Is Intel Evil? They bribed Dell and other PC makers not use AMD chips.

What a cheating, bribing scoundrel Intel is.

http://forums.vr-zone.com/news-around-the-web/129715-suit-intel-paid-dell-up-1-billion-year-not-use-amd-chips.html

The gave Dell $1 billion dollars in bribes with the condition that they don't use AMD chips for a certain period. So, I get it. Bribe Dell and other PC makers not use AMD for a certain period and then use that time to get a leg up on AMD in terms of marketshare and making money and then play catch up with AMD thus depriving AMD of making money which they fully deserved for the better processors AMD had in the 01-06 era. Intel used that time to play catch up to AMD's tech and then after that they went back to normal. It's kinda like I give $1 dollar NOW and you do business with me and only me so I get the contract and make $5 in return. I will use that $5 dollar I earned (which I shouldn't have earned to begin with because my processors sucked during that time) to make better processors so I could catch up to my competitor and then we could go back to normal AFTER I have caught up to my competitor. Then there will be no need for any bribes because I will have the better chips and by default you will choose me to continue to supply you processors. It's a brilliant coniving startegy Intel came up with.

Furthermore, the $1 billion dollar is just the tip of the iceberg. The gave up to $6 billion to Dell, HP and other companies in kick-backs so that they don't use AMD.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20091104200351_Intel_Accused_of_Giving_Dell_6_Billion_for_Exclusivity.html

I am glad my last CPU and my current CPU in my gaming rig is AMD. As was my last graphics card and my current graphics cards. Not to mention my gaming laptops graphics chip is AMD, only thing I have Intel is my Core 2 that have I have in my gaming laptop. Which is not a surprise because guess what, the laptop is a Dell!:evil:

Why do people have a problem with business decisions like this? Both companies agreed to it and both are profiting in their own way. The word "bribed" is used in a negative way here, but it is just business as usual. I will give you money if you use my product. I don't see anything wrong with this.

I voted yes anyways because of what they did to Project Offset. They bought Offset software out then shut them down. I wouldn't have a problem with a business decision like this except that they won't allow the original Offset team have the rights to any of the game assets created before and after acquisition.

Why do people have a problem with business decisions like this? Both companies agreed to it and both are profiting in their own way. The word "bribed" is used in a negative way here, but it is just business as usual. I will give you money if you use my product. I don't see anything wrong with this.

I voted yes anyways because of what they did to Project Offset. They bought Offset software out then shut them down. I wouldn't have a problem with a business decision like this except that they won't allow the original Offset team have the rights to any of the game assets created before and after acquisition.

hoola

Unless you are an Intel stockholder, how could this possibly be good for you, a consumer?

Its not. Its anti-competitive.

I voted yes, not just because of this, but because of the way Intel acts as a whole.

Why do people have a problem with business decisions like this? Both companies agreed to it and both are profiting in their own way. The word "bribed" is used in a negative way here, but it is just business as usual. I will give you money if you use my product. I don't see anything wrong with this.

hoola

I would like to see you come up with a sentence wherein "bribed" is used in a positive way, amigo...

Sadly, yes, this is the way of the world, or rather, the way it has become. Money has taken over healthy competition.

On the other hand, i couldn't care less, as long as aither company, or whatever company, keeps delivering the goods. Besides, by the time I'd buy a Dell or other pre-fabricated machine, Heel prolly will have frozen over a couple of times...

Is a company "evil" because they do what they do? I find it a rather naive look at things. Unhealthy ethics would be a more appropriate denomination than "evil".

[QUOTE="hoola"]

Why do people have a problem with business decisions like this? Both companies agreed to it and both are profiting in their own way. The word "bribed" is used in a negative way here, but it is just business as usual. I will give you money if you use my product. I don't see anything wrong with this.

I voted yes anyways because of what they did to Project Offset. They bought Offset software out then shut them down. I wouldn't have a problem with a business decision like this except that they won't allow the original Offset team have the rights to any of the game assets created before and after acquisition.

XaosII

Unless you are an Intel stockholder, how could this possibly be good for you, a consumer?

Its not. Its anti-competitive.

It isn't bad for the consumer. The people who are buying Dells and other brands like that don't care at all what is inside their computer. All they want to know is how much it costs. The prices won't skyrocket, the large computer manufacturers will make sure of that. The products that they advertise and sell the most are cheap computers and those certainly won't be going away because of a deal like this. AMD is definitely not just going to sit on their hands and cry about it, they will have to compete THAT much more to grow.

