Intel to Settle With FTC, Maybe Ease Up on Nvidia

[Marcus Yam]

Nvidia is likely to benefit from the FTC dealing with Intel.

Intel to Settle With FTC, Maybe Ease Up on Nvidia : Read more

 

[joytech22]

which granted the CPU access to a the

I lol'd

And Intel are becoming more and more like that greedy blue/white fruit, they want more and more AND more profit.
Although that's what businesses do.. if, for example, it cost's intel $200 to make a i7 980X extreme, i wouldn't charge any where near $1000 for it, probably $400, i mean double the profit of initial costs is pretty sweet.

 

[Ezence]

"The deal would spare Intel from the monetary penalties which it was ordered to pay AMD"

Did i miss something? I know they (intel and AMD) that involved paying money to AMD but i didn't know they where forced to pay AMD anything by a court.

 

[rohitbaran]

Well, that is going to be one filthy fight.

 

[maydaynomore]

[citation][nom]Ezence[/nom]"The deal would spare Intel from the monetary penalties which it was ordered to pay AMD"Did i miss something? I know they (intel and AMD) that involved paying money to AMD but i didn't know they where forced to pay AMD anything by a court.[/citation]
AMD and Intel settled out of court...

 

[leon2006]

If ever this happen it will be just in time with the release of Sandy Bridge. Then the issue is mute.

 

[rohitbaran]

Why do you think that will happen? Unless someone puts checks on Intel's policies time to time, they will keep up with their marketing gimmicks even with future releases.

 

[santiagoanders]

[citation][nom]leon2006[/nom]Then the issue is mute.[/citation]

Dude, mute? Read a dictionary sometime.

 

[CaptainBib]

AMD/Nvidia/Intel.. They are corporations and the reason for their existence is to make money.

Intel likes to make underhanded deals, Nvidia screws you with their drivers (can't use Physx with an ATI card on board), AMD just likes to ruin intel and nvidia's days by releasing products with 80-90% of the performance for $50 less.

P.S. Intel walks right in to these lawsuits

 

[jomofro39]

[citation][nom]santiagoanders[/nom]Dude, mute? Read a dictionary sometime.[/citation]
Yes...read a dictionary... I lol'd. Read more novels or something with a little spice!
And you meant moot.

 

[vertigo_2000]

[citation][nom]santiagoanders[/nom]Dude, mute? Read a dictionary sometime.[/citation]
I got a good laugh out of this as well.

Reminded me of that episode of Friends where Joey said some issue was "moo". A cow's opinion on a subject means nothing... it's moo.

But jumping on him like the grammar police is not necessary.

 

[hellwig]

I know all companies are out to make as much money as possible, but some companies are criminal in the way they go about doing it. Intel has always gone about their business the wrong way. The only reason AMD is still around is because Intel shot themselves in the foot trying to drive them out of business, and the government basically granted AMD an X86 license for life.

Sometimes, companies need to spend more of their effort improving their own product rather than trying to prevent everyone else from improving. Between 2000 and 2005, AMD had the fastest x86 processor, but then Intel released Core 2. Imagine if Intel had directed all that effort coercing and blackmailing retailers into designing the Core 2 sooner (instead of a worthless Pentium 4)?

To remain on top, all Intel needs is their superior product. If Nvidia's ION chipset is superior, maybe Intel should have released a better chipset than the stupid 945GC. A 22W chipset for a 2.5W processor, and they wonder why people want ION?

 

[mrecio]

Healthy competition is good, but when one company gets too much of an upper-hand and can run gimmicks like these to maximize their profits then you see the true side of a corporations.

The Top dog always plays a little dirty.

 

[waylander]

Let's keep in mind though that "ideal" of capitalism. I can understand the whole "fair trade" issue but really sometimes we take it too far. If a company cannot compete as a healthy business on the basis of their products then should someone else interfere? The fact that intel wants to give a discount for bundling in other products of theirs is sound business practice and happens everywhere you look. The fact that these are both large companies and can afford the lawyers should not mean they get special treatment.

 

[jecastej]

hellwig

You bring in some good arguments. And I think your arguments and many more are reasons why we need more competition - always. To those who turn to much in favor of a specific brand or design, enjoy but at the same time let go fanaticism (haven't you bought from both ATI and NVIDIA or AMD and INTEL, -it wont kill you). From time to time some companies will dominate the market, it wont be the end of the world or something to loose faith in humanity, but other companies will need to produce competitive and creative products in many key areas or improve what they already have. I wont bet on any company failure. Critics most be made to improve product or services not to kill or ruin, because the result could be in the end ONE selfish giant company and all of us loosing on options and performance.

I understand too, intellectual property most be protected and companies are in the market to produce money. among other things, but we cannot get to a point where one company rule the industry for years without real competition.

 

[70camaross396]

I dont see anything wrong with what intel is foing with the Atom Processor and chipset bundle. lots of companies do it all the time. if you buy X, then we will include Y at a discount. look at insurance companies. If you by car insurance and home owners insurance from the same company, they will discount both of them. Intel is doing the same thing here.

Nvidia's Ion is not that much better than the current Atom Chipset. it is better in graphics but thats about it. it brings nothing new to the table.

