PDA

View Full Version : AMD wins lawsuit against Intel.



Slug71
November 12th, 2009, 05:14 PM
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091112/ap_on_hi_te/us_intel_amd_settlement

Good job AMD!.

jollysnowman
November 12th, 2009, 05:24 PM
That's pretty awesome. $1 billion is a loooot of money...

Could AMD have teamed up with other processor companies (ARM, Centaur, etc.) to make it a class action lawsuit? (I don't know sh*t about legal stuff) That would've been epic.

pwnst*r
November 12th, 2009, 05:28 PM
personally, i love intel.

Zzl1xndd
November 12th, 2009, 05:48 PM
I mostly by Intel but good for AMD.

Ex0suit
November 12th, 2009, 05:54 PM
I like AMD

Stuck with Intel CPU

FFFFFUUUUU-

emigrant
November 12th, 2009, 05:59 PM
sorry if offtopic,
is intel allied with microsoft?
and what is the major difference between intel and amd?
(no suggestions for google plz, simple answer would be enough)

benj1
November 12th, 2009, 06:01 PM
next up Linux v Microsoft


@ emigrant
the difference is, is that theyre two different companies.

CJ Master
November 12th, 2009, 06:10 PM
sorry if offtopic,
is intel allied with microsoft?
and what is the major difference between intel and amd?
(no suggestions for google plz, simple answer would be enough)

Simple. AMD is better. :P

omar8
November 12th, 2009, 06:12 PM
I don't understand how Intel is liked so much, just look at how they abuse their position, they are far worse than Microsoft. Yet because Intel is Linux friendly we ignore these?
What Intel has been doing would be the same as Microsoft creating an operating system, try to stop other people from creating operating systems for x86 (Intel are very protective of their x86 and it is difficult to get a hold of the license), then bullied companies who used other operating systems (people may claim Microsoft have done this but until there is clear evidence like there is for Intel it is all just speculation) and finally, blocked other people from creating software for the operating system (Intel have managed to make nVidia stop development of their chip sets for Intel CPUs)

Grenage
November 12th, 2009, 06:14 PM
is intel allied with microsoft?

Intel and AMD have an agreement which, should they end, assures mutual destruction. AMD licence their x64 architecture to Intel and Intel licence their x32 architecture to AMD. That's why you will often see x64 referred to as AMD64.

pwnst*r
November 12th, 2009, 06:16 PM
Simple. AMD is better. :P

lol.

Slug71
November 12th, 2009, 06:22 PM
Simple. AMD is better. :P

This.

Slug71
November 12th, 2009, 06:24 PM
,
is intel allied with microsoft?


I think so.
and i think thats why they have the nic, wIntel.

Slug71
November 12th, 2009, 06:25 PM
next up Linux v Microsoft

I think i know how Linux could pull this one off.

...but i'd have to kill each one of you if i told you.

Regenweald
November 12th, 2009, 07:21 PM
Hopefully all the BS is behind them now and they can both concentrate on better products and prices.

mivo
November 12th, 2009, 07:49 PM
Kind of sad that AMD has to use legal ways to be able to compete. Guess their hardware doesn't cut it. ;)

Seriously, I'm mostly interested in getting cheap, powerful CPUs/etc, and as a customer, I do not care how the low prices have been achieved. The article says Intel offered financial initiatives to vendors. What's wrong with that? It benefited the customer, too. The same happens in your local supermarket, leaving small grocery stores in the cold.

Personally, I'll continue to choose Intel products over AMD ones, and Nvidia cards over ATI cards. Always made good/better experiences with them.

Tristam Green
November 12th, 2009, 08:14 PM
is intel allied with microsoft?

Yes, but they are also in a partnership of sorts with Apple, inc.

This is why Apple uses Intel Architecture only.





Where is your god now, etc etc.

-grubby
November 12th, 2009, 08:21 PM
I'm just glad they both eliminated a lot of potential ugliness.


Kind of sad that AMD has to use legal ways to be able to compete. Guess their hardware doesn't cut it. ;)


Yeah, my Phenom 9850 can barely play Solitaire!

The Funkbomb
November 12th, 2009, 08:33 PM
Why is AMD better than Intel? I use both. I have two computers that run AMD. One is a single core that's 8 years old, the other is a dual core. Both work fine. I also have 3 computers with Intel CPUs. 1 Atom, one single core laptop and a dual core in my desktop. All three work fine. Well, the Atom is kind of weak but it isn't designed for heavy computing.

Long story short, I can't be swayed to either one.

Exodist
November 12th, 2009, 08:37 PM
Great win for AMD. Bad tactics in making PC manufactures to use your product is just bad. PC manufactures should be able to choose their components based on price and performance.

That being said and keeping things in perspective. I love Intel just as much, hell I miss Cyrix (IBMs slow-hot-chips) also. We need multiple chip makers to keep the prices low for the consumers. Also more compition keeps the chip makers pushing harder to make more advanced chips and this builds the backbone for technology.

Exodist
November 12th, 2009, 08:38 PM
hopefully all the bs is behind them now and they can both concentrate on better products and prices.
+1

JDShu
November 12th, 2009, 10:34 PM
Seriously, I'm mostly interested in getting cheap, powerful CPUs/etc, and as a customer, I do not care how the low prices have been achieved. The article says Intel offered financial initiatives to vendors. What's wrong with that? It benefited the customer, too. The same happens in your local supermarket, leaving small grocery stores in the cold.


The question is whether Intel is deliberately damaging AMD's profitability eg. by preventing vendors from selling AMD products. This matters for consumers because if Intel is giving us low prices in order damage AMD, that means that once AMD is less profitable due to Intel's practices and therefore less competitive, Intel can raise the prices of their products.

koshatnik
November 12th, 2009, 10:35 PM
Competition is good. Go AMD.

Fenris_rising
November 12th, 2009, 10:39 PM
The First PC I built for myself I chose an AMD CPU. I had read good things about them and the price was good for the chip and ever since I only choose AMD.

