Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel "gives permission" for firms to buy AMD chip

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 15, 2005 1:40:45 AM

Intel "gives permission" for firms to buy AMD chips

Oh yeah


By Jock McFrock the bekilted Engineer: jeudi 14 juillet 2005, 11:53

AN INTERESTING snippet from the always entertaining Digitimes flies by the INQ office.
The wire claims that Intel has told its OEMs they "are now allowed" to buy AMD microprocessors.

Is this true? First it would imply that Intel told its OEMs they weren't allowed to buy AMD microprocessors in the first place, so making the whole antitrust legal cafuffle in the US redundant. And demonstrating a certain gutlessness on behalf of the OEMs.

Secondly, does "being allowed" to buy AMD CPUs mean OEMs are "allowed" to give Intel all of its cooperative marketing funds back?

Shorely shome mishtake. µ



http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24618

If true, take that Intel scum!
July 15, 2005 5:57:23 AM

Intel is going to get raped in court.

<font color=red>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein</font color=red>
July 15, 2005 3:55:42 PM

Well, if this is indeed true, then this should be all any court needs to find Intel guilty.

Seems a little too good to be true, though.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
Related resources
July 15, 2005 5:35:10 PM

you're an idiot
July 15, 2005 8:07:12 PM

i dont know why they are going to the trouble they are gonna buy the judge anyway when the time comes.

The know-most-of-it-all formally known as BOBSHACK
July 16, 2005 2:11:09 AM

Yes we all know anti trust judges which is a panel of judges gets bought out all the time.

-Jeremy Dach
July 16, 2005 3:35:45 AM

:lol: 

<font color=red>"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
- Albert Einstein</font color=red>
July 16, 2005 3:52:23 AM

There is more than one way to buy judges. I expect Homeland Security will tell them we need Intel strong to keep the country strong, while the military tells them we need the best for our boys overseas. A special little note from the Bush-man may be needed as well.
July 16, 2005 4:04:21 AM

Oh Christ give it up you guys are your conspiracy theories if there was wrong doing justice will be served.

Remember the US took WorldCom down they won’t stray from measly Intel.

-Jeremy Dach
a b à CPUs
July 16, 2005 4:07:08 AM

lol....... not in america the government want to control all whil remain a "democratic" soscity and they do this by maniupitating(spelling) big companies and that i think they will probaibly go with intel cuz how big they are... i mean teh computer market is very important to the economy of a such advanced country where computer has become the daily routain of most people
July 16, 2005 4:31:26 AM

Quote:
Oh Christ give it up you guys are your conspiracy theories if there was wrong doing justice will be served.

That is the most intelligent thing you have ever said, by a long shot.

While it's possible something like judge corruption could happen, I personally see that stuff reserved for banana republics and what not. AMD can expect to get a fair trial in the u.s. and I expect they will.

What bugs me most,,, is criminal or egregious companies like Toshiba refusing to say they will cooperate. That is the biggest risk to AMD in this trial. Like AMD said sometimes silence says a lot.

Time will tell, will be interesting to watch this unfold.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
July 16, 2005 6:27:00 AM

Reminds me of an old song. " We all want justice, but you've got to have the money to buy it. You'd have to be some kind of fool to close your eyes and deny it"
But of course, in the states, justice is always done, just ask Michael J or OJ
July 18, 2005 1:14:29 PM

Your comparison is grossly misleading but hey Europeans see only what they want to see. As well WorldCom was significantly larger than Intel and more important to boot, yet look at them.

-Jeremy Dach
July 18, 2005 3:10:40 PM

>Remember the US took WorldCom down they won’t stray from
>measly Intel.

Ahem.. No. When the bubble finally burst, it simply went bankrupt, no help was needed from anyone: you can only play accounting tricks for so long. Pretty much the same happened with Enron BTW.