Nvidia should by VIA (and the x86 license that Via aquired when they bought Cyrix) and make thier own CPU's. VIA has been a leader in low power and embedded systems for almost 10 years. together they i am sure they could create a processor to rival the Atom and combining that experience with Nvidia's design expertice I am sure they could create a high proformance CPU to rival the Core-I3/5/7 series and AMD as well. VIA\Cyrix has never had a high end chip that could compete with Intel/AMD products, and that is why theier market share is almost 0. however thier low power/embedded systems are everywhere.

Personally I would like to see a Via/Nvidia merger. I would bring some much needed compition to the market, force Intel to get serious about Graphics processors (the current intigrated graphic are pathetic) and lower prices, it would also provided the Nvidia with the CPU design expertice to better compete with AMD.

 

[mikem_90]

[citation][nom]waylander[/nom]Let's keep in mind though that "ideal" of capitalism. I can understand the whole "fair trade" issue but really sometimes we take it too far. If a company cannot compete as a healthy business on the basis of their products then should someone else interfere? The fact that intel wants to give a discount for bundling in other products of theirs is sound business practice and happens everywhere you look. The fact that these are both large companies and can afford the lawyers should not mean they get special treatment.[/citation]

Here's the problem, too many of the products each company makes are very interdependent on each other. And with margins so tight, it would make a contortionist sweat, these kind of pricing strategies basically price some companies out of the picture.

Its a tricky business, but the alternative is NOT having many companies with new ideas driving the advance of technology. Lets suppose that Nvidia and AMD lost their court cases and allowed this kind of behavior, boom, both companies either close their doors or are relegated to tiny parts of the industry so that you ONLY get a choice of Intel. How soon would a price drop or new model of CPU come if only one chip company made CPUs, Chipsets, and video chips?

Without a competitive drive, innovation slows to a standstill. And unfortunately, the requirements to start a new CPU company able to compete on the desktop market are pretty damn high. Someone has to bet a few billion to roll those dice.

 

[maestintaolius]

[citation][nom]mrecio[/nom]Healthy competition is good, but when one company gets too much of an upper-hand and can run gimmicks like these to maximize their profits then you see the true side of a corporations.The Top dog always plays a little dirty.[/citation]
People at the top don't want company.

 

[False_Dmitry_II]

[citation][nom]mikem_90[/nom] And unfortunately, the requirements to start a new CPU company able to compete on the desktop market are pretty damn high. Someone has to bet a few billion to roll those dice.[/citation]

Not only that, they have to manage to get an x86 license. That alone would be difficult.

 

[billj214]

Another instance of the government getting involved where it does not belong. US Politics has overwhelmingly been involved in defending the small minorities and forcing the majority to pay for the minority. This just doesn't work in a democracy.

Also did anyone know that Intel is rated one of the top companies in the world for business ethics? I don't even think AMD or Nvidia made the list.

http://www.thecro.com/files/CR100Best.pdf
http://www.intel.com/about/corporateresponsibility/awards/index.htm

 

[ksampanna]

So no lawsuit here?

 

[HavoCnMe]

"Meeting is on Friday." "Until then lets get some hookers and head to some underground gambling on the company's dime, sounds good."

 

[waffle911]

[citation][nom]billj214[/nom]Also did anyone know that Intel is rated one of the top companies in the world for business ethics? I don't even think AMD or Nvidia made the list.[/citation]
I noticed how there was no category for actual fair competition business practices, where Intel is one of the worst. See the whole Tom's coverage of the Intel vs. AMD lawsuit. Intel was acting worse than a dodgey car salesman selling a salvaged vehicle as having a "full and spotless title and service history". Just because they were squeaky clean on the inside as was covered in the CR report) didn't mean they were clean on the outside (as seen everywhere else). Aslo, most people seem to have forgotten what exactly was going on with how Intel was being anti-competitive with Nvidia's ION chips. Intel was selling the Atom processor for $xx cheaper WITH their own 945GC than without it at volume discounts. Tell me how that doesn't seem illogical and done purely to make it difficult for Nvidia to sell IGPs to customers who already have have them by FORCE of economics, not by choice. Intel was making it comparatively prohibitively expensive to use an outside IGP when obviously they were way over-pricing the Atom processor to include the price of the 945GC. Why'd they do it? Because they can. This wasn't bundling. This was shoving an unwanted product down manufacturer's throats.

"Yes, we'd like to make a mothorboard solution for the Atom processor."
"Well we can give you a great deal on the Atom when bundled with our 945GC 'graphics solution'."
"Oh, but we'd like to use a different graphics solution."
"Oh well that would cost $xx more than our bundle offer."
"You're charging $xx just for you NOT to include a component we don't want?"

 

[Mousemonkey]

Nvidia should buy VIA (and the x86 license that Via acquired when they bought Cyrix) and make [strike]thier[/strike] their own CPU's.

IIRC that would never happen due to the licence being non transferable.

 

[lauxenburg]

[citation][nom]CaptainBib[/nom]AMD/Nvidia/Intel.. They are corporations and the reason for their existence is to make money.Intel likes to make underhanded deals, Nvidia screws you with their drivers (can't use Physx with an ATI card on board), AMD just likes to ruin intel and nvidia's days by releasing products with 80-90% of the performance for $50 less.P.S. Intel walks right in to these lawsuits[/citation]

Haha....all true. =)