When BT-D is used for X86 tablets.?
Who said that AMD is not targeted by their contra revenues.?
http://www.bungbungame.com/EN/news/news_page.aspx?newsName=273
Im with you on that but the vast majority of BayTrail Tablets are with Android.
Who said that AMD is not targeted by their contra revenues.?
Intel's contra-revenue program is intentionally and specifically organized such that it has zero overlap or impact on AMD. I learned that straight from a higher-up at Intel who manages such things. Intel is extremely leery (internally) of doing anything financially that would bring on anti-competitive scrutiny when it comes to AMD. Those are the Intel's guy's words, not mine.
Now you don't have to believe me, but it is the truth and the reality of the contra-revenue situation which is why you have yet to hear even one AMD exec mention Intel's contra-revenue program as impacting AMD's market situation.
Given that AMD is scrambling to stay afloat in the face of eroding market share and more layoffs, do you really think they would elect to not mention Intel's contra-revenue program if it was in any way restricting, impacting or degrading AMD's existing market position or future market opportunities?
It should be very telling to the layperson, fanpersons and enthusiasts alike, that the experts (AMD in this case) who would know whether or not Intel's contra-revenue program has any impact on AMD have not made any such claims.
These claims of the CR impacting AMD are born in the minds of people who are in no position to know what the program does or who it impacts in the business realm.
As for me, I just went straight to the source and asked to be given a frank lay-of-the-land regarding the contra-revenue program, and what I was told by Intel holds up to the sniff test of what I see in reality. It is intentionally crafted to avoid AMD in all aspects because Intel knows if a single dollar of contra-revenue somehow had a knock-on effect of entering into the AMD/Intel competitive market then they are going to be hauled back into court and they want to avoid that at all costs.
Even still, something tells me this post will do little to dissuade the handful of folks who just want to believe something (CR is illegal and undermines AMD) that even AMD's execs won't argue about because it simply isn't true.
Intel's contra-revenue program is intentionally and specifically organized such that it has zero overlap or impact on AMD. I learned that straight from a higher-up at Intel who manages such things. Intel is extremely leery (internally) of doing anything financially that would bring on anti-competitive scrutiny when it comes to AMD. Those are the Intel's guy's words, not mine.
Now you don't have to believe me, but it is the truth and the reality of the contra-revenue situation which is why you have yet to hear even one AMD exec mention Intel's contra-revenue program as impacting AMD's market situation.
When asked if hed like to take AMD into tablets, Reads response was that while this was obviously an important long-term market, Intels aggressive marketing practices (referred to as wrapping a $20 bills around every one of their processors) made it impossible for AMD to aggressively chase share in that space without incurring crippling losses.
It should be very telling to the layperson, fanpersons and enthusiasts alike, that the experts (AMD in this case) who would know whether or not Intel's contra-revenue program has any impact on AMD have not made any such claims.
Before taking at face value what you heard from an Intel representative you should ask an AMD representative also if possible, but we ll get there in a few lines...
I believe that you re quoting the guy accurately but i dont believe his spin, would you expect him to tell you that they know that AMD is impacted ?.
Doing so would be to aknowledge that it s anti competitive practices.
Besides, are you sure that no one at AMD did point the thing.?
Let s see what Rory Read had to say about it :
I think it is clear enough, they were targeting the tablet market, they just didnt expect Intel to resort to thoses practices.
I would had expected better from you than resorting to the fanboysm straw argument, but let me explain why AMD says nothing, it s because if they start to sue Intel they have to ask the justice to check the contracts and accounts of their own customers, that is, they would put their own customers under the justice scrutinity and eventual condemnation,and as a consequence they will be bankrupt as a the retaliation from all thoses companies would be to cease buying their products, the management at Intel perfectly know this and they are taking advantage of AMD fragile financial situation to wage these anti competitive practices.
Besides it doesnt take a huge IQ to guess that the market is not infinitely extensible and that each Android tablet sold will result in an unsold X86 tablet anyway, they are just contracting the market hugely for their competitor as a mean to keep him from acquiring brand recognition in this market, they know too well that if Mullins start to be widespread there will be a growing sentiment that AMD mobile gear is better.
what is stopping AMD from making a price competitive sku both against intel and the ARM-y?
APU13 was in october 2013, contra revenues were announced one month later.AMD is establishing excellent momentum this year in the low-power, mobile computing market and with ‘Mullins’ and ‘Beema’ coming in 2014 we are not standing still,” said Mark Papermaster, AMD’s chief technology officer and senior vice president, during his closing keynote at APU13. “AMD aims to deliver a set of platforms in the first half of next year that will outperform the competition in graphics and total compute performance in fanless tablets, 2-in-1s and ultrathin notebooks.”
what is stopping AMD from making a price competitive sku both against intel and the ARM-y?
but let me explain why AMD says nothing, it s because if they start to sue Intel they have to ask the justice to check the contracts and accounts of their own customers, that is, they would put their own customers under the justice scrutinity and eventual condemnation,and as a consequence they will be bankrupt as a the retaliation from all thoses companies would be to cease buying their products, the management at Intel perfectly know this and they are taking advantage of AMD fragile financial situation to wage these anti competitive practices.
Besides it doesnt take a huge IQ to guess that the market is not infinitely extensible and that each Android tablet sold will result in an unsold X86 tablet anyway,
That interpretation is simply not credible.
We saw in AMD's last court action against Intel that they had no qualms whatsoever dragging their own customers through the legal system.
