Its rebates with condition. Else you would see people punished with jail most likely.
Its the same as politicians gets political donations instead too. Or kickbacks in other cases.
It's a corporation. Individual profit without individual responsibility. Ottelini should have been jailed, ditto Dell, but it's a sad indictment of the world we live in that they basically got away with it.
Same as bankers getting away with all the crap they pull.
You can philosophise all you want but Intel would be LESS expensive if there were more competition in the marketplace. Sure, Intel cannot raise prices as high as they would like ... this would hurt their bottom-line in a desktop market that is alreaty weak but if they had competion their prices (IMHO) would be anywhere from 10 to 25% less.
Are they too expensive ... not necessarily as people continue to buy. Are they more expensive without direct competion ... defintely yes. Intel is no benevolent, charitable organization. Their purpose is to survive by profiting and raising shareholder equity.
There are people in this thread who are coming across as either Intel employees or just plain fanboys. Give it up. Intel wants your money and without competion they are getting more of it ...
You can philosophise all you want but Intel would be LESS expensive if there were more competition in the marketplace. Sure, Intel cannot raise prices as high as they would like ... this would hurt their bottom-line in a desktop market that is alreaty weak but if they had competion their prices (IMHO) would be anywhere from 10 to 25% less.
Are they too expensive ... not necessarily as people continue to buy. Are they more expensive without direct competion ... defintely yes. Intel is no benevolent, charitable organization. Their purpose is to survive by profiting and raising shareholder equity.
There are people in this thread who are coming across as either Intel employees or just plain fanboys. Give it up. Intel wants your money and without competion they are getting more of it ...
Dell wasn't fined for being part of the rebate scheme, they were fined for not adequately declaring that they were involved.I guess you missed the part where both intel and Dell were fined for this?
The only case of a meaningful penalty imposed against Intel there was by the EU, in a process their own Ombudsman criticised.Go ahead and read it for yourself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Lawsuits
LOL What nonsense.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.
Dell wasn't fined for being part of the rebate scheme, they were fined for not adequately declaring that they were involved.
Meaningful in that it cost intel $billions instead of $millions? The acts however were the same in every case - bribing OEM's not to use AMD. The only difference is the EU isn't weak against abusive monopoly corporations like the rest of the world is.The only case of a meaningful penalty imposed against Intel there was by the EU, in a process their own Ombudsman criticised.
Lower prices is nothing but a pee in the pants case. Because the lower prices can only be payed by future R&D reductions. AMD already sit in a position were they dont have enough money for designs on time.
Honestly, the 2500k feels like a steal for the performance. Ever since the release of SB and now IB the Intel chips for the performance are a bargain.
That's because performance more than doubles with graphics cards every other generation.What I find funny about these type of threads is people moan that an Intel 3770k is @$330 yet they don't blink an eyelash about buying 2 7970s or 2 GTX670!
There was no penalty levied on Dell for being involved in bribery.Involved in bribery.
AMD concocted these allegations to get out of their Cross Licensing Agreement with Intel.Meaningful in that it cost intel $billions instead of $millions? The acts however were the same in every case - bribing OEM's not to use AMD. The only difference is the EU isn't weak against abusive monopoly corporations like the rest of the world is.
There was no penalty levied on Dell for being involved in bribery.
AMD concocted these allegations to get out of their Cross Licensing Agreement with Intel.
Intel denied ever doing what AMD alleged, so chose to formally agree to not do what they weren't doing anyway.
Since that time, how have Intel and AMD done?
If AMD were being held back by these supposedly rigged rebates, then with that no longer the case, then they should have prospered and Intel suffered.
Instead, we have seen Intel take Market Share off AMD, hand over fist and AMD now on Life Support, unlikely to survive into the next decade.
AMD's problems have overwhelmingly been incompetent managers, who of course weren't going to accept the blame for their ineptness, so they just blamed Intel and the gullible lap it up.
Other than the EU(who loves to rort large amounts from American Companies), the rest of the world did nothing more than just wave a disapproving finger at Intel.Yes sure, poor Intel being unfairly picked upon by the world's governments and big scary AMD. Ask yourself...really how likely is your scenario to be? Neither you or anyone else can actually believe it.
has andandtech's forum become the homestead of rabid AMD fans?
Both here and in V&G somethings...not right.
How do you explain why when Intel agreed to all of AMD's demands, that in the years that followed, Intel prospered and AMD went backwards?
Might have guessed you'd be one of the first with the personal attacks! Typical.
In late 2006, Dell started selling AMD based systems.Because intel's wrongdoing was designed to harm AMD over a period of many years, if not to kill them off completely.
The question you really should be asking is this.
Just how bad a situation was Intel in that they had to bribe Dell $5.5 billion, and others how much(?) in order to keep themselves in the game.
That's the question you need to ask yourself. $Billions thrown on bribery, because in the long run that was cheaper than having AMD winning fairly.
There's your answer.
Might have guessed you'd be one of the first with the personal attacks! Typical.
In late 2006, Dell started selling AMD based systems.
If AMD was capacity constrained, why did Intel bribe Dell $6 billion to not use their cpu's?With AMD being less compelling than it would have been pre-Conroe, AMD still couldn't supply everyone in the retail channels, because AMD were capacity constrained, due to supplying Dell above them.
See previous point.What this shows is that all during the time of the rebates, AMD were selling every processor they could make, so it is a nonsense to say they were crippled by not being able to get into Dell.
HP were bribed over $1 billion, IBM were bribed $130 million not to use AMD. I'm sure Sun were bribed as well.Dell wasn't the only company in town, AMD CPU'S were being sold by Blue Chip OEM's like HP, IBM & Sun.
In late 2006, Dell started selling AMD based systems.
This was at a time when Conroe was out, thus making an AMD system far less attractive than it would have been, pre-Conroe.
The competitive performance and advantages of AMD’s current product offerings combined with our widening relationships with system builders and regional and global OEMs have hampered our ability to fully meet the demand of some customers, including regional OEM partners
And how did AMD fare?At which time the bribery payments stopped.
If AMD was capacity constrained, why did Intel bribe Dell $6 billion to not use their cpu's?
Rebates aren't bribes and AMD tried to bribe HP by offering them a Million free CPU's.HP were bribed over $1 billion, IBM were bribed $130 million. I'm sure Sun were bribed as well.