A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Processors » Intel
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Intel's agreement with the FTC



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 19th 10, 04:07 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Bob Willard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

Bill Davidsen wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:

One of the ironies here is that if Intel *did* keep prices
"artificially high," it would have benefited AMD, who has a hard time
selling chips at a profit.

If Intel were to sell chips at a lower profit for just a few years I
think AMD would vanish.


And, if AMD vanished, the EU and the US DoJ would attack Intel as a
monopoly. Intel needs AMD alive, but preferably on life-support.

--
Cheers, Bob
  #2  
Old August 19th 10, 04:40 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On Aug 18, 11:07*pm, Bob Willard
wrote:
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Robert Myers wrote:


One of the ironies here is that if Intel *did* keep prices
"artificially high," it would have benefited AMD, who has a hard time
selling chips at a profit.


If Intel were to sell chips at a lower profit for just a few years I
think AMD would vanish.


And, if AMD vanished, the EU and the US DoJ would attack Intel as a
monopoly. *Intel needs AMD alive, but preferably on life-support.


I think Intel expected its ultimate competitor to be IBM.

Intel had the financial wherewithal to starve AMD out of existence,
but, as you point out, then it *would* have had serious problems.

The strategy was to move the battle from Intel x86 vs AMD x86 to
Itanium vs.Power. Didn't work out that way, of course, but, in that
scenario, AMD would have been dispensable.

In any case, the idea that keeping prices "artificially high" harmed
competition is too laughable to repeat. We still have to endure to
all this brouhaha, no matter how ridiculous at its foundation.

Robert.
  #3  
Old August 19th 10, 01:44 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Robert Redelmeier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 316
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Robert Myers wrote in part:
In any case, the idea that keeping prices "artificially high" harmed
competition is too laughable to repeat. We still have to endure to
all this brouhaha, no matter how ridiculous at its foundation.



Agreed someone is horribly confused -- high prices harm consumers
(DRAM redux?); _low_ [predatory] pricing harms competition.

I don't see much Intel price abuse, nor how any could be proven.
Their exclusivity deals [Dell] are a clear violation. Whether
US Antitrust laws should be so nasty is a separate question.

-- Robert R

  #4  
Old August 19th 10, 06:25 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

In comp.sys.intel Robert Myers wrote:
I think Intel expected its ultimate competitor to be IBM.


Intel had the financial wherewithal to starve AMD out of existence,
but, as you point out, then it *would* have had serious problems.


The strategy was to move the battle from Intel x86 vs AMD x86 to
Itanium vs.Power. Didn't work out that way, of course, but, in that
scenario, AMD would have been dispensable.


Yet, IBM has not gone away. So, Intel is indeed up against both AMD
x86 and IBM Power.

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #5  
Old August 19th 10, 07:02 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

In comp.sys.intel Robert Myers wrote:
It's not hard to see that letting Itanium into mainframes would have
been the beginning of (yet another) end for IBM,


Which, I suspect, goes a long way towards why IBM bought PSI.

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why". I think more often in terms of
"when", sometimes "where"; always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #6  
Old August 19th 10, 07:21 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On Aug 19, 1:25*pm, Rick Jones wrote:


Yet, IBM has not gone away. *So, Intel is indeed up against both AMD
x86 and IBM Power.


No, IBM certainly has not gone away. From the perspective of seeing
IBM as the competitor worth worrying about, Intel's stubbornness about
Itanium seems much more comprehensible.

Intel correctly saw that chip making would become prohibitively
expensive and laid a substantial bet that IBM would decide it was
better off with Intel chips in its top-of-the line merchandise than
continuing with Power as a capital and cash drain.

It's not hard to see that letting Itanium into mainframes would have
been the beginning of (yet another) end for IBM, so it's hard to see
how Intel would have won their bet on that premise unless IBM was so
weakened that it would have been an offer that IBM could not refuse.

So now Intel, the invincible giant in the eyes of so many, is now
boxed into x86, with ARM, IBM, and still AMD all around it. Just the
perfect time for government regulators to step in and limit Intel's
power to bully.

Robert.


  #7  
Old August 19th 10, 09:04 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On Aug 19, 2:02*pm, Rick Jones wrote:
In comp.sys.intel Robert Myers wrote:

It's not hard to see that letting Itanium into mainframes would have
been the beginning of (yet another) end for IBM,


Which, I suspect, goes a long way towards why IBM bought PSI.


So much more tidy than suing them out of existence, which is a
perfectly legal anti-competitive tactic.

Robert.

  #8  
Old August 20th 10, 01:48 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,296
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On 8/19/2010 2:21 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
So now Intel, the invincible giant in the eyes of so many, is now
boxed into x86, with ARM, IBM, and still AMD all around it. Just the
perfect time for government regulators to step in and limit Intel's
power to bully.


Well, Intel decided to buy McAfee today. Maybe that'll get them away
from all of those bully-boys surrounding poor Intel. They can now
concentrate on ridding the world of the virus their architecture spawned.

Yousuf Khan
  #9  
Old August 20th 10, 03:56 AM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Robert Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 606
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

On Aug 19, 8:48*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 8/19/2010 2:21 PM, Robert Myers wrote:

So now Intel, the invincible giant in the eyes of so many, is now
boxed into x86, with ARM, IBM, and still AMD all around it. * Just the
perfect time for government regulators to step in and limit Intel's
power to bully.


Well, Intel decided to buy McAfee today. Maybe that'll get them away
from all of those bully-boys surrounding poor Intel. They can now
concentrate on ridding the world of the virus their architecture spawned.


Give it a rest, Yousuf. Intel's architecture didn't spawn anything.
I'm tired of your trash talk.

Robert.

  #10  
Old August 22nd 10, 08:53 PM posted to comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Bill Davidsen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Intel's agreement with the FTC

Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 8/19/2010 2:21 PM, Robert Myers wrote:
So now Intel, the invincible giant in the eyes of so many, is now
boxed into x86, with ARM, IBM, and still AMD all around it. Just the
perfect time for government regulators to step in and limit Intel's
power to bully.


Well, Intel decided to buy McAfee today. Maybe that'll get them away
from all of those bully-boys surrounding poor Intel. They can now
concentrate on ridding the world of the virus their architecture spawned.

??? For the most part the CPU is innocent of any virus issues, they are almost
all software, and almost all of that is software from one company. Compatibility
rules, AMD runs virus' as fast as Intel.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel's agreement with the FTC Yousuf Khan[_2_] General 71 August 31st 10 04:24 PM
Intel to pull x86 cross-licensing agreement with AMD in 60 days Yousuf Khan General 0 March 16th 09 09:11 PM
Vista license agreement is a joke Garrot Homebuilt PC's 47 November 22nd 06 10:18 AM
Vista license agreement is a joke Garrot Storage (alternative) 6 October 15th 06 05:06 AM
Vista license agreement is a joke Garrot Nvidia Videocards 0 October 13th 06 08:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.