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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 08:11 PM |
Vista license agreement is a joke | Garrot | Homebuilt PC's | 47 | November 22nd 06 09:18 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 |