The rise and fall of AMD

[Gikaseixas]

Let's see..



and that makes me a troll.

Finally... you just discovered yourself son. Now go make a Intel can do no wrong thread

 

[Gikaseixas]

Intel has been found guilty in several markets, that only happens when you do something really really wrong. Many people can't be wrong and yet some defend Intel when this fact comes up.

Only a blind fanboy defends such tactics

 

[R0H1T]

I didn't make the chart. And it doesn't matter to the point here.

Completely ignoring the fact that it pertains to the server market ? I guess twisting facts & misrepresenting figures(literally) is your hobby not to mention the contentious point in time(P4 vs athlon) is from 2002 to roughly 2006, as evidenced by the Japanese investigation !

Simple -- you guys are alleging that AMD's woes are because of Intel's alleged illegal activities, but those activities happened before AMD had tremendous success. They obviously did not prevent AMD from being successful, and they do not explain at all why AMD has imploded since 2006 -- and that's why the complaints are meaningless.

If you're implying that Intel also bribed its way into the server market, then sure whatever you say, otherwise you're lying plain & simple !

 

[Third_Eye]

Intel has been found guilty in several markets, that only happens when you do something really really wrong. Many people can't be wrong and yet some defend Intel when this fact comes up.

Only a blind fanboy defends such tactics

The way Chad and Charles are rewriting history, they could fit very well with the GWB Presidential Library campaign squad.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Intel has been found guilty in several markets, that only happens when you do something really really wrong.

So Japan and South Korea gave Intel a slap on the wrist, despite doing something "really, really wrong"?

You know I could get charged for Jay Walking in many countries, but that wouldn't mean I have done something really, really wrong.

Many people can't be wrong and yet some defend Intel when this fact comes up.

Only a blind fanboy defends such tactics

Why don't you tell everyone what the actual damage that was done to AMD by Intel here was.

 

[CHADBOGA]

The way Chad and Charles are rewriting history, they could fit very well with the GWB Presidential Library campaign squad.

Correcting your obvious mistakes and pointing out your failures in logic, is not rewriting history, it is trying to stop people from perverting history.

 

[Gikaseixas]

So Japan and South Korea gave Intel a slap on the wrist, despite doing something "really, really wrong"?

You know I could get charged for Jay Walking in many countries, but that wouldn't mean I have done something really, really wrong.



Why don't you tell everyone what the actual damage that was done to AMD by Intel here was.

No need to, like i said only a blind fanboy cannot see facts and i would be wasting my time with another one of them.

 

[Abwx]

Simple -- you guys are alleging that AMD's woes are because of Intel's alleged illegal activities, but those activities happened before AMD had tremendous success. .

Pressures and illegal marketing started once 1999 when K7
was launched with all MB manufacturers pressed to not
manufacture K7 MBs , only MSI and FIC launched a single MB
each with Asus later joining with white anonymous boxes
with no brand....

Then the Intel Inside strategy when each single retailer was
targeted with intel paying half of their F..k Inside adverts
in exchange of not selling AMD based PCs , because , you know ,
they allegedly would benefit from this advertisement campaign...

The OEMs bribings where only a tip of the iceberg ,
the long term financials consequences are more like
10-15bn than the paltry 1bn or so they got from Intel...

Indeed , all the financials difficulties they later suffered
was a consequence of theses activity as it retained
them from getting large ROI while they had the products ,
hence they didnt reach the critical size that would had
really endangered Intel s monopoly...

 

[Keysplayr]

Are Chad and Charles outright denying that Intel had any involvement in unethical business practices regarding AMD? Lets ask them.

Chad? Charles? Are either of you denying that Intel had any involvement in unethical business practices regarding AMD?

Keep in mind we are only accepting YES or NO answers because any gray area constitutes a YES. Even a little constitutes a YES. Only nothing gets you a NO answer.

Thanks.

 

[CHADBOGA]

No need to, like i said only a blind fanboy cannot see facts and i would be wasting my time with another one of them.

LOL. You and your ilk claim that Intel has done all these terrible things, yet when asked to quantify the effect they had on AMD, you have got nothing.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Are Chad and Charles outright denying that Intel had any involvement in unethical business practices regarding AMD? Lets ask them.

