Intel faces 'uphill battle' to overturn EU fine

Good, the more they try and worm their way out the worse they look, which'll hopefully convince more people to consider AMD products.

I still hope they just say screw you, we raise the fine with 500 mio €. there are many places where I don't agree that EU are doing a good thing but places like this i were they show that EU has some huge advantages.

Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r
Good, the more they try and worm their way out the worse they look, which'll hopefully convince more people to consider AMD products.

agreed

Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r
Good, the more they try and worm their way out the worse they look, which'll hopefully convince more people to consider AMD products.

I think this is to do with marketing practices towards manufacturers and retailers rather than end users.

Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r
Good, the more they try and worm their way out the worse they look, which'll hopefully convince more people to consider AMD products.

Nah, I'll still buy whatever gives me the better performance per price. And when I bought my q6600 that was intel. When it next comes time to upgrade, if AMD offers a product that gives better performance per price than what Intel has to offer I will buy AMD. But if Intel still offers a product that gives better performance per price then I will buy Intel again. I don’t let my decisions get influenced by who is suing who. And for whatever reason.

people are sue crazy and you can see why, almost a billion reasons.. the p4 I can understand- now if intel was selling more of those chips over amd's clearly superior chips at the time due to weasely ways, they deserve it.. it's when a company is giving the consumer what they want (and it's good service/product/fair prices) and they get sued, it makes you sick to see (patent trolls anyone)

I know monopolies aren't a good thing for the consumer.. but when a company is giving the consumers what they want and then are forced to fall in line because they are too elite for the competition- that's wrong.. if intel was selling p4's using underhanded slippy's, they should pay for the p4 if that's the case.. if it was just idiots buying into hype (they're everywhere)- then no

I wouldn't want to see intel milking it to avoid lawsuits, next thing you know the judge points at nvidia's ceo huang- you should take tips from that guy! were stuck with atom's for the next 10 years

1. intel is not a monopoly. you can buy amd. you can buy via. or any number of other chips. and have people forgotten about amd's success in the server sector.
2. so long as there is free competition, why are monopolies bad?
3. why hasn't amd done similar market practices to intel? it already has a price advantage - why not widen even further?
4. all this will do is increase prices and hurt the consumer. i want intel chips, not amd, now i will be forced to pay more.
5. the fine will not suddenly make amd a better competitor, and amd's products will not suddenly magically improve.

Originally Posted by chrisb2e9

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r
Good, the more they try and worm their way out the worse they look, which'll hopefully convince more people to consider AMD products.

Nah, I'll still buy whatever gives me the better performance per price. And when I bought my q6600 that was intel. When it next comes time to upgrade, if AMD offers a product that gives better performance per price than what Intel has to offer I will buy AMD. But if Intel still offers a product that gives better performance per price then I will buy Intel again. I don’t let my decisions get influenced by who is suing who. And for whatever reason.

I totally agree with this. It's about what's best for the consumer at the time. AMD enjoyed large amounts of success with its Athlon 64s when they were trouncing P4s, and everyone knew they were better so even though Intel got up to "dirty work", AMDs were still so much more popular. I'll buy what is best for me when I want to upgrade, and this is just a legal fireworks display imo. Both companies innovate and have their pluses and minuses, but as long as there is choice (which there still was for all of us enthusiasts who build our own stuff), who cares??

Originally Posted by amacieli
1. intel is not a monopoly. you can buy amd. you can buy via. or any number of other chips. and have people forgotten about amd's success in the server sector.
2. so long as there is free competition, why are monopolies bad?
3. why hasn't amd done similar market practices to intel? it already has a price advantage - why not widen even further?
4. all this will do is increase prices and hurt the consumer. i want intel chips, not amd, now i will be forced to pay more.
5. the fine will not suddenly make amd a better competitor, and amd's products will not suddenly magically improve.

1. Intel was apparently a monopoly enough for the EU to get involved. You can barely buy AMD anywhere, especially in Europe. I've never even heard of VIA or anyone else for that matter...
2. You can't have competition when there's a monopoly...Competition keeps prices realistic for consumers. Monopolies are capitalism at its worste. Economics?
3. Again, AMD didn't becuase their ILLEGAL practices. Illegal for a reason.
4. It wont hurt the consumer in the slightest. Intel's not a dumb company. They wont raise their prices just to be angry, or to get back some money they lost. If they do, then their retarded and will lose loads of buisness. 1.5bil is a heavty chunk but isn't a whole lot considering they make over $37bil a year. I'd imagine they'd keep their prices the same if not a bit lower now.
5. No, it probably wont. You're correct. But consumers may find that there are OTHER companies out their besides Intel. AMD and others will most likely start getting more consumers after seeing what Intel has done all these years. So far the AM3 chips are doing pretty well. Especially the X3 720.

" I've never even heard of VIA or anyone else for that matter..."

You are kidding,right?

Originally Posted by p-dawg86

Quote:

Originally Posted by amacieli
1. intel is not a monopoly. you can buy amd. you can buy via. or any number of other chips. and have people forgotten about amd's success in the server sector.
2. so long as there is free competition, why are monopolies bad?
3. why hasn't amd done similar market practices to intel? it already has a price advantage - why not widen even further?
4. all this will do is increase prices and hurt the consumer. i want intel chips, not amd, now i will be forced to pay more.
5. the fine will not suddenly make amd a better competitor, and amd's products will not suddenly magically improve.

1. Intel was apparently a monopoly enough for the EU to get involved. You can barely buy AMD anywhere, especially in Europe. I've never even heard of VIA or anyone else for that matter...
2. You can't have competition when there's a monopoly...Competition keeps prices realistic for consumers. Monopolies are capitalism at its worste. Economics?
3. Again, AMD didn't becuase their ILLEGAL practices. Illegal for a reason.
4. It wont hurt the consumer in the slightest. Intel's not a dumb company. They wont raise their prices just to be angry, or to get back some money they lost. If they do, then their retarded and will lose loads of buisness. 1.5bil is a heavty chunk but isn't a whole lot considering they make over $37bil a year. I'd imagine they'd keep their prices the same if not a bit lower now.
5. No, it probably wont. You're correct. But consumers may find that there are OTHER companies out their besides Intel. AMD and others will most likely start getting more consumers after seeing what Intel has done all these years. So far the AM3 chips are doing pretty well. Especially the X3 720.

EDIT:
1. Intel was apparently a monopoly enough for the EU to get involved. You can barely buy AMD anywhere - via computer selling companies(HP, DELL, etc), especially in Europe. I've never even heard of VIA or anyone else for that matter...

Originally Posted by mclintox
" I've never even heard of VIA or anyone else for that matter..."

You are kidding,right?

Uhh...No. The only two companies I can find anywhere in America is Intel and AMD. I just looked VIA up, never seen a product...

Intel is toasted, they have to try, but they are going to lose.
In other news, the OTHER monopolistic evil company Microsoft is getting hammered, see story on main page.

Originally Posted by p-dawg86

Quote:

Originally Posted by mclintox
" I've never even heard of VIA or anyone else for that matter..."

You are kidding,right?

Uhh...No. The only two companies I can find anywhere in America is Intel and AMD. I just looked VIA up, never seen a product...

Must be something unique to your part of the world,there certainly isn't any shortage of AMD or VIA in the UK,or am i missing something (scratches chin)

I've never seen a computer which has a Via CPU. I have seen project logs where people have used VIA mini-ITX boards, but never one for sale in a shop.

Originally Posted by thehippoz
it's when a company is giving the consumer what they want (and it's good service/product/fair prices) and they get sued, it makes you sick to see (patent trolls anyone)

"along with paying retailers and system builders to not sell products using AMD chips."

Read this bit and tell me you can't see what Intel did wrong.

Originally Posted by amacieli
1. intel is not a monopoly.

Japan, Korea and Europe would beg to differ.

Originally Posted by Tim S

Quote:

Originally Posted by amacieli
1. intel is not a monopoly.

Japan, Korea and Europe would beg to differ.

+1, my relatives in China and Vietnam are hard pressed to get something not-intel, in fact they don't even carry AMD processors over there.

Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r
Good, the more they try and worm their way out the worse they look, which'll hopefully convince more people to consider AMD products.

nope, I built an AMD based rig for cost and am highly disappointed. Intel will be my primary CPU purchase for my future builds.

Originally Posted by ssj12

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-Cyph3r
Good, the more they try and worm their way out the worse they look, which'll hopefully convince more people to consider AMD products.

nope, I built an AMD based rig for cost and am highly disappointed. Intel will be my primary CPU purchase for my future builds.

Then it's your fault for not doing the research, not AMD's fault.

go back to 2003
AMD had a superior product, but Intel said to oem/retailers buy 80% of our chips only, delay amd chips to market and only buy 20% amd chips, even when amd had a better product in Athlon 64, it wasnt until 2006 intel got a faster cpu

AMD even offered 1 million free cpus to a oem, but they didnt accept it, go figure

and for me, i chouldnt find any amd cpu in stores in 2003 here, only online retailers sold athlon 64 chips

how would you react?

Originally Posted by ssj12
nope, I built an AMD based rig for cost and am highly disappointed. Intel will be my primary CPU purchase for my future builds.

That statement just doesn't make any sense. You must not have done your research very
well. SOME AMD processors are better than SOME Intel processors and some
are not, Both companies make very good products.

Originally Posted by Goty
Then it's your fault for not doing the research, not AMD's fault.

+1.

The reason I went for Intel over AMD in my latest PC was the fact that everything I've read (especially on BT buyer's guides) said that the E5200 offers way better value for money than anything else in the same price range and good OC performance, even from stock. So far, I've not been disappointed (although I haven't attempted to clock this beastie yet - may invest in some better cooling first).

I've been "out of the game" for a while, so this is the first I've heard of what Intel have done; it's a pretty crappy, and illegal, way to do business - glad the courts stepped in here.

simply put. AMD the smarter choice

Just to clear this up:
Intel had a turnover of 37 billion. This is not profit!!! The profit was about 400 million for the same period.
Turnover is when any money comes in "over the counter" before any costs are subtracted. Cost like: manufacturing, advertising oh and that big one that made the entire comeback for Intel in the first place R & D!!! These all cost money, this money cost out of the TURNOVER (37bil.)

Now for people who think monopolies are good:
In the beginning the company under sells (Like airliners for transatlantic flights, see Star Alliance when Virgin Atlantic started).
Then when there is little or know competition left they:
A) Slow development of new products (holding back new releases, less R&D ect.)
B) Price fix
C)Raise prices as much as they can get away with.
D)Use sub-standard parts (exploding batteries any one?)

So yeah at the moment "we" the consumers are benefiting at the moment, but that will change if Intel, Star, Microsoft and Shell Oil are allowed to continue to use there monopoly positions in the future. Any one who thinks Electric cars are new has fallen for monopoly tactics. There was a company 10 years ago who made NiMH Batteries which did power EVs in ranges over 140 miles per charge. Then Shell Oil bought the company that held the patents and liquidated it and held the patents. This is why there are no NiMH battery packs for EVs. I guess no one thought it was strange when there where lead acid powerred EVs and then straight to Lithium Ion EVs.

Are Monopolies good for the consumer?
Are monopolies good for the Environment?
Are monopolies good for our Scientific development?

As a consumer I will always choose open market and open standards.
Like USB, Android, Linux (all versions), these are all things that make life better for the consumer.

If only all phones used mini-USB and 3.5 jacks.

Originally Posted by MSHunter
If only all phones used mini-USB and 3.5 jacks.

This may be coming to Europe - if not for connectivity then for charging your phone at least. The EU want a standardised connector for charging laptops, mp3 players, phones, etc; mini-USB seems the most likely solution, as it's already so ubiquitous.

Plus I ditched even 3.5mm jacks a while ago - bluetooth headphones ftw. Even if the sound quality can't quite yet match up to standard wired headphones, the lack of cables trailing everywhere more than makes up for it.