The Gory Details of NY's Antitrust Suit Against Intel

[elegant]

On February 16, 2006, Intel took note of a service report in which Dell's chief executive, Kevin Rollins, had said that Dell had "made no plans to begin using" AMD chips. "Finally, something positive," commented one Intel executive. On the contrary, Intel CEO Paul Otellini returned: "The best friend money can buy."

Want to know details?

Read article @ ExtremeTech

[SealLion]

Interesting. I went to the link. I found this too:

....Intel's behavior was predicated on marginalizing AMD in the market. Intel's actions, the suit contended, harmed New Yorkers by eliminating true competition

basically, one company want's to have the other out so that the other is the sole beneficiary of economic partners, economic gains and so on and so on....

I read this here too:

"For AMD to make sales was not sufficient; if it were to challenge Intel's monopoly power, it would have to make substantial high-value sales to major corporate customers. Only by raising the average selling price of its products could AMD challenge Intel's leadership. Intel therefore argued to OEMs that Intel would 'continue to pigeon hole AMD to the bottom 10 percent of segment.'

Somebody doesn't like the competition, I see.
It sounds to me like Intel want's to maintain it's monopolist strength.

That's not necessarily good for customers.
It's good for the company, but not good for other corporations and individuals.

and this here

[elegant]

Interesting. I went to the link. I found this too:



basically, one company want's to have the other out so that the other is the sole beneficiary of economic partners, economic gains and so on and so on....

I read this here too:



Somebody doesn't like the competition, I see.
It sounds to me like Intel want's to maintain it's monopolist strength.

That's not necessarily good for customers.
It's good for the company, but not good for other corporations and individuals.

and this here

I agree with you on a 100%.

This is why I don't want to be in the "bleeding edge" of technology.

I need to see value in a purchase, not just performance. Not just "bells and whistles".

I can definitely buy the best of performance. But, why do I have to expend so much?

If I have to expend so much, I would be looking for a system that is specifically dedicated to a very processor intensive application. Like a render farm, etc. On that specific niche there are stronger players than Intel.

But, why do you have to milk customers until they are dead dry, Intel?

Even in the times were AMD topped Intel, AMD did not do it.

I assure you I do not have any interest in either. I get to pay for either.

But then again, these are my own views...