And it could also be said to bribe Dell,
waste on expensive failures like Larrabee
and overspend on antivirus.
Thats $15-$20 billion right there btw.
Rebates aren't bribes and as rebates tend to have the effect of increasing your sales, to pretend that the rebate amounts are wasted, is just ignorant.
Dell bribed for $5.5 billion, $8 billion on McAfee, most analysts believe Larrabee cost over $2 billion and probably up to $5 billion.How much did developing Larrabee cost? And what about the amounts they will make on Xeon Phi?
Too early to tell yet.
Only in bizarro world.
I paid £130 for my Q6600 in early/mid 2008, and in early/mid 2012 I paid £158 for my i5 2500K (at distributor rates so even cheaper than retail). That is more than a year after initial release for both chips. Yes I still have the receipts if anyone doesn't believe me.
Their prices are low. CPUs started to be super cheap compared with performance when Core 2 hit. Before that we payed out our noses for CPUs.
200$ basically gives you the fastest CPU money can buy.
This is a fallacy tbh. There has always been ultra expensive cpu's (not just when AMD held the lead as is commonly suggested).
The best cpu you can buy right now is this for $1000 - http://ark.intel.com/products/70845...ssor-Extreme-Edition-15M-Cache-up-to-4_00-GHz
Intel could easily be offering these for $200, and still making a lot of money on them. But if they did that, who would want the quad ivy's or Haswell's to follow at only a few % IPC gain?
Just imagine intel made less money and had to offer their 12 thread cpu's at $200 instead. How much more would we be progressing? How much more important would multithreading be than it is today? If 12 threads was the standard instead of being for the elite 0.5%, then the software would be written to make use of it. Desktops probably wouldn't be going through the worse period of stagnation ever. AMD would have been long dead. Has intel killed themselves in the long run because of this?
Rebates aren't illegal, they are a common practice in all sorts of businesses, not just the semiconductor business.It wasn't wasted obviously as it helped them to maintain their monopoly. Illegal? Yes.
Rebates aren't bribes, thus no rational person would be counting this as a "waste".Dell bribed for $5.5 billion
$8 billion on McAfee
No they don't, that is just ludicrous scuttlebutt that AMD fanatics like to repeat on various forums, with the mistaken belief that it will somehow make it true.most analysts believe Larrabee cost over $2 billion and probably up to $5 billion.
Firstly it is not "gone" and you seem to harbour some kind of irrational belief that companies aren't able to make investments in their future products, all their money must only go on current products.That's at least $15 billion gone on stuff that has nothing to do with the intel fan belief that it all goes on fabs for making faster and smaller cpu's.
So the $1.25 B is stopping consumers from getting cheaper processors? LOLWhat about the payout to AMD?
No because :The total can now easily be $20 billion spent.
What about the other bribes and fines?
Just face it - considering how much money intel wastes they could certainly get away without artificially locking non-K series cpu's, or give us a decent budget chip to play around with, or stop cheaping out on HD graphics on non-K or the lower end. Why not make ultrabook chips cheaper instead of giving away cash on an ultrabook fund? Simple reason is intel does not want to change their pricing structure no matter what and they have so much money it's easier to bribe OEM's with rebates instead.
Haswell will bring yet more restrictions because every year intel segments more and more down to the last dollar.
You could also buy 1000$ CPUs in 2005. The problem was that before you hit 200$ you already had to go down 6 SKUs. Today there are only 3 SKUs above a 3570K in terms of price.
Not to mention inflation since 2005 and the dollar value. CPUs have never been so cheap as they are today, never!
Rebates aren't illegal, they are a common practice in all sorts of businesses, not just the semiconductor business.
Rebates aren't bribes, thus no rational person would be counting this as a "waste".
Go ahead and read it for yourself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#LawsuitsWhy don't you list what these are? I suspect you are going to have some difficulty here.
No I haven't forgotten it, it was only a few days ago that intels profits were down on weak demand. Consumers won't be buying Haswell for the same reasons I have outlined.Consumers are free to not buy Haswell(or any Intel product) if it doesn't meet their needs.
You seem to forget this.
Considering the smaller die sizes, you are getting less for what you pay for. Intel's ever-increasing margins (up until the last couple of quarters) is the proof of this.
There was also the issue of over demand and under supply in 2005. Now it's under demand and over supply. Why not offer more cores for the same price? More cores is the only true way to increase desktop performance, forget this 5% IPC crap.