I'm with JDShu. Intel kill AMD no competition prices go stratospheric. It seems strange that a company has to bribe, cajole and or threaten to sell their wares. I'd take the view that the wares must be crap if they have to 'pay' you to use them.

regards

Fenris

mmix
November 12th, 2009, 10:49 PM
i love AMD.

tom66
November 12th, 2009, 10:59 PM
For me, I've pretty much had Intel computers all the way. I've had the occasional AMD PC given to me, but any computer I've bought has always been Intel, and it's hard to find non-Intel PCs.

Also, nVidia > ATI, because ATI's drivers suck.

Zorian144
November 12th, 2009, 11:01 PM
I'm using Intel :(

Raiju
November 12th, 2009, 11:04 PM
Why is AMD better than Intel? I use both.
racis....fanboyism
amd > intel
ps3 > x360
Linux > windows
blah blah blah
pick a side and flame til you can flame no more. :popcorn:

JBAlaska
November 12th, 2009, 11:10 PM
One of my wife's first jobs was walnut blasting printing off of mislabled IC's for a very small company called AMD...Damn she looked hot climbing out of that red 69 charger R/T in a mini skirt...erm but I digress..

GO AMD!

Regenweald
November 12th, 2009, 11:21 PM
Doesn't really seem like a win as it is a mutual understanding, Intel may have been up to dirty tactics but just the effort to fight them in court was hurting AMD financially. With the agreement, AMD trading has gone up 25% and Intel can now clean up their image. Willingness to settle for 1.25 billion shows that it means something to them. The sum is really no skin off intel's back, while it will go a good length in AMD's coffers.

As for preference, I buy what works for me, AMD's current offerings are hot and I look forward to the i7 940 next year. i view products on technical merit.

That said, i hope AMD continues the fight, they make great products and keep intel improving rather than wholly monopolizing.

Exodist
November 12th, 2009, 11:35 PM
racis....fanboyism
amd > intel
ps3 > x360
Linux > windows
blah blah blah
pick a side and flame til you can flame no more. :popcorn:

I agree with you.
Personally I use a lot of AMD chips and to think AMD is the better then Intel is silly. Intel developed USB and other essential hardware we over look on a daily basis.

As far as CPU wise, I will first look for a Motherboard that suites my need. Then I find a CPU that works well with it. If X CPU brand is to high, then I will compromise on the mobo and go with a better price/performance brand.
Up until recently this has been 9/10 times AMD, but lately Intel has some real promise IMHO and if I can get a really good Intel CPU and Mobo next time I upgrade, then I want loose any sleep over my purchase.

handy
November 12th, 2009, 11:42 PM
If AMD did not exist, intel would be charging us a lot more & for less.

From when the first Athlon's were produced, I always used AMD's chips in the boxes I built for myself & my customers.

Monopolies are not healthy.

SunnyRabbiera
November 13th, 2009, 12:43 AM
I think so.
and i think thats why they have the nic, wIntel.

No the wintel relationship is not as powerful as it was, actually intel does seem good with other OS's now that they are developing stuff for linux and apple.
Note I am not defending intel here though

amitabhishek
November 13th, 2009, 05:41 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/technology/companies/13chip.html?hpw

Though I would have preferred AMD kicking Intel's back side with innovation like they did with Athlon chip. Any monopoly is bad for industry.

Exodist
November 13th, 2009, 05:43 AM
already been posted

(This was posted previous thread and then merged to this one)

amitabhishek
November 13th, 2009, 05:58 AM
Oops!

Frak
November 13th, 2009, 06:14 AM
Any monopoly is bad for industry.

I usually follow this (http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/monopoly.html) idea. Monopolies aren't always bad. Think about if there was more than one company to collect taxes for the government.

Hyporeal
November 13th, 2009, 07:08 AM
I usually follow this (http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/fee/monopoly.html) idea. Monopolies aren't always bad. Think about if there was more than one company to collect taxes for the government.

I thought the IRS did all the collection itself. Even if it did outsource the task to a company, there are multiple competing collection agencies and hence no monopoly. If you're trying to say that the IRS itself is a monopoly then I would say that your definition of monopoly is overly broad.

By the way, that article is the strangest analysis of monopolies I have ever read.

amitabhishek
November 13th, 2009, 09:24 AM
by the way, that article is the strangest analysis of monopolies i have ever read.

+1

toupeiro
November 13th, 2009, 11:15 AM
If AMD did not exist, Intel would not have been motivated to design something as awesome as the Nehalem architecture which AMD has yet to be able to capitalize on technically.

This is coming from someone who still generally likes AMD a whole lot. But, the truth is the truth. Personally, I could give less than a damn about socket backwards compatibility and sticking a new chip in an old board anymore... AM2 had a long run, it doesnt need to run any longer. Its not a shadow of what it was like back in the Athlon Thunderbird / Pentium / K5/K6 days.. There was a new socket coming out every three to six months.. I recognize its importance to some, and that it adds value to their product line. However, it doesn't mean they make a better processor, and/or have a superior architecture today.

etnlIcarus
November 13th, 2009, 11:55 AM
Odd definition of, "wins", in the thread title.


By the way, that article is the strangest analysis of monopolies I have ever read.
+2
No small amount of vague/broad ideological assertion, poisoning the well and it never actually got around to addressing the subject, in it's relevant context. It's more than strange; it's crap.

Speaking of, hopefully AMD can defer from repaying that debt of theirs', for a while. If they use that capital for anything other than R&D, they're still going down the crapper.

Frak
November 13th, 2009, 10:56 PM
I thought the IRS did all the collection itself. Even if it did outsource the task to a company, there are multiple competing collection agencies and hence no monopoly. If you're trying to say that the IRS itself is a monopoly then I would say that your definition of monopoly is overly broad.

By the way, that article is the strangest analysis of monopolies I have ever read.
Monopolies are allowed all the time because nobody will fill the position of a competitor. There are many private companies in the US that fill 100% of the market because nobody wants to compete.

Besides, Monopolies continue to exist not because they are able to supress competition, but because the populace allows them. If the monopoly abused its power, it would surely invite competition to displace it. This is the reason why Microsoft still holds nearly the entire market.

Take for instance Internet Explorer. Coming with Windows, under how many people think, IE would have the monopoly, which they still do. Though, IE abused its power and degraded in quality. Firefox entered the arena and displaced part of IE's market.

