Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ATI (AMD) and NVIDIA Fix Prices in the US, Class Action Slapped

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
July 16, 2008 12:57:51 PM

Class actions charged against NVIDIA and ATI (now AMD) reveal that the two companies may have staged a competition over the past half-a-decade or so. A judge read out an email which suggested price fixing was rife in the graphics card market. That follows a class action of 51 different plaintiffs, now combined into one, and across different legal jurisdictions, alleging cartel behaviour not only in graphics chips, but flat panels and CRTs too.

In other words, NVIDIA and ATI may have been fixing prices of their products for a while now, it is believed that they held secret meetings to discuss staged competition, chart out prices, timings of product launches among other things. These pseudo-competitions staged provided improved sales among other things. A PDF File available to us at this point shows that the two indulged in conspiracy to mutually benefit from staged competition, so as to:

Fix, stabilize, and maintain prices of products in the US Market.
Artificial inflation of product prices.

Of course, the latest price-cut of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 200 series products doesn't seem to have been taken into account since the price spread between NVIDIA and ATI with their highest-offerings is zero.

http://www.techpowerup.com/65970/ATI_(AMD)_and_NVIDIA_Fix_Prices_in_the_US_Class_Action_Slapped_Against_them.html

July 16, 2008 1:22:10 PM

So two companies figured out a way to make more money...why is this a crime? Isn't that the whole point of running a business? It's your choice to pay $600+ for a product. Might as well include game developers in the lawsuit also. As long as the company doesn't hold a gun to your head, I don't see what's wrong.
July 16, 2008 1:31:38 PM

jeb1517 said:
So two companies figured out a way to make more money...why is this a crime? Isn't that the whole point of running a business? It's your choice to pay $600+ for a product. Might as well include game developers in the lawsuit also. As long as the company doesn't hold a gun to your head, I don't see what's wrong.


What is "wrong" is that it is illegal.
Even if I think something should be legal, if it's not it is still illegal.

Much like I think Fanboys should be locked up in a City Zoo for the amusement of others, if I so detained a fanboy, I would need to accept the consquences.

And if the story is true, so will the companies above.
Neither people or companies are free to ignore laws they do not agree with.

The Great Civil Rights leaders in the 60s willing went to jail for the "crimes" they commited and accepted the punishments. They then used that legal system to get the unjust crimes removed from the books.

Perhaps that was the goal of ATI an NVIDIA :ange: 
Related resources
July 16, 2008 1:41:52 PM

jeb1517 said:
So two companies figured out a way to make more money...why is this a crime? Isn't that the whole point of running a business? It's your choice to pay $600+ for a product. Might as well include game developers in the lawsuit also. As long as the company doesn't hold a gun to your head, I don't see what's wrong.


That is clearly apparent... are you a product of the US public school system? LOL
July 16, 2008 1:44:39 PM

Basically this is saying we have spent lots of money over the past years on items that should have been cheaper. Oh well, as long as they continue to make good products that I can afford (yay price cuts on gtx 200 series!!) then I don't really care.
July 16, 2008 1:48:02 PM

hmm...this really sucks for nvidia, they are being sued by Rambus at the same time. Wow. Two legal battles to fight. Well they got themselves into it, they can get themselves out.
July 16, 2008 1:52:37 PM

That doesn't seem like a huge news.
Like now there is different price for different categories. If it is a simulated competition, its very well simulated.
I dont think they tried to make a GPU "Cartel". But hey defining the pricing and the category.

Lemme think what industries categorize and determine their prices, huummm:

Companies that sell or produce:

Gasoline/Diesel
Bread
Distribution
Water
Sodas
Whiskey Industry.
Wine Industry.
Tourism Industry.
.
.
.
Ad nauseam.