What about ipads?:hmm:
Credibility mandate more than a few lines to brand someone not credible, as well as the capability to put things in perspective, i talked of 320 millions while in your exemple it was billions that were at stake, just Dell received 5bn rebates to not buy AMD gear and this in a matter of two years or so, given the amount i talked about AMD will not take the risk to sue Intel as they could only get a few hundreds millions while their customers could be fined along with Intel for billions that would end in states pockets and would be indeed useless for AMD, and even destructive if said customers retaliate the slightest way.
What the ipads have to do with this.?.
Provide sources. Otherwise its just your words and they seem to be full of ....
The table below shows Dell’s MCP payment receipts from Intel according to SEC filings.
I have the number from memory, this can be found googling, i ll provide the exact figures once i find the links, in the waiting some food for thoughts.
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-06/cp140082en.pdf
Notice that i had personaly knowledge of Media-Saturn case since 2001 while the lawsuit start at 2002, at the time a local Media Saturn responsible told me that they had 50% of their advertisements payed by Intel provided they put an Intel inside logo on their advertisement...and that no AMD CPU was used in the PCs they sold, they pushed the despicability as far as putting a single outdated K6 2 laptop as a prove that they did sell AMD gear, the guy told me that Intel sales forces were regurlarly checking if there was not an "unwanted beast" according to his own words.
Edit : so much for the full of........You should apply this term to the ones breaking laws at the expenses of the consumers.
Edit 2 :
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...for-unfair-and-damaging-practices-against-amd
1. Your statement is not is context and I took it out of context. It made no reference to the year. Since we were talking about recent events and BT to boot I assumed it was recent. My Apology. You should be careful to keep your posts in context though.
2. Adding it up I get 4232 M, over 4 years. Thus the original statement, 5B over 'two years or so' is incorrect.
Can we keep the topic on Intel and the present and stop arguing about 7+ years ago?
Can we keep the topic on Intel and the present and stop arguing about 7+ years ago?
The EU verdict has been appealed no? Therefore Intel hasn't been found guilty of anything.
http://www.zdnet.com/intel-loses-fight-against-1bn-eu-antitrust-fine-7000030465/June 12, 2014
US chip giant Intel has lost its bid to fight off a €1.06bn fine levied by Europe's competition regulator in 2009 after the company was found to be muscling out rival AMD.
Intel's contra-revenue program is intentionally and specifically organized such that it has zero overlap or impact on AMD. I learned that straight from a higher-up at Intel who manages such things. Intel is extremely leery (internally) of doing anything financially that would bring on anti-competitive scrutiny when it comes to AMD. Those are the Intel's guy's words, not mine.
Now you don't have to believe me, but it is the truth and the reality of the contra-revenue situation which is why you have yet to hear even one AMD exec mention Intel's contra-revenue program as impacting AMD's market situation.
Given that AMD is scrambling to stay afloat in the face of eroding market share and more layoffs, do you really think they would elect to not mention Intel's contra-revenue program if it was in any way restricting, impacting or degrading AMD's existing market position or future market opportunities?
It should be very telling to the layperson, fanpersons and enthusiasts alike, that the experts (AMD in this case) who would know whether or not Intel's contra-revenue program has any impact on AMD have not made any such claims.
These claims of the CR impacting AMD are born in the minds of people who are in no position to know what the program does or who it impacts in the business realm.
As for me, I just went straight to the source and asked to be given a frank lay-of-the-land regarding the contra-revenue program, and what I was told by Intel holds up to the sniff test of what I see in reality. It is intentionally crafted to avoid AMD in all aspects because Intel knows if a single dollar of contra-revenue somehow had a knock-on effect of entering into the AMD/Intel competitive market then they are going to be hauled back into court and they want to avoid that at all costs.
Even still, something tells me this post will do little to dissuade the handful of folks who just want to believe something (CR is illegal and undermines AMD) that even AMD's execs won't argue about because it simply isn't true.
It was confirmed on appeal that they are guilty.
http://www.zdnet.com/intel-loses-fight-against-1bn-eu-antitrust-fine-7000030465/
Is that clear enough that we wont have no more to discuss this point.?.
Arn't the fines for anti-competetive practices going to the regulators pocket?
Intel's contra-revenue program is intentionally and specifically organized such that it has zero overlap or impact on AMD. I learned that straight from a higher-up at Intel who manages such things. Intel is extremely leery (internally) of doing anything financially that would bring on anti-competitive scrutiny when it comes to AMD. Those are the Intel's guy's words, not mine.
Now you don't have to believe me, but it is the truth and the reality of the contra-revenue situation which is why you have yet to hear even one AMD exec mention Intel's contra-revenue program as impacting AMD's market situation.
Given that AMD is scrambling to stay afloat in the face of eroding market share and more layoffs, do you really think they would elect to not mention Intel's contra-revenue program if it was in any way restricting, impacting or degrading AMD's existing market position or future market opportunities?
It should be very telling to the layperson, fanpersons and enthusiasts alike, that the experts (AMD in this case) who would know whether or not Intel's contra-revenue program has any impact on AMD have not made any such claims.
These claims of the CR impacting AMD are born in the minds of people who are in no position to know what the program does or who it impacts in the business realm.
As for me, I just went straight to the source and asked to be given a frank lay-of-the-land regarding the contra-revenue program, and what I was told by Intel holds up to the sniff test of what I see in reality. It is intentionally crafted to avoid AMD in all aspects because Intel knows if a single dollar of contra-revenue somehow had a knock-on effect of entering into the AMD/Intel competitive market then they are going to be hauled back into court and they want to avoid that at all costs.
Even still, something tells me this post will do little to dissuade the handful of folks who just want to believe something (CR is illegal and undermines AMD) that even AMD's execs won't argue about because it simply isn't true.