barrier to entry).

Good point regarding patents, the current system makes a mockery of individual property rights. It is a problem that needs to be addressed.

How can the monopolist keep the market large and keep prices outrageously high at the same time? Those are opposing forces. A high market price lowers the relative entry barrier startup cost.

You don't need to charge $5000 for the CPU for it to be "outrageous". Hell, compared to what we have today, you could keep prices the same but just stop innovating (and maintain your market with (potentially artificially-accelerated) product wear-out). Consumers effectively get screwed not directly because they pay too much, but because they get less than they would in a competitive market (i.e. 5 years from now still being stuck with 3GHz i7 instead of 5GHz iWhatever). If all the DRAM manufacturers got together and agreed to cease R&D, I'd think that's just as evil as when they got together to fix prices.

As for corporations gobbling each other up... car companies? Microprocessor vendors? Graphics card companies? Electric guitar makers? Cell phone companies? Camera makers? Maybe they'll eventually fail, but it sure takes a long time and there's no guarantee that the resulting supply hole won't be filled by a large player from another market. When you have an oligopoly and one company fails, the rest pick up the demand (e.g. CompUSA dies, and Best Buy gets most of the business... AMC fails and Chrysler buys the remains).

Heh and look what is happening to Chrysler now, an unlawful, unconstitutional bankruptcy orchestrated by the government to pay a political debt.

Chrysler isn't doing so well, but in 2 years will you buy a car from SomeGuyInAGarage, or will you just have to buy a Honda instead? Again, the barrier to entry is high enough that you don't see many new players in the market.

Anyways, all those failing companies will be replaced by better and more efficient ones producing better products. If the failing company really have a sound product and they are failing because they are being crushed by a dominant firm, then they can find investors to support them. Isn't that what AMD is doing?

I asked this before, if it's truly being crushed by a dominant firm, why would anyone invest? If they invest so much that the smaller company becomes the dominant firm, we have exactly the same situation in reverse. You could have escalating investments, but at some point all of the money is tied up and one side loses simply because it's smaller.

I think the idea is that the next time AMD kicks Intel's butt (Opteron vs. P4), OEMs will be free to buy the better processors without fear of retribution because someone will have an eye on Intel and Intel will be scared of a large fine, and consumers will get faster chips for more $$$ or as-fast chips for less $$$. Ordinary consumers won't be stuck buying tomorrow's P4 because all the available machines from HP/Dell/Sony won't be Intel-only.

The manufacturers bought whatever would have made them more money. In the Opteron vs P4 case, consumers got slower chips for a less money because P4 was cheap to make. They could have bought a faster chip for more money, because K8 was on the market the entire time.

In the mainstream segment, price is the major concern, and the K8 was never competitively priced until the release of C2D (in my opinion). If AMD wanted K8 to compete in that segment, they should have priced appropriately. Then the OEM's would have used them. Look at happened after the C2D release. With the price cuts, AMD laptops/desktops showed up all over Best Buy.

I don't think you're understanding the rebate example. In the rebate examples, Intel can sell P4s for $100, with the rebate incentive so they're $90 for Intel-exclusive customers. Even if AMD is willing to sell faster chips for $45 (i.e. half as much), HP/Dell/Sony would be foolish to buy any of them. If Intel made the rebate lower the price to $85, AMD would literally have to pay OEMs to take their CPUs.

Since you're asking about a real-world example, a lot of idealities can be thrown out and you have to consider that most of the market is OEM machines, not Newegg. Maybe enthusiasts could go buy fast $45 K8s instead of $85 slow P4s, but the vast majority of the market has enough of a life to not be fully informed about computers. They reasonably expect that free-market capitalism means that in general, the company they're buying from would choose the better CPU (using whatever metric) because any company stupid enough to willingly choose $85 slow P4s over $45 fast K8s would be killed by competitors. When you have anticompetitive monopolies thrown in the mix, those assumptions become invalid and everyone gets screwed.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: apoppin
i AM private business - for 30 years running my own successful company i am retiring from this year to pursue my hobby - creating my own mega company

If i am ever so screwed up to do what intel did, i belong in jail with the other schemers and made-offs in the world
- one does not unfairly cut out the competition like intel does to AMD; it is finally recognized by the thinking half of the world as bad ethics

AND - YES, we benefit because AMD can finally have a CHANCE to compete fairly - we should see price drop and competition between the two companies increase

you do not represent private business. you're a person who does not respect the universal nature of property rights. instead you prefer a world where property rights are selectively applied for some absurd notion of "fairness".

and you still believe prices will drop. if you really run a business, you would see that this decision will result in simultaneous price hikes. government intervention is an overhead. overhead results in an artificial increase in prices. simple economics.

dmens I understand your point of view on the topic, but even you must admit you personally have little information at your disposal regarding the depths and details of what all your employer's decision makers were doing in these various markets from 2000-2007.