People bust the trusts, not any government.

stinger30au
November 13th, 2009, 11:09 PM
cool, way to go AMD

jdrodrig
November 13th, 2009, 11:18 PM
Monopolies are allowed all the time because nobody will fill the position of a competitor. There are many private companies in the US that fill 100% of the market because nobody wants to compete.

Besides, Monopolies continue to exist not because they are able to supress competition, but because the populace allows them. If the monopoly abused its power, it would surely invite competition to displace it. This is the reason why Microsoft still holds nearly the entire market.

Take for instance Internet Explorer. Coming with Windows, under how many people think, IE would have the monopoly, which they still do. Though, IE abused its power and degraded in quality. Firefox entered the arena and displaced part of IE's market.

People bust the trusts, not any government.

To me, the key term is contestability...whether, a market is open enough to accomodate potential entrants (low barriers to entry and exit)...if you become the only vendor because you are better, why punish that? only when that only vendor, obstructs potential entrants (non contestability) they become a problem

jdrodrig
November 13th, 2009, 11:20 PM
I find it very stupid the newspaper articles saying that Intel is not damaging the industry because "we have had great innovation" in CPUs lately...

that is not the point, the point, is the innovation *We would have had* if intel did not do what they charge it with...

Frak
November 13th, 2009, 11:48 PM
I look at it this way:

If Intel makes a better quality processor than AMD for a fair price, I care not what they do to the market. Their processors are better for me, and they satisfied my need.

Saying that, AMD runs all of my machines, of course the Macs being the only exceptions.

JDShu
November 13th, 2009, 11:49 PM
To me, the key term is contestability...whether, a market is open enough to accomodate potential entrants (low barriers to entry and exit)...if you become the only vendor because you are better, why punish that? only when that only vendor, obstructs potential entrants (non contestability) they become a problem

Now this is economics ;)

starcannon
November 14th, 2009, 12:00 AM
This is a good precedent; MS should be looking over their shoulder, I'm sure they have made more than a few enemies for the same reasons.

JDShu
November 14th, 2009, 12:00 AM
I look at it this way:

If Intel makes a better quality processor than AMD for a fair price, I care not what they do to the market. Their processors are better for me, and they satisfied my need.

Saying that, AMD runs all of my machines, of course the Macs being the only exceptions.

This is of course what you think as a consumer and is completely understandable. However, Intel attempting to control the market (through predatory pricing) could result in worse quality processors for everybody. This is what regulators are worried about.

Frak
November 14th, 2009, 12:06 AM
This is of course what you think as a consumer and is completely understandable. However, Intel attempting to control the market (through predatory pricing) could result in worse quality processors for everybody. This is what regulators are worried about.
Again, competition evens things out. In the case of Intel, they gave manufacterers benefits. Manufacterers are also consumers, as they buy products from a company.

If one day AMD makes a more energy efficient processor that runs faster for a cheaper price, and there is public outcry for those properties, then AMD will dent Intel's marketshare. As it stands, though, the processor is a very non-important piece to many consumers and they'll go for whatever Dell puts in the $300 box.

Free market isn't about having better products, it is about having products that people want. It just happens to be that people want fast, efficient, cheap things.

Chame_Wizard
November 14th, 2009, 12:11 AM
AMD is cool.:guitar:

jdrodrig
November 14th, 2009, 12:14 AM
Again, competition evens things out. In the case of Intel, they gave manufacterers benefits. Manufacterers are also consumers, as they buy products from a company.

If one day AMD makes a more energy efficient processor that runs faster for a cheaper price, and there is public outcry for those properties, then AMD will dent Intel's marketshare. As it stands, though, the processor is a very non-important piece to many consumers and they'll go for whatever Dell puts in the $300 box.

Free market isn't about having better products, it is about having products that people want. It just happens to be that people want fast, efficient, cheap things.

A central point is what type of contracts you can offer to your costumers....it seems that in US you cannot write a contract that says.."you cannot buy from anybody else in order to get this price"...

The extreme example is slavery...even if you are willing to offer yourself as slave and sign a contract to that effect, it would not be a legal contract

JDShu
November 14th, 2009, 12:14 AM
Again, competition evens things out. In the case of Intel, they gave manufacterers benefits. Manufacterers are also consumers, as they buy products from a company.

If one day AMD makes a more energy efficient processor that runs faster for a cheaper price, and there is public outcry for those properties, then AMD will dent Intel's marketshare. As it stands, though, the processor is a very non-important piece to many consumers and they'll go for whatever Dell puts in the $300 box.

Free market isn't about having better products, it is about having products that people want. It just happens to be that people want fast, efficient, cheap things.

Intel, having a much bigger market share and being a bigger company is able to weather a price war better than AMD. That is, they can offer a lower price than whatever AMD offers in the short term no matter what AMD does. In such a case, Intel's abuse of their monopoly power hurts AMD and in turn, us as consumers.

Zoot7
November 14th, 2009, 12:20 AM
The word in the pipeline is that AMD could probably have screwed Intel for a lot more if they so chose. It's basically Intel buying themselves out of AMD lawsuits for the time being, of course Intel being Intel will probably ensue another antitrust lawsuit at some point.

Anyway, as for Intel v AMD with me. I've Intel in my laptop (merely because it was the best laptop available for my needs and budget) and AMD in my desktop because the Phenom II was a lot better value than the i7 at the time.

1111peoy
November 14th, 2009, 12:27 AM
sorry if offtopic,

and what is the major difference between intel and amd?
(no suggestions for google plz, simple answer would be enough)

People say that
AMD = Best for gaming
Intel = Best for use of video/photo editing and use of other heavy programs, anything but gaming.. but personally I think Intel is awesome in both areas.. and I feel the good speed of an intel CPU when I run a heavy program.

Frak
November 14th, 2009, 12:30 AM
Intel, having a much bigger market share and being a bigger company is able to weather a price war better than AMD. That is, they can offer a lower price than whatever AMD offers in the short term no matter what AMD does. In such a case, Intel's abuse of their monopoly power hurts AMD and in turn, us as consumers.
Just because you can lower price doesn't guarantee that people will buy your product. The best example I can give is Linux. It's absolutely free in many forms, but people don't generally use it.

Quality goes into the final result. If AMD makes a processor that satisfies the demands of the consumer populace, then they will use that. If Intel lowers prices and improved processors in order to eliminate AMD, then something good has happened.

