Intel gets biggest fine in history, WHY AMD!!

[FiggyG]

Originally Posted by moshpit

That would be why though. The customer who shops for a computer at Walmart versus the average customer that shops at Best Buy or other electronics related store. The reason is though, that a customer shopping at Walmart for a computer really is totally without any form of knowledge of even where they should be shopping, let alone what they're shopping for

I hear plenty of horror stories from Best Buy as well. I think that Sams Club being a store for small business has something to do with it. So, we have 2 fronts, average consumer vs small business. I think Best Buy falls in with average consumer honestly.

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by FiggyG

I hear plenty of horror stories from Best Buy as well. I think that Sams Club being a store for small business has something to do with it. So, we have 2 fronts, average consumer vs small business. I think Best Buy falls in with average consumer honestly.

Yes and no. Best Buy is at least a store that specializes in electronics compared to Walmart which is more like a successful K-Mart then anything else. You go into Best Buy and ask a clerk for the isle with hard drives, and there REALLY is an isle with hard drives on it!

[FiggyG]

Fair enough Regardless, I believe that keeping AMD's success with OEMs artificially limited hurt them more than anything. I was just demonstrating how average customers have a different brand recognitions (HP, Dell, etc). Apparently it differs between demographics, with enthusiasts like us being niche. We all agree that OEMs are where AMD needs to succeed. I don't believe AMD will run into brand recognition issues with the average consumer.

[caveman-jim]

Originally Posted by moshpit

You go into Best Buy and ask a clerk for the isle with hard drives, and there REALLY is an isle with hard drives on it!

I want to go to this mythical place where intelligence is allowed.

None of the BB's around here have anywhere near this level of competence.

[Canabian]

Its funny to me people are still arguing about whats best.
We generally compare things based on clock speed. Well i think we should change that a bit and compare based on price.
An Intel chip (where I live I just looked at the local store) costs aprox 85% more then an AMD chip at similar or same clock speeds. How is this making it better?
To me, some people just have more money then brains.
Does the intel perform better at the same clock speed? sure it does, is it 85% better ummm they could only wish.
They are both doing the exact same job, just one costs a fortune to do it, and the other doesn't, but it still does the job, MAYBE 15% slower.
So to me, AMD is the better chip because it is a reasonable price.
Intel is just overpriced to do the same job.

When I start considering they're business practices, being an adult with children and someone who questions the worlds future ALOT, only someone with no honor, dignity, or respect for man and the world would buy intel.

I live my life thinking about my kids, they are a part of every decision. I can't with a good conscience buy intel and nobody with any moral dignity could. But then lots don't think like I do. Lots don't consider the future, lots don't have kids to care about and place first in every aspect of they're lives, lots that are parents don't do that anyway. So I can only make my decisions based on MY beliefs. I wish everyone thought like I do and put each other first, but they don't. So I'll keep buying AMD for the SUPERIOR PRODUCT at a reasonable price and you fanboys can keep using intel for they're "SUPERIOR PRODUCT at an outlandish price...and were both happy in the end :P


EDIT: I just wanted to elaborate a little in regards to coding software to specific companies. Personally think this should be illegal. The customer should be able to buy ANY product and have it work just as good regardless. By working out contracts together so a game or whatever works better on any given product is simply unfair to the consumer and is an attempt to remove choice and therefore is monopolization and at least in the country I live in, is illegal.

[DorXtar]

I was right gays!! You should have shorted INTC when you had the chance!

[Spyhawk]

Originally Posted by Canabian

Its funny to me people are still arguing about whats best.
We generally compare things based on clock speed. Well i think we should change that a bit and compare based on price.
An Intel chip (where I live I just looked at the local store) costs aprox 85% more then an AMD chip at similar or same clock speeds. How is this making it better?
To me, some people just have more money then brains.
Does the intel perform better at the same clock speed? sure it does, is it 85% better ummm they could only wish.
They are both doing the exact same job, just one costs a fortune to do it, and the other doesn't, but it still does the job, MAYBE 15% slower.
So to me, AMD is the better chip because it is a reasonable price.
Intel is just overpriced to do the same job.

When I start considering they're business practices, being an adult with children and someone who questions the worlds future ALOT, only someone with no honor, dignity, or respect for man and the world would buy intel.

I live my life thinking about my kids, they are a part of every decision. I can't with a good conscience buy intel and nobody with any moral dignity could. But then lots don't think like I do. Lots don't consider the future, lots don't have kids to care about and place first in every aspect of they're lives, lots that are parents don't do that anyway. So I can only make my decisions based on MY beliefs. I wish everyone thought like I do and put each other first, but they don't. So I'll keep buying AMD for the SUPERIOR PRODUCT at a reasonable price and you fanboys can keep using intel for they're "SUPERIOR PRODUCT at an outlandish price...and were both happy in the end :P


EDIT: I just wanted to elaborate a little in regards to coding software to specific companies. Personally think this should be illegal. The customer should be able to buy ANY product and have it work just as good regardless. By working out contracts together so a game or whatever works better on any given product is simply unfair to the consumer and is an attempt to remove choice and therefore is monopolization and at least in the country I live in, is illegal.

You post many good points and I agree with many of them, but you loose alot of credibility by insulting those that have a different oppinion. See bolded part of your text.

[Canabian]

I don't lose anything, thats my opinion. and I stated later that it was how "I" thought and had no bearing on others thoughts and ideas.
If your offended, you can only look in the mirror for why.
My words were not a direct shot at anyone in particular, they were my thoughts as a human being based on Intels business practice over years and years and years.
I made it clear lots of people don't pay attention to those things and don't care about them...thats fine. But in my opinion these people are part of our worlds problem.
This is exactly the reasons governments can control us all so easily, we would rather argue about our perspective on someones comments on a forum, then care about what our purchases are creating for all of us, and our children.

[moshpit]

Yeah, well your opinion is like a butt hole. Everybody has one, and they all stink. I think people like YOU who throw judgements around are more of a problem for the world then the ones you complain about. See my sig for details.

[Canabian]

Everyone passes judgements on everyonoe else, thats how the real world works. Would have thought most knew this by now, but I guess I often give credit where its not due, this board makes that very apparent in more then one thread.
The things is its how those judgements affect you personally. If something i say offends you, ask YOURSELF why, not me. What I was saying was very general and not aimed at anyone in particular, hell 1/2 the people buying this crap are kids and have no knowledge of real life to be able to think about the world and what they create with they're decisions. I'm not judging anyone for not knowing any better, my ideas in regards to who people are only applies if you are conscious of what these types of comapnies do and in turn create for us all. If your oblivious then it doesn't apply does it.
And if your offended, its because you know its true!
People get offended about those things they hate the most about themselves
REALITY CHECK!


AHHH you have an i7 and after looking at your profile, your my age. I see why I upset you.
I'm not gonna apologize though, If your oblivious to what your support for that company does, so be it..If you can look in the mirror, isn't that whats important not what some joker on a forum says or thinks?
And if you can't look in the mirror and feel good, then why make decisions that cause you to feel that way?

I also wasn't complaining, I just added my 2 cents on a thread. I never claimed it was worth more then that. lol

[moshpit]

I wasn't upset. I was giving my opinion which stinks as much as yours does

As I said, opinions are like butt holes, every body has one and they all stink. Nothing personal or being rude to you, although I guess a thick skin would be advised

[Canabian]

No worries man, I'm not offended...and I just decided I like you!
I just say things the way i see them. I should always be taken with a grain of salt. In fact I'm gonna put that in a sig.

[Crisler]

Well I get to say I told you so. Over the last few days I have secret shopped a number of Best Buys, Staples and Sam's Clubs. All have Vision laptops in stock. Not a single sales person spoke with at any of the stores had a clue what Vision is. The managers of the stores confirmed that they had been offer no training, or materials from HP or AMD about the Vision platform.

The head of the local Geek Squad told me that they figured it was just another meaningless sticker on the laptop and ignored it.

So much for the market genius that AMD employees.

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by Canabian

No worries man, I'm not offended...and I just decided I like you!
I just say things the way i see them. I should always be taken with a grain of salt. In fact I'm gonna put that in a sig.

Well said

[Skynet]

Originally Posted by Crisler

The head of the local Geek Squad told me that they figured it was just another meaningless sticker on the laptop and ignored it.

Geek Squad? Are you kidding? Those guys couldn't find their butt hole with a GPS and a search light. They also rip people off blind. Never ever ever take your computer to BB for anything.

Back on topic, things are starting to pile up against Intel.

Intel Slapped with Antitrust Lawsuit by NY Attorney General

Cuomo Files Federal Antitrust Suit Against Intel

The Feds are soon going to file charges against Intel. This is huge, Intel has no where to hide anymore, It will be a very good day for consumers when Intel's actions are finally fully out there for the public to see.

[caveman-jim]

Unless they settle.

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by Skynet

Geek Squad? Are you kidding? Those guys couldn't find their butt hole with a GPS and a search light. They also rip people off blind. Never ever ever take your computer to BB for anything.

That in no way invalidates his point. YOU know that, and WE know that, but Joe six pack does not. Joe still buys his PCs from Best Buy, Walmart (ewww), Circuit City (no longer), Kmart, or even the dreaded Sam's. That's where most home PCs are sold.

[Skynet]

Originally Posted by moshpit

That in no way invalidates his point. YOU know that, and WE know that, but Joe six pack does not. Joe still buys his PCs from Best Buy, Walmart (ewww), Circuit City (no longer), Kmart, or even the dreaded Sam's. That's where most home PCs are sold.

And what IS that point exactly. The point that AMD is failing in the market place because of bad marketing? The reason that is so laughable is because Intel has spent literally billions to keep AMD from gaining traction. If AMD was to inept, why would Intel do that? Are you guys essentially saying Intel is beyond stupid and spent billions to exclude AMD when they didn't have to? According to these ridiculous assertions, AMD is so incompetent that they keep themselves from having any decent marketshare. AMD's marketing is not exactly the best, but it is NOT why AMD is suffering so badly. Get a clue!!!!!!!!

So apparently Intel is one of the dumbest corporations alive, spend billions for NO REASON. And if you doubt for one second that Intel did not outright bribe their partners, you are sadly mistaken. Read for yourself.

135. On November 4, 2005 Otellini reported internally in a “Confidential — DO NOT FORWARD” email about “one of the most emotional calls I have ever, ever had with [Michael Dell].” In this email, Otellini wrote:

- [Michael Dell] opened by saying “I am tired of losing business” … he repeated it 3-4 times. I said nothing and waited.
- He has been traveling around the USA. He feels they are losing all the high margin business to AMD-based sku’s …
- He is ‘tired of being behind for 4 years (when I protested that it was 2, he said, no the last 2 years, this year, and next year).
- As a result, “Dell is no longer seen as a thought leader”

136. On Nov. 10, 2005, Michael Dell followed up with an email to Otellini: “We have lost the performance leadership and it’s seriously impacting our business in several areas.” Otellini’s reply: “There is nothing new here. Our product roadmap is what it is. It is improving rapidly daily. It will deliver increasingly leadership products … Additionally, we are transferring over $1B per year to Dell for meet comp efforts. This was judged by your team to be more than sufficient to compensate for the competitive issues.”

137. Michael Dell, however, continued to press home to Intel its performance deficit and its effects on Dell. On November 24, 2005 he capped an email exchange with Otellini by writing: “None of the current benchmarks and reviews say that Intel based systems are better than AMD. We are losing the hearts, minds and wallets of our best customers.”

139. On February 16, 2006, Intel took note of a service report in which Dell’s CEO Kevin Rollins had said that Dell had “made no plans to begin using” AMD chips. “Finally something positive” commented one Intel executive. Otellini commented: “The best friend money can buy.”

***
140. By April 2006, Dell’s relationship with Intel reached a breaking point. As Michael Dell wrote: “Intel – we overestimated both their ability to execute and our true competitive position with them and we underestimated AMD. And we relied too much on rebates from Intel.”

141. Dell was finally ready to act, despite the pressure and incentives from Intel. In an April 29 email to other top Dell executives, Michael Dell wrote: “We have been looking at the situation for a long time, and have decided to introduce a broad range of AMD based systems into our product line to provide the choice our customers are asking for.”

142. The reaction of Craig Barrett, Intel’s Board Chairman, was unequivocal: Dell should immediately be deprived of the payments it had long enjoyed in return for its willingness not to offer AMD products, and should start paying “list prices.” Barrett told Ottelini: “[T]hey have just signaled they are only interested in being a transaction based customer. I think you
should reply in kind. Not a time for weakness on our part. Stop writing checks immediately and put them back on list prices asap.” (Emphasis added).

143. The direction Otellini gave his subordinates the next day was consistent with Barrett’s advice. Intel should make clear to Dell that if Dell offered any AMD products all of the “mcp” payments Dell received from Intel would be at risk – just as Dell had always feared: “[W]e should be [pre]pared to remove all mcp and related programs. Post haste… then we ought to enter negotiations.”

_________________

181. In a September 2004 reply email, a senior HP executive emphatically vetoed the plan, because without the “Intel moneys … we do not make it financially”: “You can NOT use the commercial AMD line in the channel in any country, it must be done direct. If you do and we get caught (and we will) the Intel moneys (each month) is gone (they would terminate the deal). The risk is too high. Without the money we do not make it financially.”

Source

BTW, if you think Intel's marking is so **** hot, ask people what Centrino is.

[moshpit]

I think you miss the point, yet again. AMD couldn't have done any better, WITH OR WITHOUT Intel. AMD sold every damn chip they could make and they often couldn't keep up with market demand! THAT is their own fault, NOTHING to do with Intel. They claim Intel keeps them down, but when they're on the up they can't KEEP up!

Marketing is only ONE of AMD's sore spots. The other is actually making enough chips to satisfy demand when it's up. They've historically failed at that miserably.

[Skynet]

Originally Posted by moshpit

I think you miss the point, yet again. AMD couldn't have done any better, WITH OR WITHOUT Intel. AMD sold every damn chip they could make and they often couldn't keep up with market demand! THAT is their own fault, NOTHING to do with Intel. They claim Intel keeps them down, but when they're on the up they can't KEEP up!

Marketing is only ONE of AMD's sore spots. The other is actually making enough chips to satisfy demand when it's up. They've historically failed at that miserably.

You're resorting to revolving arguments. And you failed to address WHY Intel would spend billions to keep AMD down if they didn't have to. Especially considering the legal tangle Intel finds themselves in, not to mention the fine they had to pay the EU. So Intel did all of that, for no reason. You really do think Intel is the dumbest corporation in existence.

Serious fail on your part.

edit - and you need to get your facts straight about AMD's capacity constraints. They fixed that problem long ago.

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by Skynet

You're resorting to revolving arguments. And you failed to address WHY Intel would spend billions to keep AMD down if they didn't have to. Especially considering the legal tangle Intel finds themselves in, not to mention the fine they had to pay the EU. So Intel did all of that, for no reason. You really do think Intel is the dumbest corporation in existence.

Serious fail on your part.

No, the fail is your assumption that AMD had any more chips they COULD sell. They sold everything they made, even WITH Intel pulling the crap they did. Tell me, are you rewriting history? Or did AMD not have several major points where they couldn't get enough chips to market? So explain how Intel's tactics (which we both agree were happening) had any effect AT ALL during that time. Could AMD have magically produced more chips to meet that demand even though their few foundries were in the red already?

BS, Skynet. Use some logic and quit falling for AMD's PR campaign. How could they have sold more when they couldn't make enough to meet the demand they had? Answer that.

[Skynet]

I'll save you some trouble as well. Here's what you're going to tell me.

AMD was capacity constrained only when they had the performance lead. Now all their offering are junk, so even though they have the capacity, no one wants their products because all Intel products and platforms are better, at every price point.

I know you will come up with some version of this.

[moshpit]

No, get YOUR facts straight. AMD's manufacturing problems WERE happening during the time this case is about. The fixes you mention are recent and not valid to the timeframe of this discussion.

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by Skynet

I know you will come up with some version of this.

Then make sure your sitting down. I had no intention of saying anything of the sort

BUT, now that you mention it...

Edit: The above was a joke, by the way. You seem to forget who was one of the BIGGEST AMD fans on this forum next to Shaidar himself.

[Skynet]

Originally Posted by moshpit

BS, Skynet. Use some logic and quit falling for AMD's PR campaign. How could they have sold more when they couldn't make enough to meet the demand they had? Answer that.

Firstly, don't accuse me of falling for "AMD's PR campaign". Do you want me to accuse you of falling Intel's? I don't do that, I think more of you. Apparently you don't of me.

And I already addressed why the "capacity card" is nonsense. AMD has had excess capacity far more than they have had supply constraints. Okay? Get that through your head.

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by Skynet

Firstly, don't accuse me of falling for "AMD's PR campaign". Do you want me to accuse you of falling Intel's? I don't do that, I think more of you. Apparently you don't of me.

