AMD vs Intel

[Reveilled]

The problem isn't buying a PIB (Processor in a Box).  The problem is buying a PC with an AMD processor.

 

HP is the only major manufacturer I know right now that sells PCs with AMDs in them, and Intel punishes them illegally for that.  They also coerce retailers from not stocking PCs with AMD processors.

 

Self builders are still in the minority, and sadly self builders make up the majority of AMD's business since you can't get a prebuillt AMD computer hardly anywhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And, as I said, some of the allegations AMD is making do, I believe, warrant government investigation and intervention.

 

I told you so. I'll cut and paste it from now on.

[Enoch]

Protests do bugger all other than to show dissatisfaction. The sole supplier has all the power. A separate agency is needed to ensure break up unfair practices.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just a note: If AMD wins this case, Intel does not get broken up. This is a civil anti-trust suit, not a criminal one. AMD would just win $ damages (which, as a punitive measure, are triple the damages that AMD can demonstrate it suffered), and maybe an injunction against some of Intel's actions. If you want to break up a company, you've got to get the Dep't of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission to take them on.

[EnderAndrew]

Captain Planet and the Planeteers also break up evil corporations.

[Darth Flatus]

That comment wasn't about Intel directly nor did it refer to any specific corporation being broken up.

[Nartwak]

Captain Planet and the Planeteers also break up evil corporations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heart! ~~~~

Why don't they just love pollution more?

[213374U]

Captain Planet and the Planeteers also break up evil corporations.

By your powers combined I am...

[EnderAndrew]

That was fairly disturbing.

[Reveilled]

That was fairly disturbing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And turning threads into zombies isn't? "

[EnderAndrew]

Actually there is new news here. AMD also is suing Intel in a seperate suit in Japan over similiar lines. Japan has very strict antimonopoly laws, perhaps the strictest in the world. I firmly expect AMD to win their case in Japan.

[taks]

Taks aside, American libertarians mostly like the idea of anti-trust law.

i'm not a libertarian. i'm a capitalist. any government intrusion is bad.

 

They trust classical economics (to a fault), and neoclassical economics acknowledges that market power (monopoly, oligopoly, collusion, etc.) is a legitimate failure that certain free markets tend towards.  They have issues with the specific language and the history of enforcement of American anti-trust law (rightfully so), but they acknowledge that the state can legitimately intervene to protect the free market from unfair competition.

depends upon what you call unfair competition. that's government's failure, as they overstep their mandate to protect fair trade. a lot of the problems stem from the fact that these companies get into pseudo-monopolistic situations as a result of government intervention in the first place. if they'd just butt out, things would work out a bit more often.

 

The problem with suits like this is that, unless there is direct evidence of collusion or the like, it is really hard to prove in court.  The law has also evolved and recognized the influence of economics.  I don't know the facts of this case, but it seems to me that this is more of a warning shot fired at Intel to watch itself and maybe dial-back the arm-twisting sales methods a notch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

probably right...

 

taks

[taks]

I can't remember offhand whether we tend to agree on social matters, but yes, we're both firmly on the "right wing" when it comes to economics.

actually, "right wing" would be fascism, which i abhore even more than socialism. it's still government intervention into the system.

 

I would say though that I have become remarkably more accepting of other systems of government recently.  I'll never change the political slant in the UK, and I suppose that if my fellow countrymen are happy with their largely left-wing political system, then by all rights they're entitled to it.

i've never claimed ours is the best. we have issues that just aren't resolvable within our system. i think republics are better than any other, but implementations are varied and many.

 

I, on the other hand, am leaving for the US (and more specifically, to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project), where at least some people agree with me.

good luck.

 

After all, just as no one's actually forcing someone to buy a near-monopoly's products, it's not like I'm being forced to stay in a political system I disagree with.  I don't like it, so I'll leave.  After that, it's not my problem anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i think that's my point...

 

oh, and no, it's not really socialism/capitalism debate. i just say socialism because the other government intervention scheme, fascism, is mostly removed from the world. there's still some fascists running around, but not nearly as many as socialists. IMO, it is free market vs. government controlled market debate.

 

taks

[taks]

If you argue for complete non intervention then i assume you trust corporations to act fairly and responsibly with consumers and competition when given a free reign. Realistically this won't happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

let the buyer beware. we have a heck of a tool in the internet. if a company is abusing whatever power it may have (only granted via government intervention, btw) then people will find out and stop buying.

 

when given a free reign in an unobstructed market, coporations have zero power. they simply operate in a manner in which they can make the most profit. if they screw up, people stop buying their products, end of story.

 

yes, btw, the government does indeed have the power to provide some restrictions, but only so far as to prevent corporate actions from impinging on citizens' rights. they are there to protect free trade, not rule it.

 

taks

[alanschu]

Why is said power only granted through government intervention? You make it sound like the monopolies of the world are a direct result of government intervention.

 

 

If that's the case...how so? And what are some examples.

[Darth Flatus]

...I would like to know too, aside from nationalised and former nationalised industries could you pleae give some examples showing that govt intervention has led to to pseudo monopolies?

 

Right wing economics does not imply facism. Have you tried this? Its quite interesting.

