AMD has fired another venomous barrage at its rival Intel today. Following the European Union's intent to investigate alleged antitrust charges against Intel, AMD has released a study claiming 43 per cent of Intel's profits are a result of monopolistic practices. The study comes from the ERS Group and was commissioned by AMD. …
Let's see...now AMD would have us believe that Intel has extracted huge monopoly rents, but their cries to the EU were that Intel was pricing below cost?!?! Brilliant how those Intel people have managed to earn huge profits by selling below cost. AMD needs that kind of magic themselves!
At least they acknowledged they have a primary competitor
But did they mean AMD or VIA ?
this can be summed up
"Says the pot calling the kettle black"
Seriously... someone tell those people at AMD to shut up and get their diapers changed.
They sound just as bad as Microshaft accusing ________ of monopoly or patent violation.
So AMD's problems...
are all Intel's fault. Of course they are. Not. Intel are not to blame for the poor supply chain of AMD. Have you ever tried to actually buy a high-end AMD cpu? "Should be in soon, maybe 12 weeks". Whereas ask for an Intel chip, the reply is usually "how many do you want sir?"
AMD have never actually designed a decent chip anyway. Going back to the 486 days, they were a copy of the Intel chip. The K5 was crap. The K6 was designed by Nextgen. The K7 on were co-designed by DEC.
When AMD can design a good chip, AND supply them in quantity, AND supply them on-time AND at a good price, then they will be serious competition. These law suits are purely AMD clutching at straws, trying to find someone to blame for their own shortcomings. Get your own house in order and you will be competitive.
AMD blew it!
AMD was growing in market share, and was on the verge of breaking through, but lost out due to poor execution. Get back to work, and make better products!
Hmmm? Skewed Intel...
"We are confident that the microprocessor market segment is functioning normally and that Intel's conduct has been lawful, pro-competitive, and beneficial to consumers," said Intel veep Bruce Sewell.
How can that statement be true, whenever, especially so in the microprocessor market segment, pro-competition can only really mean exclusion?
Unless microprocessor market segments functioning normally, function differently from traditional markets?
Intel isn't a monopoly
Intel doesn't have the monopoly power to set the price of it's CPU's above the market level, because it does competition, and the products are more or less undifferentiated, as far as most consumers are concerned.
Intel only dumps some of their line low to
mid products the high end is still incredibly
high and won't really come down stack that
up against AMD who keep all their prices
high and never lower them take too long to
deliver chips and you can see why Intel
wins, the shear ability to shit out chips
that at least kind of work in almost no
time should not be discounted I don't
see this as a monopoly game it's true
if your big it helps but they don't have
to do anything underhanded to sell chips.
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Game Theory The agony and ecstasy of SteamOS: WHERE ARE MY GAMES?
- Hello, police, El Reg here. Are we a bunch of terrorists now?
- Microsoft and HTC are M8s again: New One mobe sports WinPhone
- Worstall on Wednesday Wall Street woes: Oh noes, tech titans aren't using bankers