Pricing is definided by the industry or market forces(demand/supply) and usually categorized. If they fine ATI&NIVIDIA for it....well...they got the world to sue mates. Its all part of healthy competition and live and let live.
July 16, 2008 2:17:06 PM

Phony competetors pretending they are tring to out do each other and then getting together and having a price fixing party after hours is illegal. I am sure they would run out any third party tring to make VGA cards to protect the phony markups. Because there are no other third party companies in the graphics market I make this even more belivable. Radnor nailed it on the head. Competetors will have trade associations where they are all members and work together "unofficial". It really is fraud. It time for term limits in Congress so the bribes become a little more difficult to distrubute and this stuff stops.
July 16, 2008 2:21:00 PM

Craxbax said:
That is clearly apparent... are you a product of the US public school system? LOL


Are you the product of some arrogant, pretentious prep school?

I am getting tired of these kinds of comments. The whole point of these kinds of forums is open discussion, not to get blasted for not understanding something. jeb1517 asked a legitimate question. You don't need to berate him for it.
July 16, 2008 2:40:54 PM

Price fixing is indeed illegal.

However, I am not sure if AMD and Nvidia are guilty of this. Afterall, prices have been steadily decreasing over the years. The symptom of price fixing is increased prices.

The article makes some very good points, but there are still a lot of questions. Why the whole DX 10.1 issue? PhysX? CUDA?

I wonder who the 51 plaintiffs are.....

If the allegations are true, then I am sure the fanboys will feel foolish!
July 16, 2008 3:30:30 PM

This does seem a tad laughable to me... Clearly, there's strong evidence AGAINST there being any sort of cartel behavior. One fine example would be the Radoen HD 4800 series and the GeForce GTX 200 series. Were there a cartel, AMD would've pegged their prices UPWARDS rather than releasing their most powerful GPU at $300US. Having a $200US price slash a couple weeks out of the gate is a pretty strong sign of brutal competition, NOT cartel deals. I can think of a few cases in the past where similar, though not as severe, things happened as well.
July 16, 2008 3:38:44 PM

Quote:
Quote:
I wonder who the 51 plaintiffs are.....


Yeah really......

Matrox, S3, Ageia...........Intel?......

Ageia? Why Ageia?
July 16, 2008 3:44:23 PM

Slobogob said:
Ageia? Why Ageia?

aren't they owned by nvidia now anyway?
a b U Graphics card
July 16, 2008 3:51:59 PM

Class action lawsuits = huge $$$$$$$$$$ for the shysters and a $20 rebate coupon to the people involved. If anything should be illegal it's the money the lawyers scam out of the system.
July 16, 2008 3:52:11 PM

Reminds me of Deus Ex 2 when you learn the 2 giant competing coffee shops are really the same company :lol: 

Of course I think we should wait and learn the facts before we assume anything is really happening between the two.
July 16, 2008 4:20:11 PM

dirtmountain said:
Class action lawsuits = huge $$$$$$$$$$ for the shysters and a $20 rebate coupon to the people involved. If anything should be illegal it's the money the lawyers scam out of the system.


I completely agree. Tort law use to have it's place, but now I think it is getting out of hand.
a b U Graphics card
July 16, 2008 4:37:11 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Basically this is saying we have spent lots of money over the past years on items that should have been cheaper.


Cheaper? Look at the prices of cpu's compared to the prices of VGA cards and you will see that VGA cards should be MUCH more expensive compared to the prices of cpu's. VGA cards now have hundreds of stream processors, Gigabytes of memory, 10's of millions of transisters, lots of silicone, expensive cooling solutions, etc, yet the prices are still very cheap compared to cpu's which only have one/two/three/four processors, very little memory, and not nearly as many transitors and certainly MUCH less silicon. If VGA cards were any cheaper, the comapanies making video cards would go out of business.

