The first chip I worked on at AMD was K6-II+, then K6-III. I had nothing to do with Athlon, but everything to do with Athlon 64/Opteron. Last chip was the dual cores. Quad core wasn't my fault
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Federal Trade Commission Files Suit Against Intel For 'Anticompetitive Tactics'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The first chip I worked on at AMD was K6-II+, then K6-III. I had nothing to do with Athlon, but everything to do with Athlon 64/Opteron. Last chip was the dual cores. Quad core wasn't my fault
It works like this. HP places an order for a million chips and expects them to be delivered in batches every week. The Intel finds out HP is designing a new product around an AMD chip then threatens to delay a few shipments, basically shutting down HP's production. They don't have to be that direct but you get the point. Other things they do is give HP a discount if they use ONLY Intel chips. Then if an AMD chip shows up they loose that discount.
THis is actually allowed except in cases where it is done by a conpany that is dominate in their industry.
The problem here is that there is no other chip supplier who can deliver Intel's volume. The big PC makers are forced to buy from Intal.
Notice how Apple just bought it's own chip company. You can guess why
No, it isn't, in any capacity. You seem to have no clue what the various types of monopolies or anticompetitive business practices are!
Apple has a non-coercive monopoly over macs, which reside in the larger market of personal computers. They've done all the work to create the market for them through decades of research and development, and have eaten all the risk involved in manufacturing. Apple only grants licenses to use Mac OS on Apple hardware. If you don't like that bit of the EULA, you can quite easily not accept it and not purchase or use Apple hardware or software. At which point Apple loses your business, and profit. Thus, there is competition within the sphere of personal computers, and Apple cannot dictate the terms of it. Any computer company can, without violating Apple's IP, compete with them. Quite a few do right now, in fact.
Apple doesn't license their operating system to any other manufacturers for any reason at all. Because they don't license it to manufacturers, they can't unfairly exert influence upon said nonexistent manufacturers by, say, threatening to revoke their deal with the manufacturer or increase the price of their OS licenses unless they stop carrying a competitor's product.
Not licensing their operating system is not anticompetitive. There are certainly ways that Apple could engage in anticompetitive activity, but this is not one of them. Theoretically as an example: if Apple was having a neck-and-neck battle with HP or Dell over high-end 15" laptops of a certain specification, and they informed an LCD manufacturer that they would cancel all their orders unless the LCD manufacturer stopped selling 15" panels to HP or Dell. That would probably be anticompetitive.
Threat: "If you don't buy 400,000 of these chips we will not be able to give you as much of a discount."
Reward: "You've been a loyal customer over the years buying millions of our chips, so in turn we give you the best discounts"
The reasons years ago all the big name computer manufactures where not buying AMD's chips wasn't because they didn't make decent chips. They didn't have the capacity to manufacture the number of chips that the market demanded. They had a choice and they made a decision bases on cost and supply. Intel might have had the most expensive chips but they had the capacity to produce then to the point where the bulk buyers got a good deal.
In the end it had had the best results for the consumers. AMD has done great moving into a market that is so hard to get spot in. Intel could have shut them down years ago, so the fact that they are still around says alot about Intel's desire to stomp them out. Intel might have done some things to slow their market share gain, you can also look at as them protecting contracts they have been fulfilling for years. It's not anti-competitive to try to keep your customers with incentives of quality and price while maintaining corporate relations.
I have fond memories of the K6-2 and the K6-III. Super Socket 7 times were great.The first chip I worked on at AMD was K6-II+, then K6-III. I had nothing to do with Athlon, but everything to do with Athlon 64/Opteron. Last chip was the dual cores. Quad core wasn't my fault
If you are truly FORCED to use Intel then you are saying that Apple has a monopoly. So your kind of FORCED to use it by choice.
The MS thing was bull. I guess they should go after Chevrolet next because I am forced to buy a vehicle with a Delco radio in it. They are just going after big name companies. MS is less "anti-competitive" now, who had filled that void? MS was being anti-competitive in a non competitive market.
