What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
217 Comments
- bal00, on 05/13/2009, -10/+80Pre-emptive response to the inevitable EU bashing that we will see here:
-No, Intel wasn't fined because the company is American.
-No, Intel cannot pull out of Europe to teach the EU a lesson.
-No, paying retailers to stifle competition has nothing to do with a free market. - mypetridish, on 05/13/2009, -12/+61Good call. Had Intel not "cheated" we would see a very very healthy competition in the CPU market today. My only regret is that AMD isnt going to see a piece of that money - money that they arguably lost due to Intel's illegal monopolistic practices.
If you love your Core i7 do know that a had AMD be financially healthier and more competitive the Core i7 would most likely be cheaper that what it is. - ares07, on 05/13/2009, -4/+37It´s amazing how some retards can be against something like this, just because it´s the EU. In the US, they prefer to spend time discussing if jailbreaking an iphone is illegal (and generaly kissing big companies a$$).
- hilanderiam, on 05/13/2009, -1/+32Anti-trust fines in Japan, Korea and now the EU... US next?
- TheFounder, on 05/13/2009, -30/+60EU looking for new revenue sources targets Intel then Microsoft...
"Intel has to pay the fine within three months, the Commission said, adding that the money would go to the EU's central budget, "thus reducing the contributions that Member States pay to the EU." "
That is all I needed to read... - floort, on 05/13/2009, -7/+36If they don't pay, does this mean "Intel Inside" gets a whole new meaning?
- overnine9k, on 05/13/2009, -6/+33From the article
"The European Union began stepping up its pursuit of possible violations, and particularly cases in the technology sector, early this decade, when the Bush administration backed away from pursuing its toughest penalties against Microsoft, deciding to settle the case instead.
E.U. regulators first began investigating Intel in 2001, after A.M.D. filed a complaint a year before in Brussels."
It's seem most of you are just complaining because you hate to see EU have the balls to do something that the corrupt US Government couldn't do. - harmlessdrudge, on 05/13/2009, -1/+27Why don't you resentful Americans get over yourselves. This was NOT a politically inspired decision. Intel is a convicted monopolist and has been in trouble AROUND THE WORLD for its unethical business practices. America and its corporations don't rule the world. Get over it.
Oh, by the way, the original complaint was made by an American company.
As a European consumer I am 100% happy with the action taken by the EU. - HBZ55, on 05/13/2009, -1/+26Their products now don't suck, they're just not the top-end. I'm an Intel fanboy but I still think that the AMD processors are a great bang for the buck compared to the i7s especially in gaming.
- magneteye, on 05/13/2009, -1/+25this is much more than lowering prices... this is about Intel offering special discounts and incentives to companies like Dell to use them solely and to ignore AMD as a choice that should be available to consumers.
- bal00, on 05/13/2009, -2/+24The whole point of a fine is to make breaking the law more expensive than complying with it, which means it has to be high. If Intel makes an extra $500 mil with their illegal deals and they're fined $100 mil when they get caught, why should they stop?
We're talking about a market with revenues in excess of $10B a year and a time period of 5 years. If you're manipulating a $50,000 million market, you're not going to get away with a $50 million fine. - ucbmckee, on 05/13/2009, -11/+32Some fine or punishment was warranted, but $1.4 BILLION? That seems a touch ridiculous. How exactly does that help consumers, when those costs will ultimately have to be passed on to them and/or will stifle new research? This definitely seems like they're trying to pad their budget and is a glaring conflict of interests.
- magneteye, on 05/13/2009, -3/+23I have been using nothing but AMD processors for the last 8 years. I love the performance and value. I do not doubt for a second Intel has been going to great lengths to retain their dominance on the CPU market, and I am sure that has included illegal tactics. I hope we can keep AMD around, they are very innovative and deserve their place in the market.
- f3n1x, on 05/13/2009, -2/+20the point is that retailers "miraculously" preferred intel even when AMD had a superior processor lineup back in the netburst era.
- goingtoalpha, on 05/13/2009, -2/+19http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10239487-92.html Not NYT, but free and full.
- svendm, on 05/13/2009, -3/+20None of that changes the fact that _Intel broke the ***** law_.
- overnine9k, on 05/13/2009, -8/+24US is too corrupt. They had to the chance to break up MS but the government didn't have the balls to do it.
- specialK16, on 05/13/2009, -3/+18And in reality, lowering your prices just because you can and to stifle competition is in fact, illegal.
In other words, if you are in a financially good position, and you decide to lower your prices way too low for your competition to be able to do the same, you are stifling competition. - TnTBass, on 05/13/2009, -4/+19Just because they add the funds to the EU's central budget, doesn't mean Intel was not engaging in anti competitive behavior.
1.4 Billion is not very much compared to how much they potentially made by limiting the competition in the manner they did. Had they competed freely, and openly, AMD would have gained a greater market share and ultimately would have had more money for R&D. AMD could very possibly still have the performance crown had Intel not worked hard to keep them out of the market.
@ucbmckee
Competition helps consumers. If Intel decides to pass those costs to consumers, that means AMD will become a more attractive option, thus forcing Intel to reverse that plan to pass the costs to the consumer. - funklor, on 05/13/2009, -1/+16Yes, AMD should make better processors. However if Intel keeps behaving the way they do, it won't mean a damn thing. AMD generally had the superior product from the PIII -> Core 2. And it meant precisely nothing.
The superior product means nothing when your competitor is using borderline mafia tactics. - Wag3Slav3, on 05/13/2009, -5/+18The term is "dumping" and it should be illegal. If you are purposefully lowering your prices to BELOW COST OF PRODUCTION to kill off competition you are breaking the law. This is only illegal when you are in a monopoly position and doesn't cover "loss leaders" where product A uses consumables or other media to be useful, like printers and video game machines or mp3 players.
- bal00, on 05/13/2009, -1/+14By the way, according to Forbes AMD offered 1,000,000 free CPUs to a computer manufacturer. The OEM had to turn down that offer and could only accept 160k CPUs just to avoid Intel's price hikes.
How's that for market manipulation? AMD couldn't even _give away_ $100 million worth of product because Intel threatened to punish the recipient. - mypetridish, on 05/13/2009, -1/+13jphilips59: back in 2001 to 2005 the AMD Athlon line was superior to Intel's netburst based architecture. and the case is based on Intel using its monopolistic position to put AMD out of the competition. but what the ***** do you know? you are an Intel wanker.
- overnine9k, on 05/13/2009, -1/+13they could. but they would lose a whole chunk of the market to AMD.
- mlbdenver, on 05/13/2009, -9/+21Did you even read the article? They could have fined them a LOT more, but for some reason (which the article doesn't explain), they chose not to.
The point with the violation was that Intel was NOT operating under fair market practices. So consumers were already getting screwed. This is going to help consumers as it will promote a more fair market. Read the article next time before commenting. - funklor, on 05/13/2009, -4/+15AMD would be doing better financially now if they release product that didn't suck.
-----
They'd still be screwed if Intel keeps it's practices up. They've had the superior product many times in the past -- it got them no where. - Wilmark, on 05/13/2009, -0/+10Deal or no Deal - this is not the USA where Intel could buy out the DOJ, FTC etc. They have to pay - this was long in the making
- SaikoJosh, on 05/13/2009, -5/+14Any firm be it American or European is subject to the same rules. The EU is incredibly strict on competition policy. Maybe the fact that American firms are targeted tells you something about American firms?
If American firms don't want to follow our rules then they don't have to trade here. - Wag3Slav3, on 05/13/2009, -3/+11'cause they have barbed penises.
- mypetridish, on 05/13/2009, -4/+12What an idiot. Intel broke the ***** law and they should be punished. Had they played by the rules _ie. no paying the OEM and retailers to stop stocking AMD cpus_ they wouldn't be in this position.
but what the ***** do you know? you wank to an Intel core i7 picture - mypetridish, on 05/13/2009, -1/+9EU sues companies and even countries all the time for breaking the law you moron. Just look it up.
- mypetridish, on 05/13/2009, -1/+9Wissler: Good defense dude. You really should consider law school.
- SaikoJosh, on 05/13/2009, -0/+8Exactly, the EU isn't going to overturn it's decision now. Unless Intel can pull some fresh evidence out of a hat..
- mypetridish, on 05/13/2009, -0/+8they complained in 2001 of Intel's abusive practices. but you are an idiotic customer if you are rooting for Intel trying to be a monopoly. Intel aims to be the sole source of cpu so they could do anything they want. the complaint by AMD and the fine by Intel meant to prevent just that. Dont be stupid dude.
- mypetridish, on 05/13/2009, -0/+7yes, and that was part of the evidence used by AMD to pursue the case.
- funklor, on 05/13/2009, -0/+7lol @ suggesting they should just pull out of the European market. You do realize it's bigger and more profitable than the American market right? Even if the EU routinely bends them over and gives it hard, it's still better than leaving. I doubt it'd very much affect the Euros either. It's not like switching to AMD is some amazingly complicated process. I think if Microsoft pulled out (but they won't for the same reasons.), it'd be more damaging. Even then people would just keep listing along with what they have, adopt the Chinese method, or eventually switch to some other OS.
