So you're saying that paying off OEM's to use your hardware over the competition is just as bad as... offering the best product you can to consumers?


That fine was also nothing to them, the damage they caused and advantage they gained far exceeded the reparations and put Intel so much further in the lead it took AMD nearly a decade to catch back up.

The only reason they wouldn't do it again is because in this information age of whistleblowers the rug would be pulled out from under them much sooner.

This post was edited by DCSS on Jul 24 2017 12:10pm

business are designed to run indefinitely stagnating the market isnt anything new to many companies until competition arises, you know they have been in trouble for many other things especially in late 90s too

ibm can make 7nm in 2015 but intel cant do 10nm yet? while others are offering 7nm too,

how long has 6 core or even 8 core cpus exists and now we are finally seeing 6 core in mainstream, yes competition is nice finally

ipc was just thrown in there considering its another theory on it all because they are claiming 30% on coffeelake

This post was edited by yupitsmeh on Jul 24 2017 12:25pm

Stagnating the market is not new but it is not legally enforced.

It's also not illegal.

Like at all.

by not allowing competition you allow anti competitive and monopolies lawsuits to be brought up against you

like what is going to be happening to qualcomm from samsung intel etc

Intel isn't keeping AMD from doing anything.

Intel keeps AMD around (and by the way, if AMD went out of business because they couldn't deliver that would not be anti competition, that would be survival of the fittest.) because they don't want to have to give their IP to another company or be forced to split. I personally think they'd rather move their base of operations to another country before the latter would happen but that's a lot of hassle that can be avoided by continuing to keep AMD around. Because then they face the issue of harsher regulations and scrutiy, OEM's and consumers aren't happy to only have one option, people start investing in ARM more, etc. It's just a lose-lose for Intel all around but not because of anti competition. Anti competition was the shit where they paid off OEM's to use their chips over AMD, it's not because they simply offered a better product that said partners chose without deception.

This post was edited by DCSS on Jul 24 2017 01:14pm

do they not have cross licensing deal so the are dependent on one another also?

also if they were only cpu business they would be regulated on pricing, and many other things

they need amd

Second, Article 102 of the Treaty prohibits firms that hold a dominant position on a given market to abuse that position, for example by charging unfair prices, by limiting production, or by refusing to innovate to the prejudice of consumers.

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html

This post was edited by yupitsmeh on Jul 24 2017 01:32pm

Exactly. Innovating is not anti-competition.

This post was edited by DCSS on Jul 24 2017 01:36pm

They don't want to be forced to price lower they need another company to offer product

They like their prices you should know this