That just doesn't fly with me. You are making artificial distinctions between companies that make both hardware + software(Apple) and ones that only license the OS(MSFT). Either you get government OUT of the picture and let the market decide, or force Apple to license their OS.
After what they are doing to Intel years after the fact, they might go after Apple in about 10 years. I see points on both side with Apple. If MS make windows only work with AMD chips they would go after them. Apple limits their OS to only run on their hardware, but where do you draw the line? Do they go after software manufactures that don't support every OS? Console exclusive games?
The FTC isn't unbiased, they have an agenda. They will go after the big boys and try to do as much as they can will just a little work.
It's not an artificial distinction when, you know, the companies in question (MS and Apple) have completely different business models.
Lethal
Cpu
Just incase alot of u on here dont know there is the HACKINTOSH community with SNOW LEOPARD running excellent on amd chipsets and amd x2 and x4 cpu,s so Apple could have gone with AMD they chose intel none of us were in that meeting to know what happened im using both intel and amd and i have no problem.
Just incase alot of u on here dont know there is the HACKINTOSH community with SNOW LEOPARD running excellent on amd chipsets and amd x2 and x4 cpu,s so Apple could have gone with AMD they chose intel none of us were in that meeting to know what happened im using both intel and amd and i have no problem.
As apple presents the new chips tomorrow as said in the article do you guys think we ll know more about the facelift of the macbook pro date which many of us are waiting for?
Thanks for the clarification. I figured that Intel had to have made some change to the compiler code that decreased performance if an AMD cpu was present.
Out of curiosity though, since this is an area I'm not that knowledgeable in, why is it illegal for company A, who may have a dominant product, to decide to not provide a license to company B?
I guess this boils down to why it is illegal for Intel to decide to not provide a license to nVidia so that nVidia can produce Nehalem-based chipsets. Personally I wish they would. While I typically viewed the nForce 600/700 series for Intel to be lackluster in performance and stability, it's good to at least have another option available in the market (and helps to keep Intel from stagnating in chipset design and development).
At the same time though, if Intel wishes to not provide a license to nVidia, isn't that their right?
I guess this boils down to why it is illegal for Intel to decide to not provide a license to nVidia so that nVidia can produce Nehalem-based chipsets. Personally I wish they would. While I typically viewed the nForce 600/700 series for Intel to be lackluster in performance and stability, it's good to at least have another option available in the market (and helps to keep Intel from stagnating in chipset design and development).
At the same time though, if Intel wishes to not provide a license to nVidia, isn't that their right?
It's not necessarily illegal. But if they are a monopoly in CPUs, and by their licensing, bundling, and other practices arrange things so that if you want their CPUs, you also have to use their graphics chips, that is probably illegal.
I'm guessing that, in regards to trying to force system integrators to use their graphics chips, it has to do almost exclusively with Atom? The ION platform is definitely better than the platform Intel provides.
And from what I know about the nVidia-Intel lawsuit/spat, nVidia licensed the ability to communicate on the DMI bus. Intel switched over to using QPI for Nehalem-based products, and from what it seems, nVidia is claiming that the right to make chipsets using QPI is included in their licensing agreement, while Intel claims it is not. It seems like, in regards to this issue, Intel may be justified, but I haven't actually looked at their licensing agreement from a few years ago.
I wonder why nVidia even mentioned MCP99 for Nehalem/Westmere in Q1 2010 back in during the summer.
Besides that I do remember the strange block diagram conjecture of how the MCP99 would be the PCH/IGP and the connections over DMI and the PCIe 2.0 lanes for its functions.
I never saw any indications of a X58 replacement from nVidia using MCP99. The product seemed to be aiming for P55/H55/H57 for Lynnfield and the Westmere dual cores.
well now. if this is true, then they need to be punished for it. but i think intel has been doing well lately, and just needs to continue to push technology to the limit