Chad? Charles? Are either of you denying that Intel had any involvement in unethical business practices regarding AMD?

Keep in mind we are only accepting YES or NO answers because any gray area constitutes a YES. Even a little constitutes a YES. Only nothing gets you a NO answer.

Thanks.

LOL. How hilarious of you to think you can set ground rules for others to follow.

What was the actual damage you believe that Intel did to AMD?

 

[Third_Eye]

Correcting your obvious mistakes and pointing out your failures in logic, is not rewriting history, it is trying to stop people from perverting history.

Ok Einstein, go to google and type "amd intel settlement 2009" . The second link will give you the PDF.
http://download.intel.com/pressroom/legal/AMD_settlement_agreement.pdf
have fun reading it.

Agreements are made like this in the corporate world (unfortunately) often. It is perfectly legal to hide bad behavior by corporations in these kind of out of court settlements and courts as well as the legal system allows them to do that to reduce the case load burden.

Harping that it never went to court and hence everything is bogus in evidence of all that has been made available is extremely disingenuous and/or downright stupid.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Intel's restraints after the settlement:

• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to buy all of their microprocessor needs from Intel, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to limit or delay their purchase of microprocessors from AMD, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to limit their engagement with AMD or their promotion or distribution of products containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, channel, market segment, or any other basis
• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to abstain from or delay their participation in AMD product launches, announcements, advertising, or other promotional activities
• Offering inducements to customers or others to delay or forebear in the development or release of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
• Offering inducements to retailers or distributors to limit or delay their purchase or distribution of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
• Withholding any benefit or threatening retaliation against anyone for their refusal to enter into a prohibited arrangement such as the ones listed above.

 

[R0H1T]

LOL. How hilarious of you to think you can set ground rules for others to follow.

I'll take that as a NO !

What was the actual damage you believe that Intel did to AMD?

You tell me, how much does an AMD/OEM employee that got fired due to any of these tactics cost according to you ? Can you quantify that damage !

 

[Gikaseixas]

LOL. How hilarious of you to think you can set ground rules for others to follow.

What was the actual damage you believe that Intel did to AMD?

Keys asked you something straight up, a simple YES or NO

Just look at what you wrote. Your track record doesn't help your case already and this only strengthens what people think of you.

 

[bigboxes]

That is AMD's claim, Intel denies it and no Court has ever passed judgement on the matter.

Reign in your biases.

Give it a rest. You're starting to sound like Wreckage. You can't defend the indefensible.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Ok Einstein, go to google and type "amd intel settlement 2009" . The second link will give you the PDF.
http://download.intel.com/pressroom/legal/AMD_settlement_agreement.pdf
have fun reading it.

Agreements are made like this in the corporate world (unfortunately) often. It is perfectly legal to hide bad behavior by corporations in these kind of out of court settlements and courts as well as the legal system allows them to do that to reduce the case load burden.

Harping that it never went to court and hence everything is bogus in evidence of all that has been released is extremely disingenuous and/or downright stupid.

Allegations that haven't been tested by a Court where evidence and witnesses can be cross examined, remain just allegations.

You need to grasp that Allegations aren't proof and insisting that they are is very stupid.

So rather than regard the Allegations as necessarily bogus, I find them to be indeterminate.

 

[CHADBOGA]

You tell me, how much does an AMD/OEM employee that got fired due to any of these tactics cost according to you ? Can you quantify that damage !

As AMD sold every processor they could make, I do not believe they fired any one due to any "tactics".

All of AMD's problems happened after the "tactics" had ceased.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Intel's restraints after the settlement:

• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to buy all of their microprocessor needs from Intel, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to limit or delay their purchase of microprocessors from AMD, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to limit their engagement with AMD or their promotion or distribution of products containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, channel, market segment, or any other basis
• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to abstain from or delay their participation in AMD product launches, announcements, advertising, or other promotional activities
• Offering inducements to customers or others to delay or forebear in the development or release of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
• Offering inducements to retailers or distributors to limit or delay their purchase or distribution of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis
• Withholding any benefit or threatening retaliation against anyone for their refusal to enter into a prohibited arrangement such as the ones listed above.

And Intel denied they were doing any of that anyway, so they agreed to formally agree to it.