How many here have Nehalem, SB or IB and are looking at Haswell thinking "meh I'll skip this generation again"? It's because you're basically getting the same cpu since Core began. Who wants to pay anything for that? If I could get 12 threads for $200 I'd be very interested however.
I guess you missed the part where both intel and Dell were fined for this?
{snip}
Go ahead and read it for yourself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Lawsuits
No I haven't forgotten it, it was only a few days ago that intels profits were down on weak demand. Consumers won't be buying Haswell for the same reasons I have outlined.
Its called volume. We almost ship twice the amount of PCs today as in 2005.
Look at the performance/watt numbers. Thats what people want. If there was a large market for 6C/12T CPus I am sure you would have gotten it. Instead people wanted IGPs and performance/watt.
You need to get over your hate and learn what is what. Rebates is not illegal. Setting up certain demands to hinder competition with them is.
Compared to the P4 EE chips, the lower Celerons were still fairly good performers (well, at least the ones with L2). Now compare current Pentiums with an i7. Those Pentiums are still quite useable, but I wouldn't consider them good value.
Yes I'm sure most people would rather have an anemic igp and $2 a year saved on electicity instead of a cpu that is basically more than twice as powerful.
The only reason there isn't a large market for 6C/12T cpu's is because intel has deemed it worthy only for the 0.5% who can afford to pay for it.
Yes and in all corners of the globe, governments seem to be disagreeing with what intels idea of a "rebate" is.
You need to get over your hate and learn what is what. Rebates is not illegal. Setting up certain demands to hinder competition with them is.
There is a difference on what YOU want and what the MAJORITY wants.
Nobody says Intel didnt do wrong. Its just you not understanding the difference between the 2 concepts, or simply blinded by your hate to even read the posts. Intel simply applied a condition to its rebates that was illegal.
The MAJORITY gets what it's GIVEN. It's got nothing to do with "want".
Isn't that the whole point? As soon as you "apply a condition" to a rebate it becomes a bribe instead!
OEMs dictate the products. Consumers dictate what OEMs are to deliver. So no, get over it.
But then the rebates aint illegal. AMD, nVidia and Intel gives out rebates every day.
yes intel is and always has been too expensive when compared to amd.
Which part of the $billion fines aren't you understanding? It was BRIBERY not rebates.
No it wasnt, thats something you make up.
in 2009 Intel settled with a $1.25 billion payout to AMD
In 2005, the local Fair Trade Commission found that Intel violated the Japanese Antimonopoly Act. The commission ordered Intel to eliminate discounts that had discriminated against AMD. To avoid a trial, Intel agreed to comply with the order.
In July 2007, the European Commission accused Intel of anti-competitive practices, mostly against AMD.[182] The allegations, going back to 2003, include giving preferential prices to computer makers buying most or all of their chips from Intel, paying computer makers to delay or cancel the launch of products using AMD chips, and providing chips at below standard cost to governments and educational institutions.
In May 2009, the EU found that Intel had engaged in anti-competitive practices and subsequently fined Intel €1.06 billion (US$1.44 billion), a record amount. Intel was found to have paid companies, including Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo and NEC,[190] to exclusively use Intel chips in their products, and therefore harmed other companies including AMD.[190][191][192] The European Commission said that Intel had deliberately acted to keep competitors out of the computer chip market and in doing so had made a "serious and sustained violation of the EU's antitrust rules".[190]
In June 2008, the Fair Trade Commission ordered Intel to pay a fine of US$25.5 million for taking advantage of its dominant position to offer incentives to major Korean PC manufacturers on the condition of not buying products from AMD.[194]
New York started an investigation of Intel in January 2008 on whether the company violated antitrust laws in pricing and sales of its microprocessors.[195] In June 2008, the Federal Trade Commission also began an antitrust investigation of the case.[196] In December 2009 the FTC announced it would initiate an administrative proceeding against Intel in September 2010.[197][198][199][200]
In November 2009, following a two year investigation, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sued Intel, accusing them of bribery and coercion, claiming that Intel bribed computer makers to buy more of their chips than those of their rivals, and threatened to withdraw these payments if the computer makers were perceived as working too closely with its competitors.
Now your turn - explain to me if these are "rebates" or "bribes".the SEC charged that from 2002 to 2006, Dell had an agreement with Intel to receive rebates in exchange for not using chips manufactured by AMD