But I dont see any parallel with Intels antitrust case; I sort of doubt intel is playing comparable accounting tricks and/or is really heading towards bankrupcy. If your point is that "justice will be served", then keep in mind Worldcom/Enrons CxO's are only being trialed long after their companies went bankrupt and a gazillion people, among whom quite a few very influential ones, lost a fortune in the process.

Again I fail to see how this would have to reassure us that Intel will be trailed fairly (which doesn't mean I dont expect it, I just dont see the link). Quite on the contrary, a devils advocate could argue that a lot of influential people are directly or indirectly seriously vested into Intel, and would have nothing to gain from a conviction. Of course, if Paul Otellini one day runs off with a cargoship full of money hidden in a fradulent bookkeeping and intel goes bankrupt, those same people will make sure he is lynched alive. But as long as Otellintel makes them richer, why would they want his head on a platter ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
July 19, 2005 1:21:55 AM

Blah blah and more blah your argument holds no merit either just hearsay and babble talk. You believe the US won't follow through so be it I won’t sit here and cater to your whimsical thoughts that the US is corrupt and Intel will get off Scott free.

They have been tried before for anti trust activities and have lost. I will take this whole situation at face value if Intel has done something illegal they will be charged accordingly otherwise you are speaking to the AMD quire on this one and frankly they want to see Intel fall simply because rooting for the underdog is fun.

-Jeremy Dach
July 19, 2005 2:28:42 PM

ROFLMAO!

<b><font color=blue>If you try to please everybody, nobody will like you<font color=blue></b>
July 19, 2005 4:46:20 PM

LOLOLOLOOLLOLOOLOLO hahahahahahahahahahhahaaahahah ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL
July 19, 2005 8:15:09 PM

You know, I still don't understand the underdog mentality. I'm just speculating, but it's probably what's also behind a lot of anti-US feelings ("we hate you for no other reason than you're the best").

So AMD fanboys (you know who you are), maybe you can help shed light on the subject. Is it envy of power? Is that really all it is? The more insignificant you look compared to a country or company, the more threatened your ego becomes and you have to lash out to seem important? If every corporation is small, do you, comparatively, look larger?

Now don't get me wrong, there are reasons to think AMD is a good company (and also to think that Intel is a good company). But the blind drive behind "AMD is the best, always has been the best and will kill Intel"? Does AMD taking over actually provide a benefit to you personally? Interestingly, the biggest argument behind AMD support ("Without AMD, Intel would charge way too much and never make anything better than a pentium 60") is kind of dumb when considering the drive to make AMD a much more powerful company than they are now. As the "underdog" they have to push harder than intel because they don't have the well-known brand name or the customers that Intel has. You people are fascinating. Slightly out of touch with reality, but still interesting.

I'm just your average habitual smiler =D
July 19, 2005 9:48:03 PM

Not everybody likes AMD because they're the underdog. I'm interested in bang per buck, and AMD gives me that. I like gaming, and AMD owns gaming. I also like the fact that I don't need to buy a new motherboard everytime I upgrade. I wouldn't buy Apple. Not because they're not good it's just that apple is just too expensive. Ipods are cool but I don't need to buy a brand, I need to listen to mp3s without breaking the bank.
Intel has the big market share but the people that are informed buyers go with AMD, because at least right now is the best option.

<b><font color=blue>If you try to please everybody, nobody will like you<font color=blue></b>
July 20, 2005 12:30:02 AM

Since Amd is a multi-billion$ company, the underdog tag doesn't fit too well.
Most commonly, an underdog support complex is like trying to help a bird with a broken wing. It's a sympathy thing, and also an empathy thing.
There are some Amd fanboys who just want "to scratch the porshe", but most are there because they have had good return on investment.
Now, return the favor. Why the blazes would anybody hold onto Intel fanboyism, when they are not giving good return on investment?
July 20, 2005 6:20:42 AM

Quote:
You know, I still don't understand the underdog mentality. I'm just speculating, but it's probably what's also behind a lot of anti-US feelings ("we hate you for no other reason than you're the best").