What you're ignoring is the fact that Intel has their own fabs to pay for, and is constantly pushing and updating their process technology (which costs money). In addition, the 4 cores in a quad core CPU are vastly more complex and more difficult to make than the stream processors in a GPU. The design process behind the CPU is easily as difficult as the design process behind a GPU, and that costs money too. You can't just look and say "Hey - that GPU has 800 cores and the CPU has 4 - clearly it should be 200 times more expensive"

In addition, by transistor count, current 45nm Cores are at 410 million for a dual, 820 million for a quad. The RV770 is at 956 million right now, with GT200 at 1.4 billion. This is hardly the transistor differential you seem to want to imply, and when Nehalem arrives, with 731 million transistors on one die, it'll be fairly close to the HD4 series.
July 16, 2008 4:50:18 PM

LOL Mrs.bytch. This is your second post in exactly same words. Well if Intel is so evil to sell thier CPUs so costlier than GPUs, why is AMD not selling thier Phenoms for 50$?? Seeing thier performance is so inferior to Intels quads and they are chep to make as you say?? Surely AMD is more evil than Intel then?? A BIG BIG ROFL
July 16, 2008 5:01:55 PM

Business is all about making money. :pfff: 

Some companies don't care how they make it..as long as they make it. :pfff: 

I personally can't stand either company right now :fou:  , there all full of hot-dog crap. For Nvidia to release a card for $500+ AND FOR SOMEONE TO SPEND THAT MUCH ON JUST 1 CARD. Just allows them to continue these retarded tactics. If we all didn't buy not 1 card (for a month), that would force them to start chopping prices.

Now the PR people of each company and the lawyers are getting together a "story" about how the accusations aren't true. Well if they aren't true why have all the cards released from both companies been no more then a 25% difference in performance, and released on after the other (like a game of "tag-your-it").




July 16, 2008 5:17:41 PM

takealready said:
Business is all about making money. :pfff: 

Some companies don't care how they make it..as long as they make it. :pfff: 

I personally can't stand either company right now :fou:  , there all full of hot-dog crap. For Nvidia to release a card for $500+ AND FOR SOMEONE TO SPEND THAT MUCH ON JUST 1 CARD. Just allows them to continue these retarded tactics. If we all didn't buy not 1 card (for a month), that would force them to start chopping prices.


That's exactly my point. If I have a product that I could sell for $200 but I know people would still buy it at $500, I would be an idiot to sell it at $200. Now let's say someone else sold the same thing for cheaper. I would tell them, hey, you can make alot more money if you sell for $450. That's basically what they did. I understand it's "illegal" but that doesn't mean that it's wrong.
July 16, 2008 5:18:42 PM

The reason it is illegal is because basically you have (2) companies that manufacture over 90% of cards in a particular market. Now if they are cooperating like this, it is essentially like having (1) companies pricing for (2) sets of cards. This would be considered a monopoly and anti-competitive. That's why its illegal.

And yes, its a damn shame some law firm is going to get 20 million out of this and the consumer will get a check for 10 bucks. I agree, that should be at least regulated somehow.
July 16, 2008 5:23:17 PM

frostys said:
aren't they owned by nvidia now anyway?

Exactly. That would be like ATI sueing AMD. It just does not make any sense.
July 16, 2008 5:25:19 PM

Craxbax said:
That is clearly apparent... are you a product of the US public school system? LOL


LOL OMG ROFLCOPTER! Are you one of the tools that got suckered into actually paying $600 for a video card? LOL! :pfff: 
July 16, 2008 5:36:08 PM

jeb1517 said:
LOL OMG ROFLCOPTER! Are you one of the tools that got suckered into actually paying $600 for a video card? LOL! :pfff: 


jeb that's not the point he was trying to make, price fixing is always wrong, Companies are not allowed to go behind the consumers back in secret meetings and fix prices before market conditions have had their say...
July 16, 2008 5:36:14 PM

The only way you're gonna keep companies from doing something illegal is to attach a hefty percentage-based fine. It's pretty sad when doing the illegal thing makes you more money than you have to pay when you get caught.

Same story with pollution, it costs more to dispose of waste properly than it does to just dump it in a river and take a $10,000 fine every now and then. Turn each fine into 5% of their revenue and they'll think twice.
July 16, 2008 5:37:35 PM

Now that's a good idea, now whose gonna send there team of lobbyists to get this bill passed>/??
July 16, 2008 5:38:50 PM

deuce271 said:
The reason it is illegal is because basically you have (2) companies that manufacture over 90% of cards in a particular market. Now if they are cooperating like this, it is essentially like having (1) companies pricing for (2) sets of cards. This would be considered a monopoly and anti-competitive. That's why its illegal.

And yes, its a damn shame some law firm is going to get 20 million out of this and the consumer will get a check for 10 bucks. I agree, that should be at least regulated somehow.


That explains why it's illegal but I still don't think it's wrong. Monopolies are bad from a consumer's stand point. If you look at it objectively, if a company worked hard to gain total control of a certain market, they should be able to charge what they want until faced with competition. Now, if they somehow prevented competition from entering then I would agree that it's wrong. But the market is open for competition. Hopefully Intel will be in the market soon but currently they're not so let nVidia and ATI make the money they deserve.

Also, yea it sucks that lawyers get much of the money, but that's a one time thing. The main way that consumers would benefit would be reduced pricing on future products.
July 16, 2008 5:40:14 PM

For the littany of posts claiming that with prices dropping its proof they they are not colluding together to fix prices, you don't understand price fixing. Just because the prices are dropping doesn't mean they aren't working together. If the consumer is paying X becuase they got together and agreed to fix the price there, it is still price fixing. Price fixing doesn't mean always increasing prices, it means THE PRICE IS FIXED, hence the name. Whether I was paying $10 more last year and now its $5 less, I'm still paying at a fixed price that wouldn't be there if they weren't acting in concert. If they were savy, they would raise and lower the price points, collude on supply and demand and chose random times to make one look better than the other to try to hide their actions and it appears that it worked for a time.

Thanks to Nvidia and AMDTI for making sure we as your consumers pay for your greed...there really is nothing more stupid than pissing off computer savvy people, don't you realize they blog? :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 16, 2008 6:13:14 PM

1842599,11,308810 said:

However, I am not sure if AMD and Nvidia are guilty of this. Afterall, prices have been steadily decreasing over the years. The symptom of price fixing is increased prices.

The biggest issue is during this era in question both said they would be relaxing their pace of refreshes (targeting a return to an 18 month refresh cycle), this was to improve their margins and extned the value of their R&D investments. This makes sense, but it's something you obviously want to make sure the competition is doing to. And that's where this gets dicey.

Quote:
I wonder who the 51 plaintiffs are.....


From what I read on it, they are a mixed group of OEMs/ODMs like Dell, HP, etc as well as Microsoft (due to the Xbox? not sure why they're there)

As for intel Matrox, S3 and SIS, they wouldn't have much to complain about, because these actions by ATi and nV would've benefited them more than hurt them, making it easier for the others to catch up and re-enter the market while the big two slowed their pace. That this didn't happen show that the pace was still fast, and that the previous all out war virtually destroyed the other participants.

As much as I might be 'entitled' to something under a class-action suit due to my purchases, I've been more than happy with the value I've received from both ATi and nV (except maybe a little dissapointed in the FXGO5200 although I knew somewhat what I was getting), so I wouldn't participate in any cash grab should one be offered.