RabbitWho
November 14th, 2009, 12:43 AM
personally, i love intel.

They should be nice though. Being nice is important, this is the biggest change in history since the industrial revolution, we're on a dawn of a new age, and being nice will be an important part of it.

Regenweald
November 14th, 2009, 12:46 AM
Quality goes into the final result. If AMD makes a processor that satisfies the demands of the consumer populace, then they will use that. If Intel lowers prices and improved processors in order to eliminate AMD, then something good has happened.

But with the elimination of AMD, where will the prices go ? I submit up our noses :P
Another topic, they both have very nice architecture to mature 2ndH '10. AMD a bit more exciting and Intel building on the already powerful 'i'

Frak
November 14th, 2009, 12:47 AM
They should be nice though. Being nice is important, this is the biggest change in history since the industrial revolution, we're on a dawn of a new age, and being nice will be an important part of it.
Being mean and taking over the market is the most important part of it. Being nice to somebody and giving them the oppurtunity to be "mean" back.

Frak
November 14th, 2009, 12:49 AM
But with the elimination of AMD, where will the prices go ? I submit up our noses :P
Another topic, they both have very nice architecture to mature 2ndH '10. AMD a bit more exciting and Intel building on the already powerful 'i'
Intel has plenty of competitors. ARM and VIA still exist.

Zoot7
November 14th, 2009, 01:02 AM
Intel has plenty of competitors. ARM and VIA still exist.
VIA only have the Nano which is competing with the Atom, but it's not exactly in many netbooks around at the moment, and ARM are only starting to come in now.
There'd be little enough standing in the way of Intel on the Desktop market if AMD were to take the plunge.

Frak
November 14th, 2009, 01:13 AM
VIA only have the Nano which is competing with the Atom, but it's not exactly in many netbooks around at the moment, and ARM are only starting to come in now.
There'd be little enough standing in the way of Intel on the Desktop market if AMD were to take the plunge.
If Intel skyrocketed prices, competitors would enter. That's how free market works. The government wants to regulate it so it doesn't happen at all. Unfortunately, that just delays the inevitable (See: AT&T and Microsoft).

Regenweald
November 14th, 2009, 01:17 AM
Intel has plenty of competitors. ARM and VIA still exist.

Come on Frak, neither of those exist in the desktop/desktop enthusiast arena, nor do they have the existing research structure to fill the AMD space. ARM is the king in the mobile/embedded arena and as much as I'd like to see a 3+ ghz proc from them, if AMD goes away, the pooch is screwed. I for one, can't afford a 400+ price point :(

Zoot7
November 14th, 2009, 01:21 AM
Intel are ruthless yes but not ruthless and foolish enough to skyrocket prices to an insurmountable level (at least not now).
It's also pretty fair to say that if any other company did make an inroad Intel would fight tooth and nail to muscle them out again.
The nVidia ION is a classic example, you saw the hissy fit they kicked up in response to that. So much so there aren't many ION netbooks around at the moment.

Frak
November 14th, 2009, 01:22 AM
Come on Frak, neither of those exist in the desktop/desktop enthusiast arena, nor do they have the existing research structure to fill the AMD space. ARM is the king in the mobile/embedded arena and as much as I'd like to see a 3+ ghz proc from them, if AMD goes away, the pooch is screwed. I for one, can't afford a 400+ price point :(
Then a competitor will enter against them. Computer manufacterers won't continue selling computers if the processor manufacterer they have is hiking prices. They WILL switch to ARM or VIA if they are forced to. The processor is just a part.

Besides, Intel would be crazy to hike prices for that reason.

kerry_s
November 14th, 2009, 01:27 AM
i don't see it as a win, it's a settlement, meaning they have not been convicted, so they can continue doing the same thing till the next round of lawsuits.
there image is intact, as now there is no charge.

amd dropped the ball on this one, they should have seen it to the end, now they can't use anything from the amd case in other lawsuits to prove a pattern. this could squash all the other lawsuits.

Regenweald
November 14th, 2009, 01:34 AM
i don't see it as a win, it's a settlement, meaning they have not been convicted, so they can continue doing the same thing till the next round of lawsuits.
there image is intact, as now there is no charge.

amd dropped the ball on this one, they should have seen it to the end, now they can't use anything from the amd case in other lawsuits to prove a pattern. this could squash all the other lawsuits.

With over 3 billion in debt, it was wasted effort. With the agreement, their trading and stock have gone up healthily and intel's down a fraction. I think it will be nice to see what AMD can produce without that litigation monkey on their back. They can also open up their prospective manufacturing partners now.

Zoot7
November 14th, 2009, 01:34 AM
Also just to add, that setting up a Fab is a prohibitively expensive industry to get into (Hence everyone these days being fabless) particularly the state of the art processes such as 45nm node and below housing a large die (which is the direction the CPU is headed). The shortages of the ATi 58XX series cards is one such example.
So in other words for somebody to actually amount to the challenge and compete with Intel head to head is no small undertaking. It's pretty much safe to say Intel is rosy in it's stranglehold on the CPU market for a long time yet.

JDShu
November 14th, 2009, 01:39 AM
Just because you can lower price doesn't guarantee that people will buy your product. The best example I can give is Linux. It's absolutely free in many forms, but people don't generally use it.

Quality goes into the final result. If AMD makes a processor that satisfies the demands of the consumer populace, then they will use that. If Intel lowers prices and improved processors in order to eliminate AMD, then something good has happened.

Linux is a bad example because the barriers to entry in the operating market are incredibly high. In fact (IMHO) the only reason Linux has the relatively widespread usage it does today is only because it is free (as in beer).

In this case, AMD and Intel sell products that can substitute each other much more easily than Windows and Linux. In this situation, lowering prices does in fact guarantee that more people will buy your product. If tomorrow, Intel halved the price of all their processors, you can bet more people will buy Intel over AMD.

On your second point about if Intel lowers prices and improves processors in order to eliminate AMD, then it is good... you are right. However, this is only if Intel is lowering prices because they can and plan to, sustain it. What we, and regulators, worry about is if Intel is lowering prices to something that they cannot (or will not) sustain - in order to cut into AMD's market share. This would be what we call exerting monopoly power and is actually a felony in the United States (not sure about other countries).