So AMD fanboys (you know who you are), maybe you can help shed light on the subject. Is it envy of power? Is that really all it is? The more insignificant you look compared to a country or company, the more threatened your ego becomes and you have to lash out to seem important? If every corporation is small, do you, comparatively, look larger?

Now don't get me wrong, there are reasons to think AMD is a good company (and also to think that Intel is a good company). But the blind drive behind "AMD is the best, always has been the best and will kill Intel"? Does AMD taking over actually provide a benefit to you personally? Interestingly, the biggest argument behind AMD support ("Without AMD, Intel would charge way too much and never make anything better than a pentium 60") is kind of dumb when considering the drive to make AMD a much more powerful company than they are now. As the "underdog" they have to push harder than intel because they don't have the well-known brand name or the customers that Intel has. You people are fascinating. Slightly out of touch with reality, but still interesting.

I'm just your average habitual smiler =D


Sabertooth pwns j00(not really)

sorry i just had to bite that I was laughing so had when i saw that.
July 20, 2005 7:28:07 AM

>I'm just speculating, but it's probably what's also behind a
>lot of anti-US feelings ("we hate you for no other reason
>than you're the best")

Maybe you are also hated because of such arrogance and assumptions you would be "better" (in what ?) ? Even the assumption that any hate against your country would be fueled by envy rather than a genuine dispise of your politics/culture/attitude is rather arrogant...

>So AMD fanboys (you know who you are), maybe you can help
>shed light on the subject

I consider myself only a mudjahedeen of veracity and reason, but I'll and help nevertheless.

>The more insignificant you look compared to a country or
>company, the more threatened your ego becomes and you have
>to lash out to seem important? If every corporation is
>small, do you, comparatively, look larger?

That is no less silly than claiming somone rooting for the "big guy" does so to be able to indentify themselves with a succesfull corporation/country/socker team to boost their own ego and compensate their own inferiority complex.

In general however, rooting for the underdog IMHO often is driven by a desire for change and even improvement. For instance, I have great respect and admiration for Lance Armstrong, but I am most certainly not rooting for him to win his seventh (?) tour de france. It gets predictable and boring, so I rooted for anyone that could challenge him. Similary, I am quite happy to see Michael Schumacher not dominating this F1 season, even though I have little doubt he is by far the best pilot out there. I just dont want another boring 2004 season where he wins almost each and every race driving ahead from start to finish.

The Intel/AMD competition is something slightly else though.

>Interestingly, the biggest argument behind AMD support
>("Without AMD, Intel would charge way too much and never
>make anything better than a pentium 60") is kind of dumb
>when considering the drive to make AMD a much more powerful
> company than they are now. As the "underdog" they have to
>push harder than intel because they don't have the
>well-known brand name or the customers that Intel ha

That is utter nonsense, and you seem to completely ignore economical reality and the philosophy of free market here. In the current situation, where intel has a major grip on supply (therefore price), it can (and does) revert to umbrella pricing, look up monopoly pricing or oligopoly in wikepedia if you are unfamiliar with macro economics. The result is higher prices, imperfect competition, slower technological development, and in general, reduced wealth for society. If you doubt that, check out Intels margins and profits, which would be utterly unsustainable in a perfect competition.

Having a stronger AMD (VIA, Transmeta,..) that can compete fairly and evenly with intel would simply increase our wealth, reduce prices, increase innovation. If you dont believe that, consider the Pentium M was born as a direct response to Transmeta's perceived threat.

Further more, if you (like me) desire better products at better prices, one does not want AMD (or VIA,.. even intel one day) to remain as small and financially weak as they are today. For instance, given the distorted market and therefore AMDs financials, AMD can not afford to develop more than one CPU line, it can not invest in long term forward looking technologies, it can not take any risks whatsoever, again stiffeling innovation. If you want the best products at the best prices, you want several (but definately more than one) large companies competing as evenly as possible. Thinking the current situation somehow benefits customers rather than intel shareholders is a brainfart.


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
!