I think proving damage to the market will be the tough point. Proving they discussed collusion is one thing, seeing that this actually was implemeted and that there was significant injury to the marketplace/consumer will be difficult especially considering the current situation. It's easy to argue that this may have delayed the move from the R300 architecture prolonging it with the X800 instead of a 'true R400' or prolonging the NV40's design life pushing out the NV48 and calling it a G70. However if you look at performance in the market they found themselves, both of those lines were very strong and capable during their lifetimes, so it would be tough to argue that there was significant damage to consumers. Prices may be a little higher than they woud've been compared tothe blood bath we have now, but comparing performance per $ compared to previous generations when there were more healthy participants like Matrox, SIS, VIA, S3, 3Dlabs, XGI, etc would be tough.
[/quote]
July 16, 2008 7:16:38 PM

jrnyfan said:
For the littany of posts claiming that with prices dropping its proof they they are not colluding together to fix prices, you don't understand price fixing. Just because the prices are dropping doesn't mean they aren't working together. If the consumer is paying X becuase they got together and agreed to fix the price there, it is still price fixing. Price fixing doesn't mean always increasing prices, it means THE PRICE IS FIXED, hence the name. Whether I was paying $10 more last year and now its $5 less, I'm still paying at a fixed price that wouldn't be there if they weren't acting in concert. If they were savy, they would raise and lower the price points, collude on supply and demand and chose random times to make one look better than the other to try to hide their actions and it appears that it worked for a time.

Thanks to Nvidia and AMDTI for making sure we as your consumers pay for your greed...there really is nothing more stupid than pissing off computer savvy people, don't you realize they blog? :lol: 



That's exactly it though. The market is supposed to decide the price. When both companies decide on how they're going to release/price their items before they hit the market, the consumer already loses. The companies agree not to compete over prices and instead, fix their prices much higher than the market would've dictated. Its wrong because it creates a monopoly. It takes advantage of the consumer becuase there is nothing else available and the competition isn't driving the companies to develop something better or try to undercut each other. Margins go way up here, and the consumer loses.

Its very wrong.
July 17, 2008 6:37:30 AM


IF ALL THIS IS TRUE

AMD minus $120 Million (from this lawsuit) = 10% of the employees must be laid off to "make ends meet".

10% layoffs To make ends meat > Going Bankrupt

AMD will be in a deeper financial hole because they are trying to recover from the lawsuite + having to lower prices of Graphics Cards + not having enough staff to complete projects on time + having to pay overtime for the current reaming staff + Hector Ruiz making another $1 million for doing nothing + being embarrassed by releasing late, weak products when compared to it's partner/competition = INTEL laughing it's anus off.

===================================================

The Nvidia equation is less complected

Nvidia minus $120 Million (from there half of the lawsuit) = raise the next generation of GPU's prices by 10%

10% rise in GPU costs - remaking the 8800 GTX on a die shrink and calling it 300 GT (or whatever) = a $300 million profit in six months.

And don't forget they will also be laughing at AMD. Maybe there doing this on purpose so that they'll buy out AMD/ATI when they fall. We all know Jen-Hsun Huang has a reputation of being very cocky.
July 17, 2008 7:35:31 AM

cjl said:
In addition, by transistor count, current 45nm Cores are at 410 million for a dual, 820 million for a quad. The RV770 is at 956 million right now, with GT200 at 1.4 billion. This is hardly the transistor differential you seem to want to imply, and when Nehalem arrives, with 731 million transistors on one die, it'll be fairly close to the HD4 series.

And right now, Intel's quad-cores can't count unless you'd care to compare them to 1.912 billion for R700, since both use two dies; remember that it's individual die size that affects cost and yields. And around the time Nehalem actually gets out the door, we should be seeing RV870 not too long afterward; some things have hinted at a Q1 2009 for it. So yeah, GPUs tend to maintain a degree more complexity... And remember that both AMD and nVidia are accomplishing this WITHOUT the benefit of a 45nm process, so their chips are MUCH larger, and hence costlier to produce, than Intel's tiny little cores.

jeb1517 said:
If you look at it objectively, if a company worked hard to gain total control of a certain market, they should be able to charge what they want until faced with competition.

That's where you suddenly cease to be following a capitalist line of thought, and go squarely into mercantilism... Because simply put, if they are allowed to do what they wish, they will NEVER face competition, because they will have the weight of the entire market and industry to throw around to squash any potential competitors long before they could ever have a chance to become a threat.