Even when the EU posts their 500+ page decision document it will be scrubbed and sanitized to prevent divulging information considered secret/sensitive business details by the varying businesses involved. Meaning a 500+ page document will represent a subset of the information that exists regarding what all was going on in EU economic zone for those five years.

Defending your employer against just a few examples of their anti-competitiveness does not discard the other 499 pages worth of data we aren't privy too.

Also defending your employer in a broader philosophical mindset is reasonable, business law has evolved over the centuries in part because people have been willing to invest the mental calories to contemplate such things, but it doesn't change the fact that as the laws were written and on the books at the time they broke those laws per the EU's ruling.

The shareholders of Intel really ought to take an issue with Barret's compensation package that he extracted from them over the course of the time period in question now that it is a matter of public record that he was building up a considerable amount of legal liability for his company (and thusly the shareholders) in the background and under their noses without them realizing it.

Shareholders have a right to expect and assume the executive decision team is intelligent enough to know how to operate within the confines of the law, even if they disagree with the law and the confines it places. If Intel's decision makers disagreed with the law then it was up to them to invest shareholder equity into lobbying the governments to get the law changed.

But to willfully ignore the tenants of the law, to build up this manner of global liability as the Barret team did, that is what strikes me as unethical to the shareholders IMO. They didn't ask Intel to deliver EPS at any cost, they expected them to deliver EPS while not incurring ethical/legal liabilities that could potentially come due at some point in the future (and today is that point in their future).

 

[Martimus]

What people aren't understanding with the rebate structure is that it isn't something that is lowering prices for consumers. It was more a way for a company to sell a product at their pre-determined rate if the costumer agreed to purchase all of their product from that company. If they did not, they would need to pay an additional 'tax' to be able to purchase those processors, and since there was not another manufacturer that was able to produce the volume needed to supply all of their products; the constumers were forced to go this route. It is effectively forcing any company that is unable to supply a large number of product out of the market. Even if the other company sells their product cheaper, the constumer would lose money by using them unless they scaled down their business to the level the other company can supply.

EDIT: I read what I wrote, and had a hard time following it. I made some quick adjustments in an attempt to be more legible.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Martimus
What people aren't understanding with the rebate structure is that it isn't something that is lowering prices for consumers. It was more a way for a company to sell a product at their pre-determined rate if the costumer agreed to purchase all of their product from that company. If they did not, they would need to pay an additional 'tax' to be able to purchase those processors, and since there was not another manufacturer that was able to produce the volume needed to supply all of their products the constumers were forced to go this route. It is effectively forcing any company that is unable to supply a large number of product out of the market. Even if the other company sells their product cheaper, the constumer would lose money by using them - so they won't.

it is correctly called a scheme and a scam .. it is the pinnacle of deliberate corporate abuse and part of the rot that has been encouraged for the past 8 years
- well, that has been suddenly reversed - this month - and now the USA justice department is RESUMING prosecution of Corporate Criminal Abuse like that of intel and MS
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05...ney%20antitrust&st=cse

"intel inside" is going to get another black eye - this time from the US; their home base
- How many BILLIONS of dollars are they going to pay out before they get it?

and yes, it may affect their pricing - their image is mud to thinking consumers

 

[dmens]

Defending your employer against just a few examples of their anti-competitiveness does not discard the other 499 pages worth of data we aren't privy too.

I thought it is clear that my stance is not a defense of Intel but an general attack on government abuse of power via unjust laws, and the perverse selective ethics that accompany them. The details of the case are irrelevant to me, because government intervention itself is immoral. These are political views I have held long since college.

Admittedly, operating in such a noxious environment as the corporatist EU requires surrender of many property rights. I'm hoping the whole place becomes so anti-business that global firms will simply stop selling goods there.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: dmens

Defending your employer against just a few examples of their anti-competitiveness does not discard the other 499 pages worth of data we aren't privy too.

I thought it is clear that my stance is not a defense of Intel but an general attack on government abuse of power via unjust laws, and the perverse selective ethics that accompany them. The details of the case are irrelevant to me, because government intervention itself is immoral. These are political views I have held long since college.