Now we have all seen how AMD has done with a "level playing field" and that is to just go further and further backwards, thus strongly pointing to AMD's problems always being within AMD itself.

 

[galego]

That is AMD's allegation, but never proven in a court of law.

First, we don't need to prove in a court of law that Earth is not flat. It is a fact. Only a flatness fanboy would negate that.

Second, some info from the arstechnica article discussed here (part two):

In the mid-2000s, AMD came to believe that Intel was unfairly out to sabotage it in the marketplace once more, using money and clout to beat back AMD's technological superiority. Ruiz describes the company's view in his book:

Toshiba had accepted a hefty payment from Intel in 2001 on the promise that it wouldn’t use AMD processors. The “market development funds” totaled between $25 million and $30 million per quarter—a sum Toshiba executives likened to “cocaine” because it was a deal they just couldn’t quit.
Intel had bought Hitachi’s exclusivity as well. Whereas AMD had been shipping 50,000 Athlon chips to Hitachi in the first and second quarters of 2002, by the third quarter AMD’s shipments suddenly fell to zero.
NEC’s stance was especially disappointing. By the third quarter of 2002, AMD had won 84 percent of NEC’s Japanese consumer desktop business—a substantial achievement given our historical position as number two in the global semiconductor market. Looking at notebooks and desktops together, we supplied 40 percent of the company’s microprocessor needs. That would end shortly after Intel agreed to pay NEC more than ¥3 billion per quarter, as long as NEC would give 90 percent of its business to Intel and strictly limit its dealings with AMD. By 2003, AMD’s share of NEC’s consumer desktop business had slid to nearly zero too.
NEC went so far as to tell us firsthand about its agreement with Intel, which dictated that AMD’s share of NEC’s Japanese market had to be held to single digits. Globally, AMD’s share of NEC business would fall from 40 percent to 15 percent.
Amid all this activity, it seemed that whenever we took one step forward, we stumbled two steps back. This was particularly frustrating because AMD had become the market leader in technology; we had been expecting advances, so the sudden retreats seemed undeserved. I knew from the start that AMD’s fight for market share was going to be an uphill battle. But I held faith that the market would right itself in time.
​

AMD had already filed a similar complaint with the European Commission back in 2000, and Japan’s Fair Trade Commission found that Intel violated antitrust rules there.

Third, there are lots of court cases lost by Intel in America, Europe, Japan, Corea...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_v._Intel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Competition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Japan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#European_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#South_Korea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#United_States

 

[Gikaseixas]

Allegations that haven't been tested by a Court where evidence and witnesses can be cross examined, remain just allegations.

You need to grasp that Allegations aren't proof and insisting that they are is very stupid.

So rather than regard the Allegations as necessarily bogus, I find them to be indeterminate.

Why did Intel agree to pay all that money? It was determined that what Intel did was wrong.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Keys asked you something straight up, a simple YES or NO

Key's attempts to frame the question were juvenile in the extreme.

Just look at what you wrote. Your track record doesn't help your case already and this only strengthens what people think of you.

I don't care what high school kids and people without a third digit in their IQ, think of me.

 

[CHADBOGA]

First, we don't need to prove in a court of law that Earth is not flat. It is a fact. Only a flatness fanboy would negate that.

Second, some info from the arstechnica article discussed here (part two):

How nice of you to quote Hector Ruiz, I guess we should all take him and you very seriously. LOL

Third, there are lots of court cases lost by Intel in America, Europe, Japan, Corea...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_v._Intel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Japan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#European_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#South_Korea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#United_States

They are not Court Cases where any Court Decision was made against Intel.

You are getting Commissions mixed up with Courts and Settlements with a Court Decision.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Now we have all seen how AMD has done with a "level playing field"

I agree with you there. AMD only have themselves to blame for the kamakazi type of decisions they made lately. With that said, they still have a cpu lineup that offers some sort of a alternative and a gpu lineup that rivals the best in the industry and that's no small feat. That's also why you and others are afraid... they're still kicking and that bothers you a lot.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Why did Intel agree to pay all that money? It was determined that what Intel did was wrong.

Not by a Court where Intel gets to cross examine evidence and witnesses.

Don't you get the concept of being able to defend yourself in Court from your accusers?

You want to equate allegations being made with proven guilt.

That is not how an adult thinks.