[metadigital]

Firstly, reading taks's analysis of the charges, it does seem pretty jumped up. It's nothing like the Micro$oft extortion against Apple to squeeze Netscape off the Mac desktop, as demonstrated in the Bill Gates' emails subpoenaed for the last anti-trust investigation by the DoJ.

 

Secondly, I would also like to state that a duopoly doesn't automatically grant the consumers more value or even choice. Even if AMD get a significant market share, there is no guarantee that consumers will benefit in any specific way.

 

Thirdly, there is still a residual stigma associated with the other processor manufacturer; always the guarded threat that software might not run 100% on your different hardware. Insidiously invidious marketing.

If you argue for complete non intervention then i assume you trust corporations to act fairly and responsibly with consumers and competition when given a free reign. Realistically this won't happen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

let the buyer beware. we have a heck of a tool in the internet. if a company is abusing whatever power it may have (only granted via government intervention, btw) then people will find out and stop buying.

 

when given a free reign in an unobstructed market, coporations have zero power. they simply operate in a manner in which they can make the most profit. if they screw up, people stop buying their products, end of story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't agree; it is a natural goal for any capitalist corporation to rule its market in a monopolistic fashion. That is the best way to provide the most return to their shareholders for the least expenditure.

 

That's why Bell became the behemoth it did. It was just carrying its business plan to the ultimate phase of implementation.

 

Are you suggesting that the US shouldn't have broken up Standard Oil? Or was that a legitimate enterprise illadvisedly interfered with by the government?

yes, btw, the government does indeed have the power to provide some restrictions, but only so far as to prevent corporate actions from impinging on citizens' rights.  they are there to protect free trade, not rule it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This seems a little self-contradictory, or at least semantically challenging. Can you clarify what the restrictions a government ought to provide, as opposed to those it shouldn't?

I think the government's role in a capitalist system is to monitor and prevent abuses of the system by large corporations.

[EnderAndrew]

let the buyer beware.  we have a heck of a tool in the internet.  if a company is abusing whatever power it may have (only granted via government intervention, btw) then people will find out and stop buying.

Not true. Sadly we have proven that people are willing to support corporations they don't like, and gladly buy inferior products if they are more conveinently available or they are marketed well. Futhermore, people are also willing to work for an employer they know will treat them poorly, further allowing said employer to treat their employees poorly.

 

Consumers are better informed with the internet, but the average consumer still values conveinence and familiarity over most other things.

[alanschu]

I'm sure that this is along similar lines, but prevalence and recognition is big too.

 

Most people I know that aren't computer savvy have never heard of AMD nor the Athlon.

[EnderAndrew]

Probably because Intel keeps AMD out of the marketplace. Most people aren't even presented with the option of buying an AMD computer.

 

Go to a Best Buy and see if you can find an AMD computer on display.

[Kaftan Barlast]

It is a real problem. 80% of people in Sweden buy package computers, usually via their employer and they are nearly always Intel based. My dad took such an offer and you could get AMD... if you paid extra <_<

 

 

Intel are pulling some serious shennanigans and we cant let them get away with it.

[EnderAndrew]

I couldn't agree more.

 

I think the judge should order a boot to the head.

 

[EnderAndrew]

There is some new info.

In AMD's recient anti-trust lawsuit AMD have examined the Intel compiler and found that it deliberatly runs code slower when it detects that the processor is an AMD. "To achieve this, Intel designed the compiler to compile code along several alternate code paths. ... By design, the code paths were not created equally. If the program detects a "Genuine Intel" microprocessor, it executes a fully optimized code path and operates with the maximum efficiency. However, if the program detects an "Authentic AMD" microprocessor, it executes a different code path that will degrade the program's performance or cause it to crash."

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_ty...l_Complaint.pdf

Intel is facing demands that it changes the way it does business in Japan or face court action.

 

Japan's Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) has ruled that the company deliberately tried to limit AMD's market share, by imposing restrictions on five of Japan's biggest PC makers, which collectively account for 77 per cent of PC sales in the country.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/08/intel_japan_warning/

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - U.S. chipmaker Intel Corp.(INTC.O: Quote, Profile, Research), computer makers and distributors were raided by European Commission and local officials on Tuesday as part of an ongoing investigation into possible antitrust violations, a spokesman for the European Union executive said.

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle....EL-PROBE-DC.XML

 

Adds a bit more creedence to AMD's claims, don't you think?

[Finger of Death]

AMD,Abit,ATI,always "A".

[Darth Barth]

AMD has been putting the hurt on Intel lately. Intel is still dominant, but just as Mozilla is gaining ground on IE, Pentium sales have been on the decline for quite a bit. It has been pointed out in this thread that this lawsuit is geared towards oem manufacturers so what DIY-ers purchase doesnt factor in. My head tells me that the marketplace will work itself out and AMD shouldnt even have bothered. My gut, however, tells me that this lawsuit couldn't have happened to a better company. This is coming for a guy that runs a P4, btw.

[metadigital]

Monopolies (and duopolies and cartels, for that matter) are not good for the consumer. That's why your gut is celebrating (to stretch the metaphor uncomfortably thin ...).

[Child of Flame]

Oh snap.

 

Intel's gonna get what's coming to them so hard!

 

Man, AMD's gonna sue them good!