4 ms·
Correct me if I'm mixing up the timeline, but that's the moment in history when Intel used illegal market manipulation to keep AMD out of the OEM market, right?
by onli 7y ago
Correct me if I'm mixing up the timeline, but that's the moment in history when Intel used illegal market manipulation to keep AMD out of the OEM market, right? So Intel did more than lower their profit margin, they basically bribed their way through that period. An option they are unlikely to have again, and which as a strategy shouldn't even work anymore for the type of data centers existing today.
- Nokinside 7y agoThey did everything they could, but Intel did not win with just bribery and dirty tricks.
- ncmncm 7y agoI am curious why you think it will not work as well as last time. It is not as if law enforcement is more active now. Generally law enforcement at the moment is forbidden to touch the big fish, since the biggest fish sets policy.
- onli 7y agoWhile I'm similarly critical of US corruption and too big to fail thinking in general, there was a bit of (EU) progress in terms of monopoly control. Like the huge fines Microsoft and Google had to pay. But that would be retroactive and not help AMD. But what helps AMD in advance is the data center landscape. How would Intel force Google, Microsoft and Amazon to use their server processors in their custom servers for their cloud data centers? They can compete on price (though price dumping could alert regulators again), but Intel has zero influence on those three. Thus we see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20643604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20643604. And smaller OEMs should be hard to pressure given the history and hard to mislead given the big companies validating AMDs processors. Regular vendors for desktops and laptops are already offering AMD, so there seems to be limited danger there.
- bryanlarsen 7y agoThe first AMD v Intel cost Intel $10 million. The second cost $1.25 billion. A third one would be immense. Also, Intel is operating under a consent decree and FTC supervision until October 29, 2020. The FTC would come down hard on direct violations of the decree.
- ncmncm 7y agoIntel put $5B into Itanic, destroyed by Athlon. But the consent decree is new to me. I guess FTC has been slightly more active than I gave them credit for.
- rasz 7y agoIntel still to this day hasnt paid that $1 billion https://pcper.com/2016/06/intel-still-hasnt-paid-amd-the-1-2-billion-usd-anti-trust-fine/ https://pcper.com/2016/06/intel-still-hasnt-paid-amd-the-1-2... and it looks like they finally brib^^convinced right people and have a chance of cancelling it https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/business/intel-eu-antitrust-fine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/business/intel-eu-antitru...
- bryanlarsen 7y agoAccording to those articles it is the EU fine that isn't paid. From what I've heard the US fine is basically what paid for the Zen R&D. Karma.