My mistake then. Please proceed.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Ouch ...

I'm not much into legal practice, but Intel can drag this out, right? I also wonder where this money is going. I doubt it's going to AMD or to the consumer. In which case I'd say, slap on the wrist and let bygones be bygones, coz it will only hurt Intel, and help no one.

Edit: Forgot link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8047546.stm

its going to the european welfare system. with massive taxes on the "rich" used to support commu.. err socialism, europes economy isn't doing well, and it needs the money, and what better source then those "evil" rich companies like intel...

if you wanted to even out an "unfair advantage" you would take away some patents or maybe even require intel to provide some CPU specs to their competitors... you put the Core2 chip in the public domain and you would have dozens of companies on the market with healthy competition... but the EU is getting greedy and wants money, not "potential competition and innovation in the market"

imagine the via nano if they could build on the core2? the phenom2 build on the core2? the transmeta chip?

giving an intel a special one time tax is only gonna make intel recoup that money from consumers, or slow down their development, its not going to reduce the MASSIVE barriers of entery into a field that legally speaking only 4 companies in the world are allowed to be in (x86 is PATENTED... even if you wanted to create a whole new chip with 0 aid and specs from intel you are not ALLOWED to since they have a patent for it)

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Ouch ...

I'm not much into legal practice, but Intel can drag this out, right? I also wonder where this money is going. I doubt it's going to AMD or to the consumer. In which case I'd say, slap on the wrist and let bygones be bygones, coz it will only hurt Intel, and help no one.

Edit: Forgot link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8047546.stm

its going to the european welfare system. with massive taxes on the "rich" used to support commu.. err socialism, europes economy isn't doing well, and it needs the money, and what better source then those "evil" rich companies like intel...

I must admit, from an employee viewpoint I thoroughly enjoyed working for a European based company (Austria to be specific) versus my experiences of being under the heel of an empowered US based company.

But as a business owner, which I now am, I much prefer the empowering situation in the US over that of the EU...

It always depends on which side of the equation you are on as to which form of social constructs we think we prefer.

The quote is telling: When your neighbor loses their job its called a recession, when you lose your job its called a depression.

 

[bobman0330]

Originally posted by: Martimus
What people aren't understanding with the rebate structure is that it isn't something that is lowering prices for consumers. It was more a way for a company to sell a product at their pre-determined rate if the costumer agreed to purchase all of their product from that company. If they did not, they would need to pay an additional 'tax' to be able to purchase those processors, and since there was not another manufacturer that was able to produce the volume needed to supply all of their products; the constumers were forced to go this route. It is effectively forcing any company that is unable to supply a large number of product out of the market. Even if the other company sells their product cheaper, the constumer would lose money by using them unless they scaled down their business to the level the other company can supply.

EDIT: I read what I wrote, and had a hard time following it. I made some quick adjustments in an attempt to be more legible.

The problem with this argument is that forcing OEMs to choose 100% Intel or 100% AMD won't, by itself, increase Intel's market share or their profits. If Dell and IBM go Intel, couldn't Gateway go AMD? The retail market still has the same supply and demand. If fewer AMD processors are being sold than would be efficiently demanded, there's an opportunity for a new distributor to move in and start selling AMDs. Even if the processor market isn't very competitive, the OEM market is extremely cutthroat.

 

[taltamir]

as an employee i prefer capitalism, because I understand math and I understand that short term discomfort is preferable to long term massive failure.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: bobman0330

Originally posted by: Martimus
What people aren't understanding with the rebate structure is that it isn't something that is lowering prices for consumers. It was more a way for a company to sell a product at their pre-determined rate if the costumer agreed to purchase all of their product from that company. If they did not, they would need to pay an additional 'tax' to be able to purchase those processors, and since there was not another manufacturer that was able to produce the volume needed to supply all of their products; the constumers were forced to go this route. It is effectively forcing any company that is unable to supply a large number of product out of the market. Even if the other company sells their product cheaper, the constumer would lose money by using them unless they scaled down their business to the level the other company can supply.

EDIT: I read what I wrote, and had a hard time following it. I made some quick adjustments in an attempt to be more legible.