Frak
November 14th, 2009, 01:51 AM
This would be what we call exerting monopoly power and is actually a felony in the United States (not sure about other countries).

A new competitor will enter the market. Besides, businesses wouldn't compete to the point of hurting their profit. That's completely backwards from their goal.

As for your Linux being free keeps it being used: Linux being free is keeping it from being used. Free should not be the only feature.

Regenweald
November 14th, 2009, 01:53 AM
But that is a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation kind of, high prices, you're a *******, low prices, exerting monopoly power :P

JDShu
November 14th, 2009, 01:58 AM
A new competitor will enter the market. Besides, businesses wouldn't compete to the point of hurting their profit. That's completely backwards from their goal.

As for your Linux being free keeps it being used: Linux being free is keeping it from being used. Free should not be the only feature.

Uh... this is OT, but are you saying that if people had to pay for Linux, then it would be used more?

Anyway, a new competitor will only enter the market if it was easy to enter the processor market. Considering how few processor companies there are, I would imagine not very. I'm sure all of us could think of reasons why as well.

And yes, a business would compete to the point of hurting profits if that meant losing a major competitor. The business would then raise the price once the competitor was gone in order to recoup its losses.

brian183
November 14th, 2009, 02:00 AM
Hooray AMD!

Weren't they the first to break the 1Ghz clock. I remember hearing about it in high school.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,2077579,00.htm

Zoot7
November 14th, 2009, 02:02 AM
A new competitor will enter the market.
The only one that shows promise really is ARM. As laptops get smaller and smaller, low power cpus are going to be in high demand. x86 isn't actually a stellar architecture there.

You can count out a competitor entering the CPU market now, considering the "hoops" that are required to jump through to fabricate at 45nm, and due to the challenges facing lower technologies like 32nm, 22nm etc.

Frak
November 14th, 2009, 05:12 AM
Uh... this is OT, but are you saying that if people had to pay for Linux, then it would be used more?

Not used more, per se, but people would be more likely to get it if it ever becomes enticing.

Ravernomina
November 14th, 2009, 05:23 AM
I like Intel Better
Very glad for AMD, If someone it putting that bull crap around i would do the same


Out of all CPUs i wish i could get a POWER6 in my computer... Cannot stand CISC

etnlIcarus
November 14th, 2009, 08:03 AM
Monopolies are allowed all the time because nobody will fill the position of a competitor. There are many private companies in the US that fill 100% of the market because nobody wants to compete.

Besides, Monopolies continue to exist not because they are able to supress competition, but because the populace allows them. If the monopoly abused its power, it would surely invite competition to displace it. This is the reason why Microsoft still holds nearly the entire market.

Take for instance Internet Explorer. Coming with Windows, under how many people think, IE would have the monopoly, which they still do. Though, IE abused its power and degraded in quality. Firefox entered the arena and displaced part of IE's market.

People bust the trusts, not any government.

Ignoring for a minute that this was barely even relevant to the post you quoted (which seems to be a recurring theme in this thread), there's so much vague idealism, it's depressing.


Monopolies continue to exist not because they are able to supress competition, but because the populace allows them.You haven't defined any mechanism, let alone provided adequate evidence to support this hypothesis. I reject your premise, wholly.


Take for instance Internet Explorer. Coming with Windows, under how many people think, IE would have the monopoly, which they still do. Though, IE abused its power and degraded in quality. Firefox entered the arena and displaced part of IE's market.This is a nonsensical statement. "IE abused it's power"? MS abused their position in the market, to prop up IE - These are two very different things and today's alternative browser competition, realistically, had very little to do with MS' business practices.


Again, competition evens things out. In the case of Intel, they gave manufacterers benefits. Manufacturers are also consumers, as they buy products from a company.

If one day AMD makes a more energy efficient processor that runs faster for a cheaper price, and there is public outcry for those properties, then AMD will dent Intel's marketshare. As it stands, though, the processor is a very non-important piece to many consumers and they'll go for whatever Dell puts in the $300 box.

Free market isn't about having better products, it is about having products that people want. It just happens to be that people want fast, efficient, cheap things.Again, a barely relevant reply.


Manufacturers are also consumersConsumers can be guilty of collusion, too.


As it stands, though, the processor is a very non-important piece to many consumers and they'll go for whatever Dell puts in the $300 box.Well then, I sincerely hope you had some other mechanism in-mind, when making your previous post.


Free market isn't about having better products, it is about having products that people want.Actually, it's about improving production and the public benefit. Unfortunately, people tend to gloss over that part of Smith's work.

Frak
November 14th, 2009, 08:05 AM
Actually, it's about the public benefit. Unfortunately, people tend to gloss over that part of Smith's work.

I just skipped everything and read this one, because I really don't care what you had to say in the first place, but what you just said here was exactly what I said.

Nice way to try to start a flamewar. You barely understand the concept at hand.

etnlIcarus
November 14th, 2009, 08:07 AM
What people want =/= what's in their benefit.

You barely understand the concept at hand.Smooth.

JDShu
November 14th, 2009, 08:16 AM
...

Oh well, heres to the free market producing better processors! ):P

BuffaloX
November 14th, 2009, 01:01 PM
For years AMD had the superior processors over Intel, Athlon vs Pentium 3/4.
Still people kept buying Intel, why?

AMD had better performance and price, how was Intel able to keep dominating the market with inferior products?

I hope AMD will be able to make a profit soon, because if Intel gets it all to themselves prices will go up, and innovation down.

IE6 is a stellar example of how monopolies stop innovating.
For 6 years MS did nothing with IE, because they had the market cornered, and didn't need to.

When Firefox became popular, and was obviously superior MS started to improve IE again.

I'm not saying Intel and Microsoft should disappear, but they both need stronger competition.

mivo
November 14th, 2009, 05:14 PM
Still people kept buying Intel, why?

Superior public image. Plus, many people stick to brands they have made good experiences with. I include myself here, as I'm prone to buying Intel CPUs, Nvidia video cards, NEC monitors, Logitech keyboards, Razer mice, Hitachi drives, etc. I never had problems with these manufacturers' products, so I stay with them.


