Big, bad Intel up to no good again?
Intel is accused of monopolistic business practices pretty much all of the time. So much so that the big bully boilerplate isn't worth repeating.
The latest reports of charges against Intel are interesting because of the timing. According to this March 10 headline, the Korean Fair Trade Commission has ruled against Intel. That would be news if it hadn't been news eight months ago. Here's an English-language summation of the case that was news in June 2008. (CNET News report here.)
Not that all complaints about Intel business practices are unfounded. Certainly not. But how many times do we have to hear the "news" that Intel leveraged its market position to finesse a deal? (Answer: ad nauseam.) In this case, the American Antitrust Institute selectively translated text from an old 133-page report to show that Intel coerced Samsung (and others) into using Intel chips instead of those from Advanced Micro Devices.
Again, worth putting out there eight months ago but probably not today.
And let's remember that, of course, Nvidia and AMD never do this in the graphics chip market when they're trying to reel in a customer. No enticements, no sweeteners to close the deal. Absolutely not. Perish the thought.
But I shouldn't rush too quickly to Intel's defense. There will be plenty of real news related to Intel's market dominance in the coming years. The intensified focus now on Intel's business practices is happening against the backdrop of the severe financial straits of its sole competitor. No one wants to see AMD go away. (No stronger advocate of this than AMD itself.)
That said, the question should always be asked: is it really unfair competition or is it merely unfair as Intel's less-successful rival sees it? The grumblings I most often hear about are MDF and bundling. Different parties' interpretations of Intel business practices (real or imagined) connected to Market Development Funds and bundling are too varied and too byzantine to cover here. But that two-second Intel jingle at the end of a Dell, Hewlett-Packard, or Sony TV commercial can have, for AMD, an ominous ring to it.
All of the above gets (very) complicated because of Intel's dominant market position. One question is, where does MDF end and alleged brass-knuckles, restrictive bundling begin?
"So, Mr. Computer Maker, want some peppier graphics in that Netbook? We got this thing called the GN40...So you might want to reconsider that Ion thing." Nvidia may have a point here. But are they being out-bundled or simply out-maneuvered by Intel? You decide.
Brooke Crothers has served as an editor at large at CNET News, an editor at Dow Jones' Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, and a senior editor at InfoWorld. His CNET blog covers chip technology and computer systems, and how they define the computing experience. He also contributes to The New York Times' Bits and Technology sections. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. Follow Brooke on Twitter @mbrookec. 
The very basic goal of any business is to succeed and grow in a market. Yet everytime any corporation becomes sucessful and grabs a majority market share a bunch of insignificant people with no real stake in the matter crawl out of the woodwork and start tossing around the "Monopoly" word. "Monopoly" is just becoming a catch all argument for any company that actually becomes successful. This is just the business version of the classic "Root for the underguy" mentality at work. If Intel and AMD's roles were reversed people would still be rooting for the underdog.
In the end, all of this just reflects on the status and emotional needs of the individual. Successful people tend to root for the person/team/company/product that's suceeding. Losers root for the underdog because they themselves are one.
...and for the record I take no sides in this stupid Intel vs AMD war. I've purchased CPU's from both throughout the years. It all depends on who's got the better performing chip for my purposes at any one moment. When I'm staring at the PC's desktop, running apps, reading e-mail, or playing games I really don't focus on who made the CPU.
Well said - that's the most intelligent post I've ever read on this site.
See how successful Intel with be if Toshiba, Samsung, LG, etc. etc. were making x86 processors.
[CNET editors' note: Personal attacks deleted.]
THAT IS WRONG! Even as a Microsoft fanboy, who loves their products.... I have to say that is bluntly wrong, and they were right to be punished for it.
A company having a monopoly is not the problem, that company using its monopoly to crush competitors who have better products instead of crushing competitors by making better products is. You let that happen and before long you've got the Soviet Union without the black market.
As for who's really worse, yes, many of the smaller companies would do exactly the same if they were in the same position but as they're not, they're not currently the problem. If and when they become the problem it will be time to do something about it but when time and resources are limited you go after the one causing the greatest immediate damage.
After a few months, I was able to snag a vendor who would frequent our store and give us marketing material for their particular brand of computer products. The word on the street was, Intel was threatening all manufacturers to withold Intel products (or significantly raise their prices) if anybody decided to support AMD's new Intel-killer. Remember, most manufacturers make their money in the corporate world, which has always been thoroughly dominated by Intel, so this would have killed them.
There's a difference between making a good product to climb to the top, and using your position at the top to strongarm others into using your inferior products.
Talk about irony.
My point is, don't ask executives at the competition about intel's strongarming, ask the people on the streets and on the front lines. AMD executives sound like they are whining, but people like me, a starbucks barista, and the sales guy from best buy know the tribulations and pitfalls of Intel's monopoly better than anyone else. And we can describe it better too.
Starbucks corporate and Intel arranged to put a WiFi hotspot in your location, your manager proceeds to insult and impede an Intel person (PR? since when do PR people do installs?) trying to do that authorized work and as a result that manager gets fired for being a jerk?
Sounds like your boss deserved to get fired and it had nothing to do with the fact that the installer was from Intel. Next time maybe your former boss will have learned to do what his manager tells him to do and not to mouth off at suppliers.
It was an excercise in sarcastic hyperbole, for no reason other than I just felt like it and it was sort of a fun way to make a point.
To answer your follow up question: yes I'm bored and definitly need to find a hobby or something.
I agree with the person who said "I'm just glad I'm not a someone who has to deal with this stuff"
- by marbrosam March 13, 2009 4:30 PM PDT
- Putting aside the emotions that always come up in this debate, there's a couple of facts worth mentioning:
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(21 Comments)1- Intel originally invented the x86 architecture back in the days, and AMD was merely a manufacturer licensing not only the architecture - x86 - but the actual chip design and layouts...
Intel had to live with this because many customers, especially the millitary required a second source manufacturer.
Later on Intel stopped licensing the new x86 processor design (I think it was the 486 or pentium when they stopped licensing it) but AMD still retained the x86 architecture license and for many reasons Intel couldn't take that from AMD. At this point AMD designed its very first processor all by itself and eventually became a competitor after years of being just a second source manufacturers.
2- The competitive environment today boils down who has the best performance/dollar (or performance/watt). Intel is the leader now hands down, but that wasn't the case a few years ago.
3- Intel didn't try to kill the x86, they did introduce the Itanium a few years ago but never discontiued the x86.
Its true things were ugly back in the nineties, but that's back in the nineties. AMD has not only recovered from it, they were actually the technology leader for several years at the turn of the century.
Time for everyone to move on and focus on the present.