The problem with this argument is that forcing OEMs to choose 100% Intel or 100% AMD won't, by itself, increase Intel's market share or their profits. If Dell and IBM go Intel, couldn't Gateway go AMD? The retail market still has the same supply and demand. If fewer AMD processors are being sold than would be efficiently demanded, there's an opportunity for a new distributor to move in and start selling AMDs. Even if the processor market isn't very competitive, the OEM market is extremely cutthroat.

yes but then how would they fine them for 1.5 billion dollars?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Really doesn't matter . Its done deal Intel can appeal . But crooks are going to rule the way they want. Lets behonest were talking about Europe here . LOL Look at history of europe LOL. Honesty isnot part of europes history . Check it out . LOL.

What natters is how intel deals with EU . For me its simple . Intel has to double pricies in EU . Inorder to afford doing business there. Question Is would AMD raise pricies in EU. If not EU orders would stop AMD from suppling other more important growing markets.

If I was Intel, I would announce the biggest Fab every being built in India/ China. After complete I would move operations out of west. THat would be the smart move. Borders don't matter anymore except were extorting Money from sound businessess and taxpayers is rule of the day ., Move east intel . Screw the west.

 

[Idontcare]

Taking it a bit personal there aren't you neme?

 

[Nemesis 1]

No Iam not. I study history. America was built on blood and sweat of all 12 tribes of Isreal. The only nation in the world were we all just got along . Now the people at the top are destroying our interstructure. In both EU and USA. While the east is building theirs . Whats going on here? America is almost defenseless because of service industry. Which really doest produce anything . Just service self doers can handle. Try making a living mowing yards in 1960 good luck! I say this was done on purpose and is a plan to weaken us . Sad part is when we get proof it be to freaken late for majority to wake up.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Really doesn't matter . Its done deal Intel can appeal . But crooks are going to rule the way they want. Lets behonest were talking about Europe here . LOL Look at history of europe LOL. Honesty isnot part of europes history . Check it out . LOL.

What natters is how intel deals with EU . For me its simple . Intel has to double pricies in EU . Inorder to afford doing business there. Question Is would AMD raise pricies in EU. If not EU orders would stop AMD from suppling other more important growing markets.

If I was Intel, I would announce the biggest Fab every being built in India/ China. After complete I would move operations out of west. THat would be the smart move. Borders don't matter anymore except were extorting Money from sound businessess and taxpayers is rule of the day ., Move east intel . Screw the west.

Awesome .. good news for AMD if intel doubles prices .. they will JUMP right in

intel is guilty .. three times in a row and soon a 4th

when will you guys wake up?

they make an awesome product but their ethics and moral sense is warped

 

[Martimus]

Originally posted by: bobman0330

Originally posted by: Martimus
What people aren't understanding with the rebate structure is that it isn't something that is lowering prices for consumers. It was more a way for a company to sell a product at their pre-determined rate if the costumer agreed to purchase all of their product from that company. If they did not, they would need to pay an additional 'tax' to be able to purchase those processors, and since there was not another manufacturer that was able to produce the volume needed to supply all of their products; the constumers were forced to go this route. It is effectively forcing any company that is unable to supply a large number of product out of the market. Even if the other company sells their product cheaper, the constumer would lose money by using them unless they scaled down their business to the level the other company can supply.

EDIT: I read what I wrote, and had a hard time following it. I made some quick adjustments in an attempt to be more legible.

The problem with this argument is that forcing OEMs to choose 100% Intel or 100% AMD won't, by itself, increase Intel's market share or their profits. If Dell and IBM go Intel, couldn't Gateway go AMD? The retail market still has the same supply and demand. If fewer AMD processors are being sold than would be efficiently demanded, there's an opportunity for a new distributor to move in and start selling AMDs. Even if the processor market isn't very competitive, the OEM market is extremely cutthroat.

The problem was simply that AMD was unable to supply 100% of the larger OEM's processors (and likely most of the smaller ones too). This is the whole reason for having the rebates in the form they were. If AMD were actually able to fulfill all of the CPU needs, Intel would have likely just used lower prices rather than rebates to compete.

 

[Khato]

Heh, the thread title says it best - 'dubbed evil'. That's exactly what the conclusion reached by the European Commission amounts to.

Sorry to disappoint, but this doesn't 'prove' anything. It's as meaningless as the decisions reached by similar political bodies in Japan and South Korea.

How about we wait to make proclamations of Intel being guilty until an actual court of law makes a ruling? Because last I checked, the European Commission's "investigation" has been under no obligation to include all evidence gathered - it's free to ignore anything that contradicts the conclusion that it wished to reach. A conclusion that has been put forth now likely in part because of the fact that it's near election time... It's pretty much a given that the appeal process will go on well past the current Commission is replaced near the end of this year.