I'm not saying Intel and Microsoft should disappear, but they both need stronger competition.

There are advantages to quasi-monopolies. It is convenient that most commercial software and games are being released run on Windows, and that that has been a constant for many years now. Computer-wise, I grew up in an era when there where numerous different home computer systems with different operating systems. This wasn't always beneficial.

Frak
November 14th, 2009, 05:57 PM
There are advantages to quasi-monopolies. It is convenient that most commercial software and games are being released run on Windows, and that that has been a constant for many years now. Computer-wise, I grew up in an era when there where numerous different home computer systems with different operating systems. This wasn't always beneficial.

Absolutely. That's the point I've been trying to get across for most of the thread. Microsoft, for instance, has been pushing out great software lately. I for one am a rabid fan of their new .Net language and new 2010 IDE. It's not because I'm a fanboy, it's because they've truly improved on their software.

Microsoft is absolutely a monopoly. They control 90% of the market, they're a monopoly. But how great is it that when you go to a site, they don't give you 30 choices for 10 processors that span multiple package types. It would cause another Video Game Crash (of 1983). Since a computer isn't really something you have to have (there are ways around it), Intel has a competitor in the non-necessity market, and will have to fight that as well. The motivation is to convince people that they need a computer.

arashiko28
November 14th, 2009, 06:16 PM
Aw c'mon! As if no one does such things as offering lower prices to a company that uses the competition brand!

Any way... I loove Intel, not only because it's linux friendly and I only use linux... but because even back in the days of windows Intel's performance was better than AMD, I assemble my own computers so I've had both.
Besides in my country there's a saying: Who holds too much, the looser is the grasp...

It's a way to translate it, but it means that if you do too many at a time, something will go wrong, AMD not only tried to keep up the Intel's accelerated steps to new tecnology, but also wanted to be on the graphics market - huge mistake - if you can't handle one, why take another??

etnlIcarus
November 15th, 2009, 03:18 AM
they don't give you 30 choices for 10 processors that span multiple package types. It would cause another Video Game Crash (of 1983).My god, that's a grotesque over-simplification. It's also a nonsense comparison: the VG crash was mostly about hardware and the proceeding NES era can hardly be considered a healthy time for the software side of the industry.


As if no one does such things as offering lower prices to a company that uses the competition brand! "Lower prices", and kickbacks are not the same thing.


AMD not only tried to keep up the Intel's accelerated steps to new tecnology, but also wanted to be on the graphics market - huge mistake - if you can't handle one, why take another??It isn't 'costing' AMD anything to compete in the graphics market; they inherited all of (the already competitive) ATi, and it's assets.

BuffaloX
November 15th, 2009, 03:31 AM
Yeah I wish there was only one company in the world that made mobile phones, so I could call and send messages and images to everybody I know, disregarding what make of phone they have.

Oh wait...

mivo
November 15th, 2009, 03:47 AM
Yeah I wish there was only one company in the world that made mobile phones, so I could call and send messages and images to everybody I know, disregarding what make of phone they have. Oh wait...

You make it sound as if you had a large number of choices when it comes to computing. Practically, for home systems, there's Intel and AMD for CPUs, and Nvidia and ATI for video cards, and ATI and AMD are the same thing (shouldn't be allowed according to some people's views). Well, I guess Intel should be included here too, since their integrated video systems are common too.

If you are so pro-choice, you should advocate at least ten different CPU manufacturers and 15 different video card makers. Then see how wonderful computing will be, especially on Linux or *BSD. ;) OSes and software in general benefit from the very limited options.

What is your solution? A government-enforced regulation so that no single company may have more than 10% market share in any field?

BuffaloX
November 15th, 2009, 05:23 AM
You make it sound as if you had a large number of choices when it comes to computing.

No I'm showing that choice doesn't have to be a problem.
We don't have a large number of choices when it comes to computing, and that's a problem, not an advantage.

Less compatibility is bad, more choice isn't.

More choices with more compatibility would be best.

mivo
November 15th, 2009, 05:53 AM
I agree that more choice and more compatibility would be the desired way of computing, but I'm uncertain how to actually achieve this.

Microsoft has zero interest in trying to make their OS or even their applications compatible to Linux. Did they continue MS Office for Macs? Probably not. (I honestly don't know; the last time I followed the Apple scene was in 1989-92.) They don't even make IE adhere to all standards. In a way, it is understandable, as they have the biggest market share by a long shot, and it is unrealistic to expect them to give that up, especially since the very large majority of people are fine with it (the alternatives are there).

Apple also has little interest in making their stuff very compatible. The architecture is, now, but that wasn't all that voluntarily. Still, the OS is not sold for non-Apple hardware, and OSX applications are for OSX only. Apple is no better than Microsoft, perhaps even worse, but they lost the race years ago and somehow managed to create the illusion that they are somehow better and that using a Mac also makes you better. MS was more clever, as they didn't tie their OS to their own hardware.

Linux, well, it has developed a culture that is a little hippie-like, in a software-sense, and it is quite charming, but not very beneficial when it comes to convincing commercial software houses to produce stuff for the OS. There is also not just one standardized Linux OS, but many distros that all do things a little differently. It starts with the packaging system and doesn't end with the location of binaries and configuration files. It is a nightmare for commercial software developers, especially from a customer support view. Plus the fact that a lot of people seem to use Linux because it doesn't cost money. Wine tries to offer compatibility and there has been a lot of progress, but it isn't a replacement for Windows, nor does emulation really equal compatibility.

So, quo vadis?

My personal approach is to recommend open source software to people, if it seems that it may work for them just as well. No, not Gimp instead of Paintshop Pro to a professional, or Open Office to someone who depends on 100% MS Office compatibility for their job, but many people don't need that. Someone using cross-platform software that is available for Windows, Linux, MacOS, *BSD and perhaps even Solaris already makes themselves a bit more free of any specific OS, at least software-wise.

Currently, though, this only applies to general and mainstream applications. More specific software or games still tie you to one OS. So, yes, I want diversity and choice, but not at the cost of the situation in the 80s and first half of the 90s, where everyone seemed to use a different system with a different OS, and just about no compatibility. Heck, there were even three or four different formats for floppy disks! :) (Naturally, my machine used 3" disks, the least common format.)

