EU Airs Out Intel's Dirty Laundry

Status
Not open for further replies.

charlesxuma

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2008
25
0
18,530
0
i'm actually considering throwing away my core i7 after this article. thats it, i'm going all AMD next build. I SWEAR!!
 

dheadley

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2006
171
0
18,680
0
Was there an actual need to release the details to convince someone out there that anti-competitive practices were being used? I mean in the computer industry has any company ever achieved the dominant market share in any segment without using these practices of rebates, volume discounts and volume licensing deals to extort "loyalty" out of the manufacturers.
 

soo-nah-mee

Distinguished
Feb 5, 2009
564
0
18,990
2
I hope this results in more sales for AMD. It's not that I hate Intel, I'd just like to see more balance in the competition for the consumer's benefit. AMD deserves much more credit than their commercial sales reflects, and this story shows a major reason why.
 

charlesxuma

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2008
25
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]soo-nah-mee[/nom]I hope this results in more sales for AMD. It's not that I hate Intel, I'd just like to see more balance in the competition for the consumer's benefit. AMD deserves much more credit than their commercial sales reflects, and this story shows a major reason why.[/citation]

i completely agree with you, thats what i'm gona do from now on, i'll be purchasing AMD/ATI only products, and hopefully others will too, doing this on large scales will balance competition and therefore even intel dedicated fans will benefit. (LONG LIVE THE UNDERDOG)
 

magicandy

Distinguished
Jun 8, 2008
295
0
18,780
0
I hope this gets published on television news so more than just the internet audience will hear about this. Intel will probably do absolutely everything in its power to keep this as low-profile as possible. It's time we finally start exposing our large shyster corporations for what they really are.
 
G

Guest

Guest
During 2003-2006 AMD had the Athlon64 lineup that was killing the Intel Pentium4 brand in all reviews and publications. AMD certainly deserves to get some of this rulings money in their pocket since Intel cost them lots of potential market-share with this obviously corrupt and illegal practices. Boy... I dont know how anybody could respect a company like Intel after something like this. Kind of makes you wonder also why their products are so unreasonably expensive.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Gee, I wonder why AMD never managed to get their fair market share, and accompanying funds for R&D during the Athlon64 heyday... Bulldozer might have made it to market already, and wiped the floor with Core i7.

F*#& you, Intel and your fanboys...
 
G

Guest

Guest
So, in light of this, I assume that the US Congress is going to investigate and deal with Intel accordingly? Or does Intel hire "lobbyists" to make "bribes/campaign contributions"?
 
G

Guest

Guest
ive always know in some way that intel was doing something nefarious when it came to their business practices. which is why i have stuck to amd products not just because they have better price to performance ratio but to also support a company that has been screwed and continues to be screwed.
 

tayb

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
1,143
0
19,280
0
"Unwritten agreements." Uh... I guess good luck in court? That's why we sign documents instead of shaking hands and "agreeing" on terms. I signed a lease, didn't verbally agree to the lease terms with the leasing agent. A verbal agreement would be damn tough to prove in court. Good luck evicting me for violating an unwritten agreement. Then again, this is the EU, not the US court system.
 

nekatreven

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2007
415
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]tayb[/nom]"Unwritten agreements." Uh... I guess good luck in court? That's why we sign documents instead of shaking hands and "agreeing" on terms. I signed a lease, didn't verbally agree to the lease terms with the leasing agent. A verbal agreement would be damn tough to prove in court. Good luck evicting me for violating an unwritten agreement. Then again, this is the EU, not the US court system.[/citation]

Multiple sources or correlated testimony could probably suffice as proof of a non-verbal.

Your mention of luck is not needed however. The ruling has been made and the evidence did include the agreements. I'm pretty sure this was just the EU telling Intel where to shove their appeal paperwork.
 

pooflinger1

Distinguished
Mar 9, 2006
118
1
18,695
4
[citation][nom]njkid3[/nom]... but to also support a company that has been screwed and continues to be screwed.[/citation]

So we should all support the prostitues since they have been screwed and continue to be screwed. I for one am rooting for intel. Not because I think they are right, and not because I like them, but because I don't want the EU to get a Damned cent. Lets see... How much of our recent economic downturn could be funded if those funds weren't stripped away from US companies... AND, last time I checked, the party trying to bribe was not the only guilty party. Last I checked it was also illegal to RECIEVE bribe money. So why aren't HP and Lenovo, etc included? Didn't they recieve money in order to take part? Kind of a messed up argument that you only prosecute or attempt to fine one side of the problem. Kinda like trying to play on the see-saw by yourself. just a bit unbalanced.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Ultimately I don't see how Intel should be fined for offering rebates to OEMs for preferring Intel's products. Businesses do that all the time. Heck, cell phone companies are allowed to do it.

