What is Digg?40 Comments
- CourageousRobot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31Can someone explain to me what right Intel has to this information? This isn't a pointed question - it's something I'm actually curious about.
- rileyjt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Intel is trying to build a defense case that shows that AMD has had the capabilities to compete with Intel on an equal level. Intel has traditionally owned a lot of the OEM business due to them offering integrated chipsets for graphics, sound, etc and being able to cut good deals with the Dells of the world because of this. Now that AMD is stepping up and trying to compete on this level (and they are in fact winning more OEM business because of it), Intel is trying to use that to show that they do not in fact have a monopoly and have won past business fairly. I think it does make sense for Intel to ask for this information and while Intel might have made some deals in the past to shut out their competitors, I think that AMD is going to be very competitive going forward and that may very well affect the lawsuit.
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Interestingly, all that really matters is whether or not Intel actually did shut out competitors, not the current market situation.
- NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Maybe. But the older generation, as well as casual users, are in need of nothing more advanced.
- mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I hate integrated graphics chipsets.
- nonsequitor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I believe this is in regards to the Anti-Trust suit against Intel. IANAL, but to me a layman it seems like they're going fishing for the hell of it to gain further competitive advantage as a result of the lawsuit.
It would be nice if the article put the supoena in context. - giloron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@ jawadde
Have you ever tried to play a FPS on a console? The level of control is horrible. RTS games are even worse. There are many types of games that consoles do well, but certain things just work better with a keyboard and mouse. - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Sounds like Jack Thompson asking for info on some upcoming video game.
Wait... - DaveSWFC, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Be gone, fool!
- crilen007, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11OP: Yea I'm curious myself.. Perhaps if intel is scared, they should invent something to keep them in the runnings, instead of worrying about what AMD is doing.
joshld: That joke only works for the AMD buys ATI thread. Not this one. - spritom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I guess the strategy is to keep ongoing litigation going with your competitor.
Then when some new acquisition or other business decision is made, the information is subpoenaed to get the goods in near-real-time. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Sweet, another spammer to ban. Thanks for the heads up!
- gregh3285, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have a hard time reading an article with as many spelling mistakes as this one. Coming from the Inquirer, I'm a bit disappointed.
- EasY_TargeT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Your telling me that if you could have a x1900 on your motherboard as an integrated ship, that you wouldnt? Instead of these cheap ass intel chips. And the odd ATI.
- daRoach, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5You don't know what you are talking about. Intel is trying to prove that it is not a monopoly by requesting documents from the company who brought about the anti-trust lawsuit in the first place. Competition is good for companies as well, but not when your competitor is trying to sic the government on you.
- EasY_TargeT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4No, so everytime you want to upgrade your video card you go buy a cpu like device instead on a new card. THis wold save a lot of space aswell, although, many cards would have to have the same features.
- MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4When was the last time you upgraded the processor or video card in your laptop?
- bigtrouble77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I guess the adage that there's no harm in asking goes here. Some of the requests are just outright ridiculous. None of the questions have anything to do with the antitrust case.
Is this a case of Intel being genuinely concerned or just trying to be a ass because they can? - Variz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As mentioned above it's perfect for people that don't play games. My parents called me up asking me to build them a cheap PC. They check their email and surf the web.
In checking NewEgg I specifically sought out integrated video and audio in the motherboard I was selecting. - kanundrum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Interestingly I too found it hard to read.
Interestingly I had to wonder what novice wrote it.
Interestingly the article was interesting nevertheless - MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2AMD's good fortures over the last 4 years are the reason for the lawsuit, and are not to it's detriment. AMD had superior products in the desktop and server spaces, and because of Intel's practices, so they say, they weren't able to get the marketshare they deserve. If you have better products that cost less, and you don't take marketshare away from the leader, there must be a reason. (In this case, Intel's monopolization through kick-backs, and Centrino.)
- KriLL3.2™, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Would be cool if AMD could make the leap and somehow make the CPU and GPU both chips in sockets on the mobo, would make it cheaper to upgrade and imporve the speed between the CPU and GPU... well you can dream, right? :|
- devoinregress, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I question weaither AMD will make ATI build Linux drivers?
- nTensify, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Intel has been anti-competitive. Japan has already ruled against them."
Of course they have been anti-competitive, they've been convicted of it here in America too. The question is, are they still anti-competitive, and that's what this lawsuit intends to answer.
"If you read AMD full filing, which I recommend (though I don't have the link handy), it's not so much about whether Intel did what AMD is accusing them of, because they actually did. The only thing that needs to be decided is to what extent what they did makes them liable for damages to AMD, and how Intel is to be forced into compliance."
Then again, these are AMDs filings. Take them with a grain of salt, as they're from the company who's complaining. The point of the court is to discover which complaints hold merit, and which don't. The way you make it sound, AMD has already won and we're in the penalty phase. This is entirely a falsity manufactured by your language. In truth, Intel is still being /accused/ of still being anti-competitive, and we're in something called the "discovery" phase, where both defendents get to bring all of the evidence to the table. Intel simply wants to know what AMD was planning to do with ATi, whenever part of AMDs own claim indicates the computer graphics market as being a possible contention point.
Witness earlier this year when AMD shed its mobile and embedded platforms and Intel did the same; Intel didn't want AMD to use the fact that AMD didn't have an embedded platforms section of its company against Intel in the case, and at the same time the move freed up some money for AMD to help buy ATi.
"Just like Microsoft had to take Media Player out of XP for the Euro market, so too should Intel not be allowed to bundle Centrino in a compulsory way. Furthermore, Intel intentionally limited how many chips it's AMD/Intel clients (HP, Gateway, for example) could buy from AMD. The exclusive deals with Sony, Toshiba, Dell, etc, are another matter entirely. You can't be demanding exclusive deals when you already have 90% marketshare."
Centrino isn't a "compulsory" anything, which further shows your lack of understanding. Centrino is a MARKETING LABEL that says your laptop contains a) a Pentium M chip, b) an Intel Wireless Adaptor and c) an Intel Chipset. Nobody's forcing you to include these things in your laptop, but if you want to use the Centrino label to market your laptop, you have to include those three things. Think about it this way; in order for your car to be certified as a Automatic V8 with Dual Overhead Cams, your car must contain: A V8 engine with a Dual Overhead Cam assembly, and an Autiomatic Transmission. Sticking that label on a car with a V8 with single overhead cams and a manual transmission and trying to sell it under the previous moniker doesn't make any sense, neither should selling non-Intel components under the Centrino marketing term. It's the consumer's fault they don't understand what the difference between the Centrino platform and its various components is, even though Intel explains it CLEARLY in their marketing (and it would be anti-competitive if they didn't).
Furthermore, you have no proof for your secondary statement, and I'm willing to put down money that you don't, as the SEC would have already cited Intel for making any such contract. Computer manufacturers buy whatever components they want from whoever, their deals with Intel are almost always marketing agreements; if you sell computers with our processors, put this sticker on the front case and you get $20 back for every machine you sell. If you put the Intel chime on your commercials, you get $15 million dollars off the price of making that commercial. Etc. - buckrogers1965, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I got the Macbook because I don't play 3d games. This saved over $1000 from the Mac book pro and uses CPU's that are as fast as the initial high end Macbook Pro.
Really don't know why anyone should have to pay hundreds of dollars for a high end graphics chip if they are never going to need the capabilities. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1jawadde, so, you've actually bought a PS3 then?
Just STFU and go back to masturbating in the corner! - allan17, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I think AMD & Intel have to share their tech's with each other because of the antitrust trials? I could be wrong, but I seem to remember reading that somewhere...
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yes, Intel is pulling a "but mommy he's doing it too!" defense. They want to show the judge AMD wasn't competing up to "potential". I feel this could backfire for Intel though. If anything Intel's request opens the door for ATI to join the squabble... after all, who's loosing the most business to intel's new features ...like integrated graphics... ATI? I do feel AMD made a tactical buyout due to Intel's slow moving VIIV campaign. I think intel wanted ATI as a partner, but only when customers really wanted high-end graphics not to replace intel graphics, then choose to hold back on ATI at the last minute. Now that AMD is swooping in to buy up ATI, intel is steaming mad! Intel has always played favorite with ATI.. and put a lot of bad blood between them and Nvidia in the process.
The beauty of course is that with the anti-trust trial, Intel wasn't even allowed to consider buying a graphics maker... that would have been flagrant bad intentions. So AMD got a double coup over Intel. AMD is still a fraction of Intel's size... maybe they've been saving their pennies. That and ATI sees the writing on the wall of separate graphics doomed now that intel is "good enough" and sees this as a good return on value for investors to become part of AMD. - MrViklund, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Intel is scarred... that's all.
Competition is good for consumers but not for Intel. - ZapWizard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2They are just scared.
- SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Im sure they do.
Using the courts to gain information on your competitors strategies and capabilities. - crilen007, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5So because Intel got to do it before, no one else can? That's just retarded.
Also, bringing IDEAS to light in a courtroom for the JUDGE to see is one thing. Requesting the information yourself, is another. - HsoKinees, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think that Intel is hoping to discover some of AMD's secret plans and put them into action first...
- MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Intel has been anti-competitive. Japan has already ruled against them. If you read AMD full filing, which I recommend (though I don't have the link handy), it's not so much about whether Intel did what AMD is accusing them of, because they actually did. The only thing that needs to be decided is to what extent what they did makes them liable for damages to AMD, and how Intel is to be forced into compliance.
Just like Microsoft had to take Media Player out of XP for the Euro market, so too should Intel not be allowed to bundle Centrino in a compulsory way. Furthermore, Intel intentionally limited how many chips it's AMD/Intel clients (HP, Gateway, for example) could buy from AMD. The exclusive deals with Sony, Toshiba, Dell, etc, are another matter entirely. You can't be demanding exclusive deals when you already have 90% marketshare. - isellmacs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Furthermore, Intel intentionally limited how many chips it's AMD/Intel clients (HP, Gateway, for example) could buy from AMD.
Just an FYI, Apple requires the same thing from their Authorized Resellers. It's a good solid business practice from monopolies. Luckily for Apple, but unlucky for Intel, it's only the one at the top that gets shafted.
If Apple ever got 51% marketshare, MS would destroy them in court. Apple's abuse is far more than MS could ever hope to accheive, mostly because they are unchecked. - Hungryhaney, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3So, everytime you get a new GPU you are bound to pay extra for a CPU? What are you made of, money?
- evolution360, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@giloron
PS3 will support keyboards, I cannot imagine Microsoft not following soon after with one for the xbox 360 - jawadde, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4for the price of a high-end gamer videocard, you can buy a PS3 is XBox2. What's the point in spending an obscene amount of money on one piece of hardware that isn't used except for gaming ? Whenever people ask me what video card to buy, I always respond : the cheapest one that will support vista. With the savings, buy an XBox1 or PS2 right now. in 2 years, when the price of these consoles drops to a humane level, buy a PS3 or XBox2. A computer is for work, a console is for gaming. It's like buying a $400 phone that can play 512MB worth of mp3s... buy a 100$ phone and a $100 mp3 player and spend the remaining $200 on music or calling cards.
- joshld, on 10/12/2007, -26/+5In later news Intel buys Nvidia.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -33/+0Hey guys, awesome site keep up the great work, just thought i'd spread the news about a UK technology blog, because it's not often enough i see UK based ones, here's the addy anyway, all you guys should check it out, i've just subscribed, has awesome updates etc.. Bad ass.
http://www.philipaustin.co.uk
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is