AMD vs Intel...let the battle begin!

[Golferdow01]

LINK

Column: AMD vs. Intel; The Legal Challenge

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Yesterday turned out to be the most widely anticipated day in the microprocessor realm. AMD finally filed an antitrust complaint against its archrival Intel, the world’s largest chipmaker. Regardless of the obvious superiority of AMD’s Athlon 64 line of microprocessors, the world’s largest OEMs such as Dell, HP and Sony have either offered limited AMD based systems or they have outright declined to work with AMD at all. Allegedly, this is due to unfair and monopolistic business practices by Intel.[/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]According to AMD’s press release, "The 48-page complaint explains in detail how Intel has unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the x86 microprocessor market by engaging in worldwide coercion of customers from dealing with AMD. It identifies 38 companies that have been victims of coercion by Intel - including large scale computer-makers, small system-builders, wholesale distributors, and retailers, through seven types of illegality across three continents." This is just the beginning of a chaotic drama that is expected to continue for some time. The press release gets even more interesting as AMD points out specific instances in which Intel had persuaded global corporations into exclusivity for their products by offering incentives for excluding AMD and penalties for purchasing products from its competition. For instance, the press release states, "According to industry reports, and as confirmed by the JFTC in Japan, Intel has paid Dell and Toshiba huge sums not to do business with AMD." AMD continued, "Intel paid Sony millions for exclusivity. AMD's share of Sony's business went from 23 percent in '02 to 8% in '03, to 0%, where it remains today." [/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The world’s second largest chipmaker has listed a decent number of Intel’s monopolistic behaviors in its 48-page complaint. Needless to say, Intel is definitely not a fair competitor and doesn’t believe in the concept of an open marketplace. This certainly reminds me of another "world’s largest" company with a similar expectation of controlling the global market for computer operating systems; I’ll leave the name up to your imagination. [/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]One interesting point I noticed is that the entire complaint is quite easy to comprehend and contains very little "legalese", or legal double talk. This was quite surprising to me, having read some other complaints that took many hours and a legal dictionary to decipher. This was more than likely planned, so that the average consumer would be able to read and understand AMD’s point of view in this matter. I can visualize the lawyer’s frustration, having to reword his arguments in plain English after being rejected for the third time as being "too complicated". This may not be the case, but it is an amusing thought.
[/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]As far as the processor market is concerned, I certainly believe this complaint has merit. It definitely has far reaching potential to impact technological advancements and pricing that will be of benefit to the end-user. Those of you that have been following the latest developments in the microprocessor market know that AMD has earned its chance to compete in a fair marketplace, unimpeded by Intel’s behind the scene meddling. I’m not playing favorites here, but I’m only giving credit where it’s due. Ever since Intel first launched its Prescott microprocessor, the company has been on a downhill slide in relation to AMD, but you would never know that Intel is concerned except for its nearly non-existent enthusiast market share. Intel knows it doesn’t need to develop architecturally superior chips in order to stay competitive, thanks to its "exclusive deals" and downright monopolistic business propositions. AMD, however, has revolutionized the industry with its 64-bit chips, and independent industry analysts and publication reports have proven this over and again. [/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I certainly believe this to be a logical complaint that favors not only AMD, but the industry and consumers as well. Let’s assume that the court rules in favor of AMD, it would certainly wake up Intel and force it to conduct fair business practices. Furthermore, possibly Dell, HP and Sony may become strong partners with AMD and offer consumers solutions based on its chips. Since competition always leads to better products and competitive pricing, Intel wouldn’t be able to control the market with its mediocre processor architecture (for the time being at least), which would hopefully lead Intel to develop products that are actually beneficial to the advancement of the industry. Fierce competition from Intel would keep AMD on its tiptoes and vice versa. But most importantly, neither one of the companies would be able to control the pricing model; we have a good example of that with AMD’s recently launched FX-57 microprocessor that costs upwards of $1000.00. We have anti-monopoly laws in the United States for a reason, and they need to be strongly enforced equally in all areas of enterprise.[/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I personally don’t care if AMD benefits financially from the complaint, but it would certainly limit, if not end, Intel’s reign of monopolistic power and control over industry standards and offerings. Until the complaint is settled, all we can do is watch and see how things work out. As far as the current situation is concerned, let’s just say it will be a long road to a final decision. I do wonder on a few things, however; Will Intel’s business practices change before this goes to trial? Might Intel just give in and settle with AMD in a similar fashion to what it has done with the JFTC in Japan? Your guess is as good as mine, so get ready as the drama has just begun…[/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]

It's about time...hopefully AMD can pull this one out and we see prices start dropping.

 

[BrutusMaximus]

Yeah, Microsoft just happened to delay the release of Win XP 64 until Intel had their 64 bit chips out. Funny huh?

Intel are a bunch of bastards.

 

[Golferdow01]

Yeah, Microsoft just happened to delay the release of Win XP 64 until Intel had their 64 bit chips out. Funny huh?

Intel are a bunch of bastards.

No kidding. I sometimes think Intel is worse than Microsoft. Oh well, most computer gurus and even people who build them will use AMD over Intel cause the chips are better and cost less, it's that simple. AMD does deserve a chance in the market though but unfortunately most uninformed people will opt for Intel because of the name

 

[BrutusMaximus]

The newer Intel chips I dont trust, because they put an assload of cache on them, causing them to run hotter than hell.

The Athlon 64's are great.......by far the most stable AMD chips ever, incredible performance, even on 32 bit apps. And the on-die memory controller is a great idea. Load your machine with ram, the processor doesnt have to have a ton of cache, cause it can just use your system ram as cache.

 

[NorthShoreBuck]

Max and I have discussed AMD vs Intel before.

I am not a lawyer but I think AMD's case is weak. That being said it would be better for Intel to settle for a small amount out of court. Big companies have big egos so I doubt that will happen.
The business practices they site are used by everyone everywhere.
I work in the retail/distribution business on the technology side and every food and CPG item you buy uses the same methods that Intel does.

Look up Michael Porters five forces of competitive strategy.

You get volume discounts and back end rebates for market share. Vendors have paid slotting fees forever. A company incurs additional costs by supporting multiple vendors. Even the music you hear on the radio is played because the companies paid to have it played.

I know the tech geeks, term of endearment, love AMD.
You do have to remember that AMD has had quality issues, heat problems and required fans the screamed. I realize those issues have been addressed but for many those issues cost them time and money and they may not want to do business with AMD.


While the article, which is really an opinion piece, sites who has chosen not to do business with AMD the omitted who has. IBM and Alienware just to name a few.

I am a free market kind of guy and want the best product at the best price to win. That being said I also want the option to buy from who I want for the reasons I want without government intervention.

 

[BrutusMaximus]

I realize those issues have been addressed but for many those issues cost them time and money and they may not want to do business with AMD.

That's a bullshit answer that I'd expect from most companies :)

You are right about all companies using those types of business tactics. I totally agree. Intel is not doing anything different. It's all those business practices that I hate. Take EA for example. They own everything now, so they can make crappy games, charge way too much for them, and nobody can do a damn thing about it. I own an Intel, I own an AMD 64. The AMD was half the price, has twice the performance, runs twice as cool. Simple as that. Companies like Dell, HP, Gayway will use Intel stuff, because Intel pays them more to do so, nothing else.

(Mind you I am not tryin to start a war here, just discussing)

 

[NorthShoreBuck]

Competition is good for everyone.

Ask someone who had to buy enterprise storage years ago. The only game in town was EMC and those guys were pricks. Competition came from IBM and HP among others and customers could not get away from EMC fast enough.

Business is not fair. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

Max when was the last time you bought from Dell?:tongue2:

 

[BrutusMaximus]

Max when was the last time you bought from Dell?

Hah, owned 1, was a laptop. Was a piece of crap, will never own another. I do love my Dell monitor though :)

 

[Golferdow01]

My Dell laptop isn't half bad...for a laptop. I have worked extensively with AMD when building computers so I am somewhat biased but I have built a few with Intel as well. During the Thunderbird-Pentium III era, I felt the Intel might have a slight advantage since the Thunderbirds I worked with always seemed so damn hot, however, they were a hell of a lot cheaper. Now Intel has so many damn cpu's I can't keep up with them all, but everytime I compare an Intel Xeon, Opteron, or whatever else to an Athlon 64, it never seems to come close. The Athlon 64 is an AMD revolution and runs so efficiently and cool. It's too bad it doesn't get more attention than it does, although the geeks love it. Load up your computer with a gig of RAM and an Athlon 64 and watch it fly.