Really the blame falls on Dell, HP, and other PC manufacturers. They didn't have to accept the deal from Intel, but they wanted the rebates. Dell and HP had just as much power as Intel seeing as how Intel wouldn't sell any products if it weren't for them. They could have said, "Screw that. We'll just sell AMD products instead."

If the EU thinks that the exclusive deals are wrong, then they should be fining the OEMs as well. However, is it wrong for an OEM to use one brand exclusively over another? I wouldn't think so.
 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]pooflinger1[/nom]So we should all support the prostitues since they have been screwed and continue to be screwed. I for one am rooting for intel. Not because I think they are right, and not because I like them, but because I don't want the EU to get a Damned cent. Lets see... How much of our recent economic downturn could be funded if those funds weren't stripped away from US companies... AND, last time I checked, the party trying to bribe was not the only guilty party. Last I checked it was also illegal to RECIEVE bribe money. So why aren't HP and Lenovo, etc included? Didn't they recieve money in order to take part? Kind of a messed up argument that you only prosecute or attempt to fine one side of the problem. Kinda like trying to play on the see-saw by yourself. just a bit unbalanced.[/citation]

well i dont support those companies receiving the funds cause i build my own pc and dont buy prebuilt ones and plus why shouldnt we support our local prostitutes.
 

presidenteody

Distinguished
May 20, 2009
42
0
18,530
0
everyone knows that AMD doesn't have the market share due to slow processors and overpriced GPUs whose drivers are buggy and flawed. Once intel comes out with on chip GPUs it will wipe AMD off the map while they are still using 45nm processes for the next two years, intel is already launching 32nm and plans to go 28nm in two years by the time AMD has filed for Ch.11 right on time, like a clock: TICK, TOCK, TICK, TOCK STOMP!!! I don't mean to be mean, but it is fact AMD is 5 bil in the hole and #6 on who is most likely to file for ch.11 by Forbes, so i wouldn't waste my money on a chip whose socket will be dead when the company dies?? it doesn't make sence! Does anyone remember VOODOO? they died in 1996 or so and tried to compete but didn't have the balls to backup their shat. Thats what happens to companies that fall behind!
 

Acert93

Distinguished
May 29, 2003
230
0
18,680
0
Exclusivity contracts are very, very common in the business world and are even a necessity to control costs for suppliers, distributors, retailers, and consumers. The "problem" is that to what extent are these practices "wrong" for large companies aka "monopolies."

Just follow the chain. Intel, by contractually obtaining, a huge set percentage of a companies business guarantees reaching certain capacity, cash flow, and revenue. This, inturn, allows Intel to give rebates to Dell/HP not offered to non-exclusive partners and those not operating with these sort of volumes. This allows Dell/HP to be more competitive/larger volumes. The rebates help Dell/HP compete more competitively and target bigger customers and helps Intel because their biggest partners are more comeptitive. Distributors and Retailers get competitive pricing on well marketed "brand" product and can purchase from large companies that have significant infrastructure for both product and product support. Consumers gain the advantage of availability and product quality.

So remove the contracts and the chain is damaged. AMD wasn't/isn't capable of providing product at the scale/timeframe expected, Intel no longer offers rebates to Dell/HP because as volume goes down/costs go up. Distributors/Retailers pay more and in the end consumers may as well.

Interestingly, AMD could have simply created programs that offered Dell/HP the same volume with better pricing. But they couldn't (and cannot). Consumers (and the idiot EU) need to understand that business is more than just benchmarks in some game = desirability in the business-to-customer channels. Availability is huge as is guaranteed pricing. It doesn't matter how good your product is if it isn't available when the customer wants it.

Now Intel would have avoided some of this hurt if the contracts were volume based. i.e. "For X rebate Dell must purchase 25M Intel CPUs." Obviously we would be quite unfair to cast a blind eye at co-marketing and brand placement, mutually beneficial business arrangements for exclusive contracts, etc. The business world thrives on such and it is completely legal ... as long as you are not a massive company with significant marketshare and deep pockets. While I wouldn't argue that these contracts are always better for consumers, it would be wrong to argue they are always harmful. Likewise they can be quite beneficial to businesses and longterm industry health.

It would be curious to inquire of AMD and the EU if they have any exclusive contracts with any customer that gains them a benefit. I bet they both do and I bet in some of the case that it isn't completely in the benefit of the end consumer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS