- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
My point is that if even 1 of those statements is a legal situation, then they all are, cause they are all the same thing
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
AMD vs. Intel Antitrust lawsuit
- Thread starter juane414
- Start date
My point is that if even 1 of those statements is a legal situation, then they all are, cause they are all the same thing
Who here takes the time to play a little console gaming?
I'm sure there's a good bit of crossover, so the point of this should make sense to those who haven't yet grasped exactly what "lack of competition" ultimately means for the consumer.
Of you who do console game...who's played a Madden game in the last, oh 2-3 years?
How many of you have been tempted, nearly every time you turn the game on, to throw your Xbox360/PS3 controller through your widescreen, flat panel TV due to buggy code and lack of innovation? Show of hands.
How many of you still consider NFL2K5 to be the best NFL football game ever made?
EA getting exclusivity of the NFL market led to crap games because...*gasp*...they didn't have to impress us anymore with innovation, new features, or bug-free code. They know we'd probably all buy a moldy turd in in a box as long as that box has "Madden '0X" printed on it, because that's all that is available. So, the quality of the product we get at the market price we're used to decreases.
THAT'S what we're facing in the processor world if Intel has no competition.
Ultimately, arguing here is pointless. This isn't an issue of whether AMD or Intel has a better quality product. It's also not about whether a law is stupid or illogical or not.
Until Congress changes them, the laws exist, and, if evidence shows Intel violated those laws, then they are subject to the punishment(s) associated with them.
If you don't like the laws, write your Congressman. Or...continue to argue on an internet forum, since that's SO effective.
I'm sure there's a good bit of crossover, so the point of this should make sense to those who haven't yet grasped exactly what "lack of competition" ultimately means for the consumer.
Of you who do console game...who's played a Madden game in the last, oh 2-3 years?
How many of you have been tempted, nearly every time you turn the game on, to throw your Xbox360/PS3 controller through your widescreen, flat panel TV due to buggy code and lack of innovation? Show of hands.
How many of you still consider NFL2K5 to be the best NFL football game ever made?
EA getting exclusivity of the NFL market led to crap games because...*gasp*...they didn't have to impress us anymore with innovation, new features, or bug-free code. They know we'd probably all buy a moldy turd in in a box as long as that box has "Madden '0X" printed on it, because that's all that is available. So, the quality of the product we get at the market price we're used to decreases.
THAT'S what we're facing in the processor world if Intel has no competition.
Ultimately, arguing here is pointless. This isn't an issue of whether AMD or Intel has a better quality product. It's also not about whether a law is stupid or illogical or not.
Until Congress changes them, the laws exist, and, if evidence shows Intel violated those laws, then they are subject to the punishment(s) associated with them.
If you don't like the laws, write your Congressman. Or...continue to argue on an internet forum, since that's SO effective.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2001
How is the premise of AMD's case a point of contention here? I mean between say 1998 and 2006ish we all knew why you couldn't find AMD systems built by most OEM computer makers. It sure wasn't that Athlon/Athlon64 cpu's were inferior to Intel's cpus. It wasn't limited production capacity either. It was Intel's discounting and/or penalizing of volume sales to OEMs that prevented AMD systems from being offered on OEM product line-ups. It was a big deal when AMD systems finally started being picked up by the likes of Dell. And at first it was only happening for server systems, largely because of operton superiority at the time.
So even when AMD had a very competitive and then later a superior product, Intel's marketshare loss was kept low because of their exclusivity-or-price-penalty dealings with the OEMs. Sherman's law addresses this sort of thing when the bullying company has 80%+ of the market and uses these sort of tactics.
So even when AMD had a very competitive and then later a superior product, Intel's marketshare loss was kept low because of their exclusivity-or-price-penalty dealings with the OEMs. Sherman's law addresses this sort of thing when the bullying company has 80%+ of the market and uses these sort of tactics.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2005
- Location
- A Labyrinth
They didn't tag you "Superior Evil Genius" for kicks. Brilliant explain!
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2002
- Location
- Virginia, USA
Retail business is a strange business, some people have brought up the coke vs. pepsi at food places, the reason that they carry only one is because they are bidded off to the the lowest price and the two companies make the offers and the lowest wins of course. When it comes time for construction on something, all companies make their bids at the cheapest they'll do it and how long it'll take, the lowest wins. Cpu business should be the same way, say if Intel offers to sell their processors at x amount and Amd offers at y amount the maker, let's say Dell, should choose the lowest price for that quarter/annual contract and then they duke it out for the next rebid, that keeps the prices down and keeps a level playing field and is perfectly legal. Now if a company says we will never offer you something, or never support you again if you sell someone elses product that's a different story. Now "bribes" are a matter of debate, if a company says "Hey, if you sell just our products we'll give you a bonus" then the dealer should consult the other company and see if they can offer better. Also, I'm not an intel fanboy, haven't used an intel product since the early 90's, but I also do not consider myself an Amd fanboy either, I've just always had better luck with their processors and like their prices better. If you want to put the blame on anyone here, it should lay on the dealers, Dell, Bestbuy, etc for going along with it, corruption is always present in corps, and always will be, they look after their own pockets rather than what's right or wrong, the almighty dollar always wins.