- Apocrypha, on 05/13/2009, -1/+8Mostly because many American companies have low moral standards and business practices. :-p
- Wilmark, on 05/13/2009, -0/+7He would only have missed out when Intel launched the Core 2 Duo, the five years before that were mainly with AMD leading especially with the Athlon 64 chips - If you think he missed out what about the majority who bought Intel CHips for most the past 10 years - athlon - athlon 64, Pre Core 2D
- stk198323, on 05/13/2009, -1/+8WOW!
Because they sell a ***** load of processor there and that if they pull out and a new company emerge just as big as intel due to the fact they have not much competition (or if AMD makes sweet money by grabing 100% marketshare) then said company could come to the US and put Intel in trouble?
Or just maybe there is 100 of more reason all evident that yet you still can't understand cause all you see is: EU are ***** so Intel should only wave the middle finger and part ship. - RickHavoc, on 05/13/2009, -2/+9When you hamstring your competitor with illegal practices and they can only hire 100 engineers/project to your 1000, it becomes harder for them to churn out a product that competes with yours. I'd say AMD has done admirably with the hand they were dealt.
- svendm, on 05/13/2009, -2/+8Well if we assume that's true, it'd just mean what Intel was doing was not only illegal but unnecessary.
If AMD sucks and Intel is doing so great - then there'd be little need for Intel to push their customers into not buying AMD then. - mypetridish, on 05/13/2009, -1/+7Sure. American businessmen and politicians are so clean. That's why you are not in economic recession caused by yourself.
- askantik, on 05/13/2009, -0/+6By "kicked their asses," people always mean that Intel's CPUs are a few nanoseconds faster. I don't overclock my CPU yet I always get plenty of framerates in games when I use a decent video card, I can run as many applications as I've ever wanted, and I have no worries-- and I have always used AMD. I currently have a 7750 Kuma that was less than $70 and I can run ArcGIS, Photoshop, several Firefox windows, mp3 software, and any other ***** I need all on the "s00per resource hog" that Vista is. I'm happy.
Why do I like AMD without ever really having tried Intel in recent years? Because AMD's company philosophy is better, and I mean in regards to worker treatment and environmental commitment... nothing to do with this article, really, although ***** like that doesn't really help me like Intel any more. - Gudeldar, on 05/13/2009, -0/+6You realize that the GDP of the EU is bigger than the US?
- stickerman, on 05/13/2009, -0/+6That is exactly the opposite of what happened. AMD had far superior processors for years. Intel paid major OEMs to not use AMD. They threatened large price increases to any OEM who included AMD processors in their systems. Once Intel started to catch up and AMD started to file lawsuites, they eased off on the threats.
Now Intel has superior processors and apparently everyone is forgetting that for years you basically had to build your own systems to use an AMD chip. OEMs wanted to put the much better AMD chips in their systems, but could not due to Intel's tactics. - Wilmark, on 05/13/2009, -0/+6Idiot. AMD didnt always suck, they are the ones that invented the current 64 bit architecture/ISA, memory controller etc and many advances that Intel uses. AMD will have better products where the market favours a level playing field and/or favours smaller competition. THis allows them to make decent revenues from their work. If nobody buys AMD's stuff even when its superior (Pre Core 2 Duo days) AMD doesnt make the revenue to build better products.
- frcc, on 05/13/2009, -1/+7Intel's fine will subsidize EU taxpayers. Its amazing when you think about it. Instead of taxpayers bailing out companies who made mistakes, EU taxpayers are getting repaid for 8 years of overpaying for Intel based computers because of illegal sales tactics. American debt and consumer slaves should demand similar treatment, provided they have the wisdom to realize they are the ones wearing the shackles.
- LordVance, on 05/13/2009, -0/+6Hell, as an American consumer I'm 100% happy with the action taken by the EU. I was supportive after reading the article, but once I read the comment above:
"By the way, according to Forbes AMD offered 1,000,000 free CPUs to a computer manufacturer. The OEM had to turn down that offer and could only accept 160k CPUs just to avoid Intel's price hikes.
How's that for market manipulation? AMD couldn't even _give away_ $100 million worth of product because Intel threatened to punish the recipient."
My stomach turned... - jamesdew, on 05/13/2009, -1/+7do you not realise Europe has a higher total GBP than the US? That would be like glaxo smithkline pulling out of the US.
- HonestAbe, on 05/13/2009, -5/+11They're going to spend it on SOCIALISM!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 223 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is