No, under any FREE or DEMOCRATIC philophy, such underhanded dealings are not just illegal, they are morally wrong because they wind up seriously hurting the consumer, as well as the economy, all to benefit a single corporation's bottom line. While mercantilism says that having the market and the people at the mercy of megacorps is a good thing, this is actually WRONG under capitalism, as it's supposed to be the other way around: when companies are forced to compete and are held at the mercy of the marketplace, the people benefit, and the economy itself is made strong. The same logic that thinks that cartels are good could be applied to say that if a corporation managed to get a country's government overthrown and replaced by a puppet dictator, they deserve to be able to plunder the country's resources for their own benefit as allowed by that puppet.

No, corporations NEVER actually "deserve" massive profits for long periods of time, because as it happens, they actually AREN'T in the business putting out products simply out of the good in their own hearts. :sarcastic: 
July 17, 2008 11:27:46 AM

deuce271 said:
That's exactly it though. The market is supposed to decide the price. When both companies decide on how they're going to release/price their items before they hit the market, the consumer already loses. The companies agree not to compete over prices and instead, fix their prices much higher than the market would've dictated. Its wrong because it creates a monopoly. It takes advantage of the consumer becuase there is nothing else available and the competition isn't driving the companies to develop something better or try to undercut each other. Margins go way up here, and the consumer loses.

Its very wrong.



You are delusional. All brands do this now. HP, ACER, DELL, CANON,....ad infinitum.

You by any change know what a bill of materials is ?
Or R&D budget that must payed in each chip sold ?
Marketing budgets ?
Making a fab ? You have any clue what a fab costs ?
Shipping costs ?

We IT people, we like to eat, and have some money as well !!
Maybe have money to buy a car or so. I know that's hard to conceive.

They create a monopoly ? Of what ? They aren't all selling the SAME product !! The sell different products !!
So in your wonderful POV, Apple is gonna go bankrupt from lawsuits. Hey they have a monopoly on the Iphone !!! On everything Apple !!

About prices, i see them coming down. And i see better products. I don't see AMD presenting quarterly profits. I see Nvidia doing well, but mainly because of the G80&G92 chips.

a b U Graphics card
July 17, 2008 12:26:05 PM

I think Ape brought up the best point. If they got together and decided to cool it for awhile, and sit on their profits for a steadier business model and R&D, after all the wars that saw one company after another go down, maybe this was a good thing. BUT, it could also be very easily construed as collusion into market fixing/control. The thing is, Matrox S3 they sruvived too. And this cooling off period was good for them as well. This judge sounds fairly agressive, and I only hope he considers the ramifications of any or all his actions, if there is any brought forth
July 17, 2008 12:49:50 PM

jrnyfan said:
For the littany of posts claiming that with prices dropping its proof they they are not colluding together to fix prices, you don't understand price fixing. Just because the prices are dropping doesn't mean they aren't working together. If the consumer is paying X becuase they got together and agreed to fix the price there, it is still price fixing. Price fixing doesn't mean always increasing prices, it means THE PRICE IS FIXED, hence the name. Whether I was paying $10 more last year and now its $5 less, I'm still paying at a fixed price that wouldn't be there if they weren't acting in concert. If they were savy, they would raise and lower the price points, collude on supply and demand and chose random times to make one look better than the other to try to hide their actions and it appears that it worked for a time.

Thanks to Nvidia and AMDTI for making sure we as your consumers pay for your greed...there really is nothing more stupid than pissing off computer savvy people, don't you realize they blog? :lol: 


My question is if Nvidia and ATI (or any two companies for that matter) are going to fix prices, then why are they also going to have a price war? The whole point of fixing prices is to give your company a yield guarantee for their product. Now it has also been suggested that the price war is part of the scam to make it look like there is no foul play. If there was an agreement between ATI and Nvidia that involved staging a price war, then didn't they just invalidate their agreement to price fix?

