In Ironic Twist, Intel Accuses Qualcomm Of Anti-Competitive Tactics

Status
Not open for further replies.

gdmaclew

Distinguished
May 20, 2008
1,353
2
19,465
96
Oh my. How things have changed.
While I'm not condoning ANY company using allegedly questionable business practices, it seems to me that Intel is getting a little of its own medicine.
Doesn't seem so long ago that Intel was trying to "limit" the impact of some of its competitors.
 

redgarl

Distinguished
So Apples is the good guy, the one that doesn't pay their taxes and use tax haven with their overprice hardware and the Apple tax... and now we see Intel trying to prevent another tech cie from achieving their own legacy...

Just to say, isn't Intel release another trash talk presentation to low blow AMD with Napples? You know, the CPU providing 50% more FP calculation over their overpriced architecture?

Intel: but they glue chips together!
AMD: Yeah, but we designed these CPU to work this way... at least we don't cheap out by using thermal paste on HEDT platform...
 

jimmysmitty

Polypheme
Moderator


I agree about Apple but you realize that the 50% FP is when compared to the current top Xeon, the 22 core, and not what it will have to compete with since both will launch near the same time, Skylake EP with 32 cores.

And remember, AMD mocked Intel for C2Q. It is all turn about.

Honestly, Intels past is nothing that should be discussed when it comes to another potential market monopoly. How many other LTE chips do you know of? Last time a Telcom company became that big they screwed people over pretty royally.

I think Intel is right to call out ther BS. It doesn't matter who calls it out so long as the issue is taken care of.
 
:)
"Hey, Pot? This is Kettle. You're black, too!"

.. Intel had been subsidizing its Atom mobile processors for a long time with its proceeds from the more profitable PC market -- an advantage that other mobile chip makers couldn’t claim. In fact, it has for a long time been the primary reason why many thought Intel would be successful in the mobile market, because they thought Intel could throw its weight and profits around until it would end-up dominating this market, too.

However, Intel must have miscalculated, as by the time it exited the mobile application processor market, its mobile division was losing about $1 billion per quarter...
My 8w AMD Temash touchscreen lappie (modded with Samsung SSD) is still chugging along ... it Te-mashed Atom in every single way and remains a dependable road warrior.

AMD would have sold a gazillion of them without that $4 billion/yr Chipzilla wall they had to overcome ...

 

therealduckofdeath

Honorable
May 10, 2012
783
0
11,160
70
So, there are alternatives, just not as powerful as Qualcomm's solution. Meaning, they all have an option that's good but just not the best. They all want Qualcomm's solution at the price of the lesser performing alternatives, because their devices can't operate without the absolute best performing LTE network? Sorry, but to me this sounds more like everybody wanting to squeeze Broadcomm's patents out of their pockets just because they're all too lazy to develop something better themselves.

And, Tom's, surely it's "alleged patent abuse" until proven guilty, and not just "patent abuse"?
 

rantoc

Distinguished
Dec 17, 2009
1,858
0
19,780
0
I have to laugh, Intel used some of exact above (point 3 for instance) vs Amd back in the days when Amd had a far superior product (Athlon). That's the reason intel could be milking their customers for years since Amd didn't get to sell a fair share of their superior product due to it and thus earn R&D money for the next iteration leaving intel in prime position. As for Ryzen I have to say Amd finally have a good strong product on the market again and it's in plain sight to see everyone gains by real competition.
 

Petaflox

Prominent
Mar 30, 2017
28
0
530
0
As much I don't like Intel policy I don't approve to remind us what they did with AMD (or Nvidia with chipset MB) .
It seems to me that the more a company is rich and the more is allowed to violated the
antitrust law, just pay the fine and that is it. Lets start to put someone in jail and lest see how many office will be empty.
 

MASOUTH

Distinguished
Jun 3, 2008
37
0
18,530
0
As much as I would like to see Intel get fair turnabout, it needs to be aggressively pursued if it is true.

Anybody that complains about Intel's tactics in various markets yet wants to see another company dominate a market with the exact same tactics, all solely to spite Intel, is a fool that can't see past the nose on their face.
 

mlee 2500

Reputable
Oct 20, 2014
291
5
4,785
0
It's also worth noting, for whatever it's worth, that Qualcomm's "dominance" is no- where near as complete or total as Intel's near-monopoly on x86 processors.