Hardware is another issue, and I have no ideas here. It just seems to be AMD and Intel for CPUs and Nvidia, AMD/ATI, Intel for GPUs. Not a lot choice and nothing on the horizon.

Frak
November 15th, 2009, 06:31 AM
Microsoft has zero interest in trying to make their OS or even their applications compatible to Linux. Did they continue MS Office for Macs? Probably not. (I honestly don't know; the last time I followed the Apple scene was in 1989-92.)

They've released every version of Office for Mac (1 year post release, so 2007 was released as 2008:Mac). They're working on 2011 right now.


Apple also has little interest in making their stuff very compatible. The architecture is, now, but that wasn't all that voluntarily. Still, the OS is not sold for non-Apple hardware, and OSX applications are for OSX only. Apple is no better than Microsoft, perhaps even worse, but they lost the race years ago and somehow managed to create the illusion that they are somehow better and that using a Mac also makes you better. MS was more clever, as they didn't tie their OS to their own hardware.

Apple isn't even trying to compete with Microsoft anymore. They're aimed at the more lucrative consumer market and professional market. In fact, they control 91% of the +$1000 market (http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624). If they were to release OS X tomorrow for the consumer market, they would put a VERY serious dent in Microsoft's marketshare. But as it stands, Apple knows that they control the high end, and Microsoft controls the low end and mid-range markets. Microsoft also knows this, and they're OK with that. Apple controls the very lucrative market with few takers, and Microsoft controls the market of users who do everyday things. This way they don't directly compete and both can hold a monopoly over their markets. The whole PC vs. Mac/I'm a PC commercials are for show, they don't show the entire story. In fact, if you dissect them, they both aim at the markets I pointed out above.

Since this is a Linux forum, I'll include Linux in this. Linux doesn't fit in with Microsoft's and Apple's plans, and for this reason, Linux only has a niche place on mobile devices and servers. I'll say that Linux fits these niches well, but that's my opinion.

mivo
November 15th, 2009, 07:26 AM
In fact, they control 91% of the +$1000 market (http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624). If they were to release OS X tomorrow for the consumer market, they would put a VERY serious dent in Microsoft's marketshare.

Interesting article that I hadn't seen before. Thanks for linking. The question is, though, what the percentages translate to in terms of absolute revenue/profit. I know only very few people who spend more than a thousand bucks on a new computer, especially if you subtract those who get an Alienware-type of high end gaming PC. Those are also US numbers, since in Europe hardware costs quite a bit more (but I imagine the percentages are similar).

I look at Macs every once in a while, but I always end up concluding that they are overpriced and that you pay through your nose for less performance and higher upgrade costs down the road. I do like OSX itself, and if I could buy it for a generic PC, I would definitely get a copy. Can't say I'm dissatisfied with Windows 7, though, still quite impressed by it.

I have some doubts that the release of MacOS for generic PC would hurt Microsoft's market share so much. There is still the issue with software availability, particularly games. Then again, I recently pondered that the importance of gaming may be overrated. Still, the "being used to it" factor works strongly for Microsoft, as does the fact that most PCs come with Windows and that OSX would cost extra.

Linux, well, yes ... it doesn't fit anywhere. It doesn't have any commercially usable aspects going for it in the desktop market, it is still too user-unfriendly for Joe User, and there are no unified standards for config files and packaging. It almost feels stupid to say this as someone who uses Linux, but in the larger picture of the desktop market both it and its audience are fairly insignificant. (Which is why I chuckle when people believe MS ripped off KDE for Windows 7.)

As a geek, though, I like Linux the way it is. Maybe I'm slowly becoming snobby, but there is an influx of people who are prone to FUD, like the "have fun with the BSOD" crowd. I had one BSOD in the past few years, and it was caused by a faulty HDD. Then again, these people won't last, because the first time they experience serious trouble in Linux (I recall my ext3 partition getting corrupted after a power outage), they will go back.

Frak
November 15th, 2009, 08:07 AM
Interesting article that I hadn't seen before. Thanks for linking. The question is, though, what the percentages translate to in terms of absolute revenue/profit. I know only very few people who spend more than a thousand bucks on a new computer, especially if you subtract those who get an Alienware-type of high end gaming PC. Those are also US numbers, since in Europe hardware costs quite a bit more (but I imagine the percentages are similar).

I say take the computer out of the perspective for a second. What do you now have access to now? You have access to premium applications, of which were created by studios that expected a more lucrative market. You also had access to one of the first cloud systems to go popular, talking about .Mac/MobileMe, for a somewhat justified price. Overall, though, you had access to pure, unadulterated pressure to buy more Apple products. Since the market that Apple caters to is already lucrative, there is a high chance that the market will also jump into the other markets setup by Apple. Besides that, think about the other market they cater, the professional market. Look at Logic, look at Final Cut. Look at the prices they charge for them. They have, by now, paid the cost of developing the application. Most of the income from the applications can be swapped for sheer profit in the end.

As for Microsoft, they have a pact with just about every OEM to pair Windows with their hardware. Microsoft has guaranteed sales in large volumes. Apple stays on their own system with specialty software, Microsoft stays on every other platform with general software.


I look at Macs every once in a while, but I always end up concluding that they are overpriced and that you pay through your nose for less performance and higher upgrade costs down the road. I do like OSX itself, and if I could buy it for a generic PC, I would definitely get a copy. Can't say I'm dissatisfied with Windows 7, though, still quite impressed by it.

I have some doubts that the release of MacOS for generic PC would hurt Microsoft's market share so much. There is still the issue with software availability, particularly games. Then again, I recently pondered that the importance of gaming may be overrated. Still, the "being used to it" factor works strongly for Microsoft, as does the fact that most PCs come with Windows and that OSX would cost extra.

There are a couple issues related with this. First is competition. Apple would be in direct competition, and this would be bad for both parties. Secondly, the only reason why games aren't made for OS X now, and I'm dead certain about this, is because Apple is that niche marketshare that doesn't, and wasn't designed to, cater to gamers. Since the users fall into that lucrative market, once again, it is assumed that a user will just dual-boot into Windows if they really care.