Every single person on these forums agreed that there was a war going on between ATI and Nvidia. Were we all completely blind? The fact that the plaintiffs are OEMs and not consumers suggests that this is a bid by the OEMs to increase their profit margins. After all, the time period disputed as being price fixed is the past five years, well I think everyone here will acknowledge that the value of what you can get now is way superior to the value of what you could get five years ago was (as TheGreatGrapeApe pointed out). If the value (price/performance) of a company's product is getting better and better over time, how can they be price fixing? From the consumer's point of view, I could not be happier with the graphics card industry today.

Perhaps we should keep an eye on the OEMs to see if the real foul play is there.
July 17, 2008 12:59:02 PM

Yeah... AMD fixed the prices so low that they've been losing money hand over fist for the past X years...



What IDIOT brought this to court?


Just one cursory glance at the AMD bottom line, and the ATI contribution to the profit/loss account would show this for what it is - bollocks.
July 17, 2008 1:03:30 PM

njalterio said:

Perhaps we should keep an eye on the OEMs to see if the real foul play is there.


I hope they start digging. They can first head HP. Its easy to find. Easy to see. Just need to start from the bottom.
Then they can head Acer. It is even easier to see.
Or they can start by Intel, and then catch the tread into the big distribution. I would really hope they would do that. Really.

About the other blokes? Well, they just sell an inflated product. Nothing illegal there, just milking fools. Like a wise man said once:

A fool and his money will soon be apart.
July 17, 2008 1:41:54 PM

Apple should go bankrupt. Actually, that is incorrect, they should be rewarded for their genius by continually ripping off consumers by just making things a bit more shiney, taking away half the features and selling it at twice the price.
July 17, 2008 2:17:10 PM

The_Abyss said:
Apple should go bankrupt. Actually, that is incorrect, they should be rewarded for their genius by continually ripping off consumers by just making things a bit more shiney, taking away half the features and selling it at twice the price.


You sir win one internet.

As for this AMD/Nvidia price fixing dealie, I'm not sure what to think. I guess it makes sense if you think about it. Price wars, while good for the consumer, would logically hurt the companies due to lower profits (or none at all) and I suppose by the two collaborating as they did, they more or less called a truce so that they don't wind up killing one another and having the victor collect the spoils only for the government to step in and rip them away. Then again, you have to wonder, was the price fixing always to keep prices up for them or low for us? Because if it's the latter, then I see no problem with it. lol.

I suppose also they could've just been fixing their prices competitively such that their products more or less fall into the right price range, thus making consumers buy a little of both of them and keeping them both in business rather than have one completely dominate the other. It would explain price cuts very well, but then again so does the shear fact that the companies get wind of the other's products and go 'Oh shi-! Drop the prices, that thing is a beast!' I guess it's really all a matter of what their intentions were.
July 17, 2008 2:22:29 PM

I wonder how the shareholders feel about this.

Given that price fixing is basically playing with their investments in an inadvertant way; i'd expect a massive drop in the value of both companies if this lawsuit does succeed.

I'll leave that to the courts though, I don't think anyone has as much information as they do right now about the subject.
July 17, 2008 2:58:19 PM

The_Abyss said:
Apple should go bankrupt. Actually, that is incorrect, they should be rewarded for their genius by continually ripping off consumers by just making things a bit more shiney, taking away half the features and selling it at twice the price.



AMEN
July 17, 2008 3:17:08 PM

i don't understand the apple argument. If the laptop i am using right now had an led backlight screen with a higher resolution, was encased in aluminum, and had a specially designed cpu, i would expect to pay more.
I also agree with the aurgument about the complexity of GPU's in comparison to CPU's with Gpu's being the better deal.
July 17, 2008 3:25:11 PM

yea... well think of it this way; psystar is selling apple clones for 1/3 the price, 2x the performance, with Apple's OS - in a slightly less glossy package.

Because Psystar was trying to give consumers a deal instead of ripping them off like Apple; Apple decided to sue them under an EULA loophole. :X
July 17, 2008 3:26:19 PM

customisbetter said:
i don't understand the apple argument. If the laptop i am using right now had an led backlight screen with a higher resolution, was encased in aluminum, and had a specially designed cpu, i would expect to pay more.
I also agree with the aurgument about the complexity of GPU's in comparison to CPU's with Gpu's being the better deal.


That's just it, most Macs AREN'T special like that. Far as I know, only the Air has a component that is Mac-specific. Every other product in their lineup can be made using parts bought from e-tailers or bought from another vendor, with the exception of their cases. Heck, even their all-in-one things aren't unique anymore because Dell does that too.
July 17, 2008 4:20:01 PM

customisbetter said:
i don't understand the apple argument. If the laptop i am using right now had an led backlight screen with a higher resolution, was encased in aluminum, and had a specially designed cpu, i would expect to pay more.
I also agree with the aurgument about the complexity of GPU's in comparison to CPU's with Gpu's being the better deal.


Sorry to break your wind mate. Comserve and Mitac comes to mind. Now every brand sells hardware made in the same places.
High resolution screen ? Check the other brands.
Encased in aluminum ? I know several models like that, but it is a matter of taste. I don't like it, gets too much fingerprints.
Specially designed cpu ? Sorry to break your wind mate. It is a Intel. You know the x86 platform ?
Is it lighter ? A bit, i agree. I am a 120 Kg Ex-Handball player. I think i can take a 200g difference in a laptop.

I like all that. But i hate the freaking price on the mac.
The only thing Unique might be OSX. But hey, you can install it in almost any laptop. With a Intel CPU ofc.

Peace !!
July 17, 2008 9:23:21 PM

OK randor, [insert disclaimer saying im not an apple fanboy]
All of the stuff you said above is true, except that its very hard to find all of those features in one package. Plus you're *almost* guarenteed that it will work all the time. My bud and i just bought laptops for school. he paid 2700 for a shiny new MBP and i spent 850 on a barebook. they are about the same speed and weight, but the Mac gets all of the little things right. The magnetic latch, the led screen, battery life is awesome, pretty decent speakers, and a sweet keyboard. my batt life is about an hour, cheap screen, small spongy keyboard and its hot as crap. Its the same concept of an old hot rod vs a porsche. you can make the rod as fast as the porsche for cheap, but its still not a porsche.
sorry to jack this thread btw.
a b U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
July 17, 2008 10:15:05 PM

You can't compare an $850 laptop to a $2700, try the $1,500-2,000 ones that's the ones that have similar features. Yours at best should've been compared to an iBook, and then tell me the keyboard is 'sweet'. :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
July 17, 2008 10:24:59 PM

customisbetter said:
OK randor, [insert disclaimer saying im not an apple fanboy]
All of the stuff you said above is true, except that its very hard to find all of those features in one package. Plus you're *almost* guarenteed that it will work all the time. My bud and i just bought laptops for school. he paid 2700 for a shiny new MBP and i spent 850 on a barebook. they are about the same speed and weight, but the Mac gets all of the little things right. The magnetic latch, the led screen, battery life is awesome, pretty decent speakers, and a sweet keyboard. my batt life is about an hour, cheap screen, small spongy keyboard and its hot as crap. Its the same concept of an old hot rod vs a porsche. you can make the rod as fast as the porsche for cheap, but its still not a porsche.
sorry to jack this thread btw.

OK. Now grab a Dell XPS M1530, with LED screen.

Longer batt life than the Mac, faster, more features, and well put together. Still cheaper too. As TGGA said, don't compare a cheap laptop to a mac that is 3.5x the price.
a b U Graphics card
July 17, 2008 10:45:13 PM

Mac=Bose. Both nice products, but both terribly ovepriced
!