And I already addressed why the "capacity card" is nonsense. AMD has had excess capacity far more than they have had supply constraints. Okay? Get that through your head.

Get BS through my head? No. Rather not. Every single time AMD has been successful, it's also been capacity constrained as well. FACT. You did nothing to disprove that.

[Skynet]

Originally Posted by moshpit

No, get YOUR facts straight. AMD's manufacturing problems WERE happening during the time this case is about. The fixes you mention are recent and not valid to the timeframe of this discussion.

And what timeframe is that? You're making less and less sense! This thread is about Intel's predatory practices, you are turning it into it all being AMD's fault. Bad marketing, can't make enough product. You honestly believe that all of AMD's market share restrictions are self inflicted don't you?

Which again makes Intel look like total *******s because they spent billions to keep AMD from gaining share. Now address THAT please.

[Skynet]

Originally Posted by moshpit

Every single time AMD has been successful, it's also been capacity constrained as well. FACT.

This is NOT a fact, period. Give it up. And you are the one making the claim, so you provide proof.

BTW, according to you:

Intel's marketing dollars back in the Pentium days and AMD's market silence in comparison is the REAL reason Intel could weather through bad chips while AMD barely got what it deserved for good chips.

But now you are saying it's because AMD could not make enough processors? So which is it?

Also, I have made the worlds fastest 700 core processor that consumes 1 watt. You've done nothing to disprove it, so therefore it is a FACT.

[moshpit]

Originally Posted by Skynet

This is NOT a fact, period. Give it up. And you are the one making the claim, so you provide proof.

Is your memory that short? Are are you being intentionally blind? Okay then, you asked for it. I would have thought you'd remember the time frame AMD is specifically bringing charges against Intel over. Your inability to remember simple facts shall be dealt with now:

2006- http://www.crn.com/white-box/1935008...OSKHWATMY32JVN

"It's a fiasco. There's no product in the channel. It's all going to Dell," said Glen Coffield, president of CheapGuys, a system builder in Orlando, Fla. "AMD is divorcing the channel."

2004- http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20040824A6028.html

The shortage will make it more difficult for AMD to boost its market share since rival Intel also cut the prices of its socket LGA775 Pentium 4 processors on August 22, market sources said.

2003- http://www.computerweekly.com/Articl...-pc-makers.htm

The shortage of Athlon 64 chips during the fourth quarter also means a slow start to sales of Athlon 64 chipsets. Chipsets are a critical PC component, connecting the processor with main memory and other components, such as the hard drive and graphics chip.

This is a TINY taste of the facts you're trying to ignore.

[Skynet]

Did you even read your own links? The first one talks about shortages of chips in the channel, because the vast majority went to Dell. It says nothing about AMD's production facilities being unable to make enough product. And it also fails to mention that those capacity problems were fixed next quarter. You also failed to mention that Dell purchased a large quantity of chips all at once, because Dell had never sold an AMD product before, so it was not an on going order. When you ship a bulk order like that, shortages happen. AMD made a big mistake doing this in retrospect because they pissed off the channel by starving it.

The second link I can't read it requires a subscription. The third, well again you need to actually read what you link to.

The limited quantity of available Athlon 64 chips means suppliers will not begin shipping large numbers of PCs based on the processor until next year.

There was limited supply, the chip just launched.

Now let's look at the other side of the coin.

Intel confirms Atom chip shortage

"We're ramping it strongly and are still catching up with demand," Maloney said.

Same thing as what happened to AMD, they were ramping production.

Computer maker Gateway is being hurt by Intel chip shortages at the worst possible time: the holiday buying season.

The PC maker, which configures and builds computers specifically for customer orders, has been hit disproportionately hard by difficulties Intel has had in manufacturing enough of its newest and fastest Pentium III processors.

So obviously Intel has been though tight supply as well. This has happened numerous other times to Intel as well.


What you fail to realize is, both companies have had supply problems, either ramping a new product, or other issues. AMD has gone through capacity constraints, this is true. But you claim that EVERY TIME AMD had a chance to gain share, they could not make enough CPUs. This is ludicrous and laughable. You also claim this is the sole reason AMD has never been able to gain past 20% in CPUs. Or you claim that Intel's superior marketing is the reason, not sure which.

And you still fail to address why Intel has put so much cash into excluding AMD when according to you, there was absolutely no reason to do so, AMD simply cannot make enough product anyway.