Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mark84

Intel fined 1.06 Billion Euros

Recommended Posts

Following on from the article on the front page HERE.

 

Full press release from the EU Commission HERE

 

With Intel being fined in Korea, Japan and now in Europe, plus with an upcoming case in the USA in 2010, do you think this'll allow AMD and VIA to better compete in the market?

Could this help AMD and VIA gain more market share?

 

Considering these practices where going on from 2002 through 2007, right when AMDs Athlon 64 range was arguably the best in the industry, this surely hurt AMD sales right when they're in a position to capitalise on that fact.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much like Microsoft, these fines are pretty much a slap on the wrist.

 

All it boils down to is that AMD should have made a better CPU by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it boils down to is that AMD should have made a better CPU by now.

this^ AMD rested on its laurels and intel brought out a killer CPU then AMD goes and cries to mummy cause its not in no.1 position anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Intel acted like a monopolist but then if you had that much control you'd do it anyway.

The socket 940 and F were debacles and the Phenom should have been the new killer CPU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it boils down to is that AMD should have made a better CPU by now.

this^ AMD rested on its laurels and intel brought out a killer CPU then AMD goes and cries to mummy cause its not in no.1 position anymore.

 

It's never been in number 1 position....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it boils down to is that AMD should have made a better CPU by now.

this^ AMD rested on its laurels and intel brought out a killer CPU then AMD goes and cries to mummy cause its not in no.1 position anymore.

 

It's never been in number 1 position....

 

well in desktops Athlon was a much better choice over P4 imo so in the enthusiast market it was no.1 (sorry should of clarified that)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it boils down to is that AMD should have made a better CPU by now.

this^ AMD rested on its laurels and intel brought out a killer CPU then AMD goes and cries to mummy cause its not in no.1 position anymore.

 

It's never been in number 1 position....

 

well in desktops Athlon was a much better choice over P4 imo so in the enthusiast market it was no.1 (sorry should of clarified that)

 

Yup, AMD's Thunderbird trumped Intel's Williamette.

 

That only lasted until the Northwood came of age, though.

 

Even with the matured Northwood, though, people were still buying AMDs in the form of Bartons. They weren't nesecarily the performance king, but overclockers and gamers were quite big fans of them.

 

Then AMD slipped to where it si now, where in the tech forums people will recommend saving up the few extra bucks to go Intel instead of AMD...

 

(This is, of course, all assuming that we are talking about performance here. No idea about sales)

 

Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but the enthusiast market isn't where the money is at. It's with the OEMs like Dell, HP etc. Which, it seems, is where Intel was taking advantage of its position.

 

Athlon 64 was introduced Sep 03, C2D in Jul 06. And during that time I don't think AMDs market share grew all that much.

Found a graph from HERE

Posted Image

 

Interesting that AMDs market share didn't go up until a few quarters before C2D was introduced.

 

More recent news puts AMD (for desktops anyway) around the 30% mark.

 

Seems like there's evidence of Intels actions just going off those two bits of information. Of course it could've just been AMD didn't have a good platform anyway during that period, but still interesting to look at.

Edited by mark84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ideally I would like to see a 50:50 market share as that would make each company (in theory anyway) more proactive at trying to beat the other much like how ATI and Nvidia are at the moment fairly equal in most parts of the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD started as an Intel clone chip maker starting from the 8086 and bought NextGen which started the real AMD we see now. VIA have x86 CPUS only because they bought our Cyrix which produced crappy chips compared to AMD and Intel.

Edited by Jeruselem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the case is solely about business practices..

 

I think it's about time too.

Hit 'em hard and hit 'em in the wallet, then you stand a chance of minimising this type of behaviour.

 

With respect to M$ fines, the majority have been in the US and in the vicinity of US, $25 million.

It's continually amazed me that the US judiciary were always being lenient towards M$.

 

For a global corporation of that magnitude, US $25 mill 'IS' just pin money or a little more than that.

Edited by pekkahead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intel have the market because the money they should have earned from the wonderful athlon 64 never materialised because of intels shady business practices. If I were AMD I would learn from that and buy my own version of Dell and make my own pc's and stick the finger up at dell and HP for bowing to intels demands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no margin in PCs these days.

 

You have to set up a huge manufacturing and distribution network just to create and deliver products which have very low profit.

 

Even Dell, who have very efficient supply chains and process, struggle with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intel have the market because the money they should have earned from the wonderful athlon 64 never materialised because of intels shady business practices. If I were AMD I would learn from that and buy my own version of Dell and make my own pc's and stick the finger up at dell and HP for bowing to intels demands.

and then you would make AMD go bankrupt and we wouldn't have any competition in the market and intel wouldn't release new CPU's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if AMD could build a competitive CPU, this wouldn't happen....and VIA, well, there's no chance

Intel have the market cos they deserve it atm.

Are you saying that AMD during that time didnt make a competitive cpu???? AMD is accusing Intel of offering illegal discounts and retaliating against manufacturers who used AMD chips.

 

It is only about practices that Intel did and if AMD had the best at the time, they lost a lot of money when they could have used it for development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if AMD could build a competitive CPU, this wouldn't happen....and VIA, well, there's no chance

Intel have the market cos they deserve it atm.

Are you saying that AMD during that time didnt make a competitive cpu???? AMD is accusing Intel of offering illegal discounts and retaliating against manufacturers who used AMD chips.

 

It is only about practices that Intel did and if AMD had the best at the time, they lost a lot of money when they could have used it for development.

 

but if you have the best of something industry is not going to waste its time with possibly losing profits because its taking under the table deals and by doing so shooting itself in the foot due to only selling the inferior product although I guess this was the case with the deals Intel made for a while. Edited by nesquick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be too upset nesquick, it's just Intel hating, Microsoft hating's brother.

I am not upset Intel did what businesses do and thats try to take out their competitor by any means possible its just unfortunately for them AMD had a tantrum about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be too upset nesquick, it's just Intel hating, Microsoft hating's brother.

I am not upset Intel did what businesses do and thats try to take out their competitor by any means possible its just unfortunately for them AMD had a tantrum about it.

 

I meant don't be upset about people like Gamble and Sparky. They just srpuik AMD because that's all they can afford. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be too upset nesquick, it's just Intel hating, Microsoft hating's brother.

I am not upset Intel did what businesses do and thats try to take out their competitor by any means possible its just unfortunately for them AMD had a tantrum about it.

 

I meant don't be upset about people like Gamble and Sparky. They just srpuik AMD because that's all they can afford. :P

 

lol don't let them hear that AMD is err umm a viable upgrade option... maybe :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify I have a q6600 and a e7400 here, so I'm by no means a fan boy.

 

My point about buying a 'dell' - more about pushing opterons than going for athlon domination ie intel builds its own servers, but I digress. The subject of my direct point was that if AMD knew this was going on then AMD should have examined its own avenues of placing pressure on the market - Buying or building AMD servers and possibly desktops would be the most direct offensive. I'm sure there would be other ways of providing the same pressure I just have not thought of them.

 

The way the system is you can jump up and down about bad stuff going on from 2001 which finally sees a conclusion in 2009 and gets appealed anyway. - save yourself is the way modern red tape is geared. AMD need to place additional pressure on the market to sell its processors. (start taking out hits on major manufactures board members...... I'm evil.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, your earlier text just smelled a little fanboyish. :)

 

The problem is that AMD has funding problems, so any venture like that which you describe would be a do or die scenario. Investors don't like that sort of thing, and they'd be doomed.

 

I sincerely doubt that Intel's market leadership in the Pentium 4 era came 100% from their alleged "shady" business practices. Intel offered a total platform, something which AMD only recently came to the table with, cemented on the merger with ATi. Intel offered Pentium 4 + 8xx series chipsets as a package to OEMs like Dell, where AMD would rely on a company like VIA to provide the rest.

 

The sensationalists out there would like you to believe that "skill" had nothing to do with Intel's success in those times. I can confidently assure you that their incentives would have been ignored if the product wasn't sufficiently up to scratch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea your right, I guess I never could afford an i7 platform, if I could I would buy one, lol.

 

But, the way Intel was doing business at that time was wrong and Intel had a "decent" chip at that time. They were caught off guard of how good AMD was at that time and Intel resorted to scare tatics on OEMs. But, Intel have really got their act together and are a generation ahead on AMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squall: You do raise another issue that i have seen from AMD in the past, and that is the lack of diversification. I always found it obscene how amd would only produce a starter chipset. That made their platform weaker compared to intel but we have to consider that with the Athloon 64 and Athlon had the very strong Nforce 2 and beyond chipsets. I have to believe that this was a viable OEM option. Clearly it either was not or the pressure was too much because i noticed Dell only produced AMD based rigs at the low end of the market and only done it for around 3 months before going back to all intel setups.

 

I always wondered why AMD functined like this - if they had the skills and setup to produce a starter chipset then they should have just kept rolling. how much money must they have spent on that one starter chipset never to be recouped because of the tranitioning to a relience on VIA and nvidia chipsets. With revision to the starter chipset they could have held that market aswell.

 

I'd like to believe that AMD is fealing pretty silly about that now since a AMD rig of yesteryear was a Athlon XP + Nforce2 + geforce 4 = one AMD chip. An AMD rig of today can look like this Phenom II + 790X + Radeon 4890 = 3 AMD chips. Seams like a much more appealing business proposition doesnt it

 

And yeah I know right now that AMD has no cash left but there was a time when AMD were profitable around the introduction of the athlon 64. Might have been a nice amalgamation if AMD purchased SUN

 

While I do think Intel played dodgy there is no doubt in my mind that AMD did not do enough to out play them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×