By Anonymous CowardPosted Thursday 2nd August 2007 23:43 GMT
Let's see...now AMD would have us believe that Intel has extracted huge monopoly rents, but their cries to the EU were that Intel was pricing below cost?!?! Brilliant how those Intel people have managed to earn huge profits by selling below cost. AMD needs that kind of magic themselves!
At least they acknowledged they have a primary competitor #
By Anonymous CowardPosted Friday 3rd August 2007 00:02 GMT
By pondscumPosted Friday 3rd August 2007 00:47 GMT
are all Intel's fault. Of course they are. Not. Intel are not to blame for the poor supply chain of AMD. Have you ever tried to actually buy a high-end AMD cpu? "Should be in soon, maybe 12 weeks". Whereas ask for an Intel chip, the reply is usually "how many do you want sir?"
AMD have never actually designed a decent chip anyway. Going back to the 486 days, they were a copy of the Intel chip. The K5 was crap. The K6 was designed by Nextgen. The K7 on were co-designed by DEC.
When AMD can design a good chip, AND supply them in quantity, AND supply them on-time AND at a good price, then they will be serious competition. These law suits are purely AMD clutching at straws, trying to find someone to blame for their own shortcomings. Get your own house in order and you will be competitive.
By Craig CrudenPosted Friday 3rd August 2007 02:09 GMT
AMD was growing in market share, and was on the verge of breaking through, but lost out due to poor execution. Get back to work, and make better products!
By amanfromMarsPosted Friday 3rd August 2007 07:25 GMT
"We are confident that the microprocessor market segment is functioning normally and that Intel's conduct has been lawful, pro-competitive, and beneficial to consumers," said Intel veep Bruce Sewell.
How can that statement be true, whenever, especially so in the microprocessor market segment, pro-competition can only really mean exclusion?
Unless microprocessor market segments functioning normally, function differently from traditional markets?
Intel doesn't have the monopoly power to set the price of it's CPU's above the market level, because it does competition, and the products are more or less undifferentiated, as far as most consumers are concerned.
Comments on: Intel wins at Monopoly, grabs $60bn unfairly - says...
Brilliant, Intel #
By Anonymous Coward Posted Thursday 2nd August 2007 23:43 GMT
At least they acknowledged they have a primary competitor #
By Anonymous Coward Posted Friday 3rd August 2007 00:02 GMT
this can be summed up #
By Matthew Sinclair Posted Friday 3rd August 2007 00:44 GMT
So AMD's problems... #
By pondscum Posted Friday 3rd August 2007 00:47 GMT
AMD blew it! #
By Craig Cruden Posted Friday 3rd August 2007 02:09 GMT
Hmmm? Skewed Intel... #
By amanfromMars Posted Friday 3rd August 2007 07:25 GMT
Intel isn't a monopoly #
By Stuart Posted Friday 3rd August 2007 15:49 GMT
pricing #
By Alan Donaly Posted Monday 6th August 2007 00:12 GMT