Think about how many people wish they had a Mac, but say that they can't because it's too expensive. Release OS X on the consumer market. Within a week, the market will be saturated with it. People don't want a Mac for the Mac, or at least most don't. They want a Mac because it runs Mac OS X. Apple is a very popular company, very, very well known. Think about how many people run OSx86 for a moment. Those just happen to be the users that would rather take the time to make it work. Others just say "I can't afford it" and go on with their lives.




Linux, well, yes ... it doesn't fit anywhere. It doesn't have any commercially usable aspects going for it in the desktop market, it is still too user-unfriendly for Joe User, and there are no unified standards for config files and packaging. It almost feels stupid to say this as someone who uses Linux, but in the larger picture of the desktop market both it and its audience are fairly insignificant. (Which is why I chuckle when people believe MS ripped off KDE for Windows 7.)

I always love the comparisons. They totally disregard Vista in them. With the default Oxygen theme, the interface is jet black. Guess what other OS had jet black colour? Vista, and before KDE4 I might add. Gadgets? They look very close to KDE4's, too bad Vista existed first.


As a geek, though, I like Linux the way it is. Maybe I'm slowly becoming snobby, but there is an influx of people who are prone to FUD, like the "have fun with the BSOD" crowd. I had one BSOD in the past few years, and it was caused by a faulty HDD. Then again, these people won't last, because the first time they experience serious trouble in Linux (I recall my ext3 partition getting corrupted after a power outage), they will go back.

I ignore them. Fanboys will be fanboys. I haven't had a Windows system bluescreen in a good decade.

etnlIcarus
November 15th, 2009, 08:57 AM
You make it sound as if you had a large number of choices when it comes to computing.Practically, for home systems, there's Intel and AMD for CPUs, and Nvidia and ATI for video cardsWho would have imagined building a box would be that simple!


and ATI and AMD are the same thing (shouldn't be allowed according to some people's views). Well, I guess Intel should be included here too, since their integrated video systems are common too.Ugh, blatant strawman.


If you are so pro-choice, you should advocate at least ten different CPU manufacturers and 15 different video card makers.How incredibly arbitrary.


Then see how wonderful computing will be, especially on Linux or *BSD. ;)You seem to be a bit confused. If Intel/AMD decided to stop beating the dead horse with their instruction set patents, the market would slowly fill-out with a more diverse range of x86* compatible processors, that would require only minimal tweaking, if that, to achieve binary compatibility. Basically, we're talking about turning the x86 instruction set, and it's most common extensions, into open standards; akin to w3c.org's web standards, or the khronos group's OpenGL specifications.


OSes and software in general benefit from the very limited options.Kind of an odd assertion to be making on a linux forum.


What is your solution? A government-enforced regulation so that no single company may have more than 10% market share in any field?I think most people would settle for legislation designed to prevent any one entity from completely cornering a market. Perhaps even more moderate legislation, for otherwise homogeneous markets.


Seriously, you're not helping yourself with the:
"I believe in civil liberties"
"YOU WANT TO LEGALISE MURDER?!!!"
rhetoric. You're really only undermining your own efforts.

arashiko28
November 16th, 2009, 02:51 AM
It isn't 'costing' AMD anything to compete in the graphics market; they inherited all of (the already competitive) ATi, and it's assets.

It costed AMD 5.7 billion dollars to acquire ATi technology while only having a 7.2 billion capital... I don't think that's sane at all.

etnlIcarus
November 16th, 2009, 02:52 AM
Well that's a rather obvious attempt to skew what I said.

shababhsiddique
November 16th, 2009, 03:25 AM
I love AMD processors. I cant just get it how does they sell their processor at such a low price!!!...

Intel was the superman of microprocessor since 4004
so AMD decided to produce Kryptonite (the only element to make superman vulnerable) AMDK processors

Exodist
November 16th, 2009, 03:31 AM
I ignore them. Fanboys will be fanboys. I haven't had a Windows system bluescreen in a good decade.

Think the last time I had one was I had some RAM going bad.

Regenweald
November 16th, 2009, 03:47 AM
I got a few due to aero and a not so vista ready dell. More recently, on a neighbors XP SP3 machine. Might be the mobo.
Not the end of the world though :)

BuffaloX
November 16th, 2009, 04:10 AM
It costed AMD 5.7 billion dollars to acquire ATi technology while only having a 7.2 billion capital... I don't think that's sane at all.

AMD had to do something, they were too small to compete with Intel on production.
They can compete on design, but production is extremely expensive and you need to have extremely high yield to pay for it.
If you don't sell enough you cannot utilize the high yields required to stay competitive.
Even with AMD/ATI merged it may not be enough, and AMD may have to outsource production.

Merging AMD/ATI is a good strategy for competing against Intel on complete solutions that include onboard graphics.

AMD needed leverage, and ATI was the best kind of leverage they could dream of.

hobo14
November 17th, 2009, 03:24 AM
They've released every version of Office for Mac (1 year post release, so 2007 was released as 2008:Mac). They're working on 2011 right now.



Apple isn't even trying to compete with Microsoft anymore. They're aimed at the more lucrative consumer market and professional market. In fact, they control 91% of the +$1000 market (http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624). If they were to release OS X tomorrow for the consumer market, they would put a VERY serious dent in Microsoft's marketshare. But as it stands, Apple knows that they control the high end, and Microsoft controls the low end and mid-range markets. Microsoft also knows this, and they're OK with that. Apple controls the very lucrative market with few takers, and Microsoft controls the market of users who do everyday things. This way they don't directly compete and both can hold a monopoly over their markets. The whole PC vs. Mac/I'm a PC commercials are for show, they don't show the entire story. In fact, if you dissect them, they both aim at the markets I pointed out above.

Since this is a Linux forum, I'll include Linux in this. Linux doesn't fit in with Microsoft's and Apple's plans, and for this reason, Linux only has a niche place on mobile devices and servers. I'll say that Linux fits these niches well, but that's my opinion.

Surely you jest? ;)
You think MS doesn't want that high end market? Of course they do. It doesn't matter whether Apple wants to compete or not, they have to (and they're doing it very well, apparently), because MS wants to compete.

PC vs. Mac/I'm a PC commercials are for show? I don't think so. There is direct competition between the two. Apple is the biggest competitor MS have.