Why does this matter?

Well, Qualcomm is forced to innovate and invest in R&D just to stay competitive with a number of legitimate and real competitors with real market share, and must profit off it's IP and patents accordingly in order to stay relevant....whereas Intel can and has for some time been able to dictate the entire PC and Server processor markets on their own terms, however they prefer it, without their customers having any real alternatives.

AMD in this regard is PERFECT for Intel. Sure, every decade or so they come up with a product that forces Intel to halfway kind-of-sort-of pay attention to their customers for minute, but AMD never really threatens their bottom line in any meaningful way while always offering a straw man opportunity for Intel to claim that they *aren't* a monopoly and that the x86 CPU space has "competitors".
 

jimmysmitty

Polypheme
Moderator


Um AMD bought ATI for $5.4 billion in 2006. They had plenty of R&D money from K8, they just paid too much for ATI instead of spending it on R&D for CPUs.

It did pay off in the long run. I guess.



Of the major branded phones, the most popular, who is the main LTE chip provider? Hint, it is Qualcomm. They have a very big hold on the market.

Now I agree if they provide the better product, so be it. But that's not how it works, according to the government there needs to always be competition. And I agree. However it needs to come naturally.

I love Intels wireless chips and NICs, normally the best in the industry, but if their LTE chips are not as good that's just how it is.

I am wondering though is Qualcomm doesn't have something because all the top brands flagships run Qualcomms LTE chip, even Samsung whom I would assume would design their own as they did their own chips for their Korean market.
 

dE_logics

Reputable
Oct 16, 2015
73
0
4,630
0
BS must be smeared on the face of Intel as long as their x86 'essential' patents are licensed at a liberal cost and until I see 9+ vendors of x86 processors instead of just 3.
 

knowom

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2006
777
0
18,990
1
How can Qualcomm be anti competitive though against Intel in reality? Let's not forget who holds all the "premium" cards in hand as Intel laughably put it in their argument.

So Intel's entire argument basically hinges around them stating that, but it's not fair Qualcomm is the only premium LTE modem competitor to us of course however we'd much prefer that they remain that way except beneath us cause we have a unfair manufacturing advantage not to mention a rather resounding domination of FPGA's besides our CPU business is really hurting right now the feels man the feels we are MFing Intel damn it.
 

mlee 2500

Reputable
Oct 20, 2014
291
5
4,785
0


Well, that's kind of my point...Qualcomm HAS to have a better product to support their leadership in the market, or they'll quickly loose that market to MediaTek and others. Intel on the other hand can do whatever or as little as they want without fear of loosing their market dominance (the odd once-a-decade threat from AMD, such as we're seeing with Ryzen right now, not withstanding).
 

maverick0011

Prominent
Aug 25, 2017
15
1
515
0
Intel is still doing the exact same crap they've been doing in the past... FTC needs to permanently shut down intel, Freeze every major corporate person's accounts, remove the money from said accounts and deposit them into a fund to be released over a 10 year period to AMD and the companies it is demanding these contracts from. They're doing this with MSI and other high end gaming laptop manufacturers as well. Intel itself needs to have ALL Of it's stuff turned over to AMD and just end the crooked company right now... Competition? Manufacturers are now seeing the truth about AMD and how much better AMD as a company and chip manufacturer is. I Love and prefer AMD chips over Intel for their far superior overall performance versus anything intel has offered or is currently offering. AMD's DDR4 venture with the first FM1 and FM2 chips flopped as the performance was not really as good as they'd hoped. Those that were lucky enough to get a DDR4 board with the FM chipsets were lucky but because AMD dropped the DDR4 code from the APU's they got bent and stuck if something happened to the processor. That Being said, AMD's new entry RYZEN is now proving to be a complete boon in intel's behind, now program designers whom intel paid to exclusively tune their programs for intel's chips are being exposed for said antitrust tactics are now changing their tune, but are secretly being fined by Intel for doing so. AMD has had the performance in their chips for years, we are only NOW seeing the REAL beasts AMD actually has on the market. TDP for TR is high but Putting two RYZEN core sets on a single SOC with room for up to two more is just insane. Now, Put together the fact that Intel just recently Slandered AMD and attempted to claim they were gluing things together is just stupid. The long awaited truth is now out there and AMD is now rising from the depths like a beast thought long extinct, and Intel's ship is now sinking. RIP Intel :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS