Nvidia CEO Wants Further Action Against Intel

Status
Not open for further replies.

cheepstuff

Distinguished
Dec 13, 2008
416
0
18,790
1
how is bundling so bad? if Intel is offering a better product/package, Nvidia will have to make a more competitive product or lose out. frankly, Nvidia's accusations are crap. offering a bundle is merely offering people more product at a lower price, it isn't anti-competitive, just competitive. All Nvidia is looking for a cut like AMD got.
 
[citation][nom]cheepstuff[/nom]how is bundling so bad? if Intel is offering a better product/package, Nvidia will have to make a more competitive product or lose out. frankly, Nvidia's accusations are crap. offering a bundle is merely offering people more product at a lower price, it isn't anti-competitive, just competitive. All Nvidia is looking for a cut like AMD got.[/citation]
+1.

Anyways, companies need to stop bi***ing and concentrate on making better/competitive products. Now where are those G3xx cards....
 

B-Unit

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2006
1,837
1
19,810
5
How does Atom+Chipset for $25, but Atom by itself for $45, not appear 'bad' to you? How is anyone suppose to sell a chipset for Atom with pricing like that.

I still hate nV, but the point they raise here is quite valid.
 

zerapio

Distinguished
Nov 4, 2002
396
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]B-Unit[/nom]How does Atom+Chipset for $25, but Atom by itself for $45, not appear 'bad' to you? How is anyone suppose to sell a chipset for Atom with pricing like that. I still hate nV, but the point they raise here is quite valid.[/citation]
It seems Intel is selling the bundle at lower margins to push the platform. Why would Intel refrain from getting a better margin for the benefit of NVIDIA? That makes no sense.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Cheepstuff: what's wrong with the 'conservative' agenda. In quotes because it's pro big business- not actually conservative. It is an illegal tactic, but until late Intel didn't really fear being prosecuted for it.

PS There's nothing good about unfair business practices guy, learn some damn history.
 

cheepstuff

Distinguished
Dec 13, 2008
416
0
18,790
1
Cheepstuff: what's wrong with the 'conservative' agenda. In quotes because it's pro big business- not actually conservative. It is an illegal tactic, but until late Intel didn't really fear being prosecuted for it.

PS There's nothing good about unfair business practices guy, learn some damn history.
but it isn't an unfair business practice. bundling is compiling several products together at a discount. it is a new product that is more attractive than any of the individual parts because it is cheaper for the buyer. please explain why it is unfair for intel to make a good deal.
 

ravewulf

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
938
5
18,985
0
[citation][nom]cheepstuff[/nom]but it isn't an unfair business practice. bundling is compiling several products together at a discount. it is a new product that is more attractive than any of the individual parts because it is cheaper for the buyer. please explain why it is unfair for intel to make a good deal.[/citation]
Simple. What Intel is doing is beyond bundling for a discount.

Atom + Intel chipset = $25
Atom alone = $45
(Atom + Intel chipset) - (Atom alone) = -$20

How on Earth is it fair that the Intel chipset costs NEGATIVE $20!

Selling bundled products for a discount is fine. Inflating the cost of the processor alone so as to drive out competition is not!
 

cheepstuff

Distinguished
Dec 13, 2008
416
0
18,790
1


dude, it's their product , they made it, they own it, and they can give it any price they want. if what they are doing is an out rage, people will stop buying it and get their teck somewhere else. they aren't a monoply, and if they are doing something unfair, it is your choice as the consumer to stop buying their products and go with the alternatives.

the negative $20 your talking about is the discount, that is the price they gave it, and if that is unfair, dont buy atoms. simple as that.
 

megabuster

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2008
85
0
18,630
0
I don't see nVidia complain about Intel bundling onboard video on their desktop mobos. Make your ion platform + atom cpu x2 better than intel offering then charge accordingly and stop whining.
 

climber

Distinguished
Feb 26, 2009
325
0
18,780
0
It's only good business to dominate the market so that over the long term you can lead the consumer and the industry by the nose down the road you want to go, letting everyone else follow, where you are first to market with every new advance. Since people always want the newest tech first, they'll always follow intel. It's a good strategy but sometimes intel makes crap stuff, remember the i820 chipset and the Rambus fiasco? If intel is going to continue to dominate indefinitely, all competition will disappear and we'll be paying $500 for a loaf of bread (brought to you by intel).
 

liquidsnake718

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2009
1,379
0
19,310
5
Ion will not do too well as the atoms are going to keep on changing thus when larrabee comes out ion should be dead by then.... the size and potential of larrabee would detirmine how fast the ion will whither away... Nvidia has already lost in the onboard battle with its motherboard gpus and not since the great 680's did we see their onboard gpus do well.... I guess hybrid SLI was a good idea and I wonder why Nvidia chose to take it out of their pipeline as it actually saves energy and resources as well as GPU lifespan....
 

dannyaa

Distinguished
Jan 1, 2001
594
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]B-Unit[/nom]How does Atom+Chipset for $25, but Atom by itself for $45, not appear 'bad' to you? How is anyone suppose to sell a chipset for Atom with pricing like that. I still hate nV, but the point they raise here is quite valid.[/citation]

The points are valid conceptually, but not legally. $25 is still above cost for Intel, and Intel is allowed by law to set their own profit margins. Massive discounts are very normal for bundling company items together, be it insurance, internet/tv/phone plans, etc.

Businesses are free to sell whatever combo of chips they want (AMD, ATI, Nvidia) and the customer decides what they like and what they will pay. Currently Intel's prices are very competitive and their products are top notch. It's true that it can be "unfair" but it's the rules of capitalism... and honestly it is just as bad to penalize a successful business for taking risks and doing well as long as it is not an anti trust issues, and currently it is not.

It would be different if no other options were available, but Intel partners have deemed the price/benefit ration of Intel's offerings are superior.
 

dannyaa

Distinguished
Jan 1, 2001
594
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]

Atom + Intel chipset = $25
Atom alone = $45(Atom + Intel chipset) - (Atom alone) = -$20How on Earth is it fair that the Intel chipset costs NEGATIVE $20!

[/citation]

You are misunderstanding. $25 is not the price of Atom AND the chipset together. It is the price of Atom when bundled WITH a chipset... they did not specify the price of the total atom/chipset bundle.

It's a $20 discount.
 

ravewulf

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
938
5
18,985
0
[citation][nom]liquidsnake718[/nom]Ion will not do too well as the atoms are going to keep on changing thus when larrabee comes out ion should be dead by then.... the size and potential of larrabee would detirmine how fast the ion will whither away... [/citation]
Ions are targeted mostly for netbooks and the like (hense why it is used with Atom).
Larrabee is a discrete GPU and used in desktops.

Completely different target platforms.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Atom and especially it's chipset are complete garbage anyways, it's only right that they PAY YOU to use the chipset.

PS: AMD Congo/Yukon/Tigris got it right, to hell with netbooks... Netbooks set computing performance back 10 years, when I buy a new laptop in the year 2009, I don't want it running neck-and-neck with my Celeron 500mhz I had in the late 90's...
 

Dkz

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2009
207
0
18,680
0
As I am typing on a Netbook right now, I know the kind of potential the Atom has and how great it is.
I think Intel it's within its rights to put those prices, but it also has a negative counter part to us users.
This kind of attitude is not good for us, because it makes impossible to companies that are not buying the combo to use the Atom. I would love to see an improvement in the Atom platform, may be the ones who can bring that improvement are Nvidia/Ati, and not Intel but with this mechanics of pricing nor Nvidia nor Ati will be able to get handy on the Atom. Many people said something about nVidia creating a better product to be competitive against the Atom, and that's not even been realistic, Nvidia does not do CPUs they work on existent CPU platforms... what are they going to do start producing Processors to equip with their chipsets and GPUs??
I just hope the new AMD processors can go up and fight their way against the Atom, just to see improvements in this exiting and very low consuming tech.
 

mlg779

Distinguished
Jan 27, 2009
10
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]ravewulf[/nom]Simple. What Intel is doing is beyond bundling for a discount.Atom + Intel chipset = $25Atom alone = $45(Atom + Intel chipset) - (Atom alone) = -$20How on Earth is it fair that the Intel chipset costs NEGATIVE $20!Selling bundled products for a discount is fine. Inflating the cost of the processor alone so as to drive out competition is not![/citation]
tell Intel to let me chose if I want something cheaper or if iI want something more expensive an also better
 

mlg779

Distinguished
Jan 27, 2009
10
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]cheepstuff[/nom]but it isn't an unfair business practice. bundling is compiling several products together at a discount. it is a new product that is more attractive than any of the individual parts because it is cheaper for the buyer. please explain why it is unfair for intel to make a good deal.[/citation]
Sorry for the previous post
Tell Intel to let me chose if I want something cheaper or if iI want something more expensive an also better, maybe I do not want to bundle the Atom with an Intel Chipset
 

DjEaZy

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2008
1,161
0
19,280
0
OMG!? 'As it stands, Intel currently owns 53-percent of the GPU market'?!?! With so much market share with such crappy GPU's?! HOW!?! And why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts