EU Launches Antitrust Probe into Google Search

[False_Dmitry_II]

@i_guy

If you're going to say that because consumers most likely bought intel stuff and therefore their practices took money that would not have gone to them otherwise, that is wrong. The biggest thing affected would have been companies buying sets of computers, and their vendors basically only offering intel stuff. Consumers in general, if they are aware of even intel, would not be aware of AMD. They would buy whatever the employees at the store tell them too, and just like today that would be intel. If they are aware of intel then they'd still go for that because it's a name they trust and don't know AMD.

If, however they are fully aware of what AMD is and what they offer (better/same/good enough performance for much less) then what intel was doing would not have stopped them. I personally have never owned an intel desktop.

 

[i_guy]

[citation][nom]False_Dmitry_II[/nom]@i_guy If you're going to say that because consumers most likely bought intel stuff and therefore their practices took money that would not have gone to them otherwise, that is wrong. The biggest thing affected would have been companies buying sets of computers, and their vendors basically only offering intel stuff. Consumers in general, if they are aware of even intel, would not be aware of AMD. They would buy whatever the employees at the store tell them too, and just like today that would be intel. If they are aware of intel then they'd still go for that because it's a name they trust and don't know AMD.If, however they are fully aware of what AMD is and what they offer (better/same/good enough performance for much less) then what intel was doing would not have stopped them. I personally have never owned an intel desktop.[/citation]

I have to question if you know what Intel was accused (and convicted) of doing to OEMs.

The European Commission has a complete press release up on the charges, but they specifically boil down to two things: Intel was giving OEMs rebates if and only if they sold few-to-no AMD processors, and Intel was paying retailers not to carry computers with AMD processors. The report doesn’t list the specific OEMs, but we know it was NEC, Lenovo (and for some of the time, IBM), HP, Dell, and Acer. The retailer was Media Markt.

From:
http/www.anandtech.com/show/3533

Just look at the names of those OEMs! Those are some of the biggest PC retailers in the world. Intel picked them carefully for maximum impact on the market.

Now consider this...
If Intel didn't compete illegally then perhaps AMD would have had a bit more money to advertise with. If Intel didn't compete illegally then AMD would have done better and Intel would have had to drop their prices to OEMs and hence to end buyers. If Intel didn't compete illegally then OEMs would have been free to put (at the time) better AMD processors in their computers without the fear of never receiving Intel chips again, and AMD would by now be a household name.

There are many ways in which Intel's actions directly damaged AMD (and VIA, and nVidia...) and this has the effect that EU citizens end up paying more for less - maybe not immediately, but eventually. We spend a LOT of money on computers and as it turns out I was wrong before... the maximum settlement is 10% of European annual revenue, not net worth. That just tells you how much business Intel does in the EU.

Meanwhile the fine, while the EU’s largest, is not abnormally large given Intel’s size and that the fine is only computed against Intel’s EU sales.

(from the same article)

I don't see how this is so hard to understand, except for those that have been brain-washed to think that the EU courts are out to steal American money. If the Japanese, the Koreans, the Europeans and the Americans all agree that Intel's practices damaged consumers, and only Intel says they didn't, then maybe, just maybe, they did. Stop waving the American flag and watching Fox and think for yourself.

 

[False_Dmitry_II]

You're missing what I was saying. My only point in that post was that people buy intel because it's intel. I had a guy (back when the i5 had just come out and the 1156 mobo wasn't out yet) who wanted an intel computer to just do office work and to him this apparently meant pretty much just word. He was asking me if the i5 would be good enough to handle it (i don't recall if he went for the i7 anyway or not) and flatly refused to even consider an AMD computer; and this is the case in many instances. AMD has been around for quite a long time and saying that if intel had not done what it did in this one instance in 2004 that AMD would be a household name now seems very far-fetched. After all they've had since "1982, AMD signed a contract with Intel [for x86]" and haven't really become one. They are finally starting to seem to grow in recognition now (though I really can't say much about that relatively since I hadn't been born in 82)

I have what was a HP computer from early 2005 that had a AMD CPU in it (I only build stuff it was handed to me when the owner upgraded) so they did exist. For regular consumers it really would come down to what the store people tell you, since they wouldn't simply have 0 AMD based machines in the store, just less. Which is why I said it would affect people/businesses who mass order a bunch of stuff at once since the OEM's would have no leeway to allow such orders to end up AMD, and I have indeed seen no sets of stuff of that age in said environments be AMD. Orders like that involve far more numbers than people buying stuff, I'm sure even you use a company provided computer at work and it is likely intel.

My previous point was not even about the amount of money the fine was. Of course it has to be enough to matter to them. It has to do with the fact that it was only a fine which is only being a punishment rather than also being a proactive help. It is the point of such measures to attempt to restore a more competitive and normal/true balance to the marketplace. More competition=better stuff and lower prices for consumers. No one can argue against that. If the wronged parties, AMD, VIA, etc were given even some of that fine (won't try to say what percent of it should go to them and then how much to each, that goes beyond the scope of what I'm trying to say) then they would have some capital on hand that could be called lost revenue and be able to instantly put it towards R&D that would otherwise have been out of reach. The result of this is that they would be able to come out with a stronger product than they would otherwise have been able to and be able to hopefully even the field a little compete better and restore a more healthy marketplace for this stuff.

With it just being a fine, they have to continue with what they were doing now instead of getting to what they may have been working on had intel not done what it did. They also have to hope that with intel being such the far and away market leader that it is right now that the fine actually slowed them down enough to help restore healthy market conditions and in all honesty it may not have.