$7 billion is not a small amount of money, and I'm stunned that they were able to turn a profit on such an enormous investment. Anyway, I wouldn't call this bribing. It's more like an exclusivity agreement, much like what console makers do with publishers when they want another exclusive for their console. gameguy6700

"I'll give a poor country £100bill only if you buy our hospital equipment and buy food from our country" - If you think this is bridery then you are just plain wrong.

$7 billion is not a small amount of money, and I'm stunned that they were able to turn a profit on such an enormous investment. gameguy6700

Turning a profit would not be a big deal because if you lock out your biggest competitior with the top 3 PC makers in the world and leave you competitior relying on custom built PC's to make money then making a profit is not a big deal. The major PC makers sell millions of PC's. And you have to remember they gave that money over a period. Giving $7 billion while making $30 billion is a healthy investment.

Intel relying on underhanded tactics isn't very surprising.

"Bride" is where Intel would pay Dell not to use AMD, "Exclusivity" is where Intel pay a big lump of money to have Dell agree to buy their products...JohnF111

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, most likely it's a duck.

Intel bribed, they were convicted of anti competitive practices.

Anyway.

Another reason I'm pissed at intel is because of this little ditty.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"] This, AMD could have also done this, "Bride" is where Intel would pay Dell not to use AMD, "Exclusivity" is where Intel pay a big lump of money to have Dell agree to buy their products... You do realise TC that all the charity that your country gives to poor countries works in the same way;

"I'll give a poor country £100bill only if you buy our hospital equipment and buy food from our country" - If you think this is bridery then you are just plain wrong.

JohnF111

[QUOTE="hoola"]

Why do people have a problem with business decisions like this? Both companies agreed to it and both are profiting in their own way. The word "bribed" is used in a negative way here, but it is just business as usual. I will give you money if you use my product. I don't see anything wrong with this.

I voted yes anyways because of what they did to Project Offset. They bought Offset software out then shut them down. I wouldn't have a problem with a business decision like this except that they won't allow the original Offset team have the rights to any of the game assets created before and after acquisition.

XaosII

Unless you are an Intel stockholder, how could this possibly be good for you, a consumer?

Its not. Its anti-competitive.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]"Bride" is where Intel would pay Dell not to use AMD, "Exclusivity" is where Intel pay a big lump of money to have Dell agree to buy their products...tequilasunriser

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, most likely it's a duck.

Intel bribed, they were convicted of anti competitive practices.

Anyway.

Another reason I'm pissed at intel is because of this little ditty.

The country example you just gave is bribery, worse even especially to the country being "helped out" because they are losing their freedom in choosing what equipment to buy, and giving up their labor at the mercy of the wages that the "helping country"chooses to pay the foreign workers. As a matter of fact. (The US usually does this, also its usually corporations in that country but the government always works closely with corporations especially when the corporation employs large amounts of people). Countries helping other countries usually never ends well unless its a true philanthropic gesture (almost never happens). SOmeone always owes someone something, its usually not worth it as modernization doesnt outweigh the problems, economic dependence and loss of freedom that comes with the so called "helping".brownwhale

So its better to not give them the 100bill? Take it or leave it...

Um in 2009 over in Europe and Japan Intel was fined for trying to create a monopoly bribing and other schemes. The EU fined Intel 1.45 billion,Korea fined Intel for 25 million, and Japan did the same, ordered Intel to stop certain sales practices. then later that year Intel had to pay AMD 1.25 billion for a anti trust case from back in 2005. So having one big company controling everything isnt good for anyone since they would have total control on prices and usage.

Also there was a story to go along the Intel's fine , In germany a town beside AMD's plant, didnt have a single AMD based computer even though AMD had a plant near by.

[QUOTE="tequilasunriser"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]"Bride" is where Intel would pay Dell not to use AMD, "Exclusivity" is where Intel pay a big lump of money to have Dell agree to buy their products...JohnF111

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, most likely it's a duck.

Intel bribed, they were convicted of anti competitive practices.

Anyway.

Another reason I'm pissed at intel is because of this little ditty.

Im sure AMD sued the crap out of Intel, and won at that. Intel did win the battle with AMD during that time period but they lost a TON of money, id say close to $20 billion after litigations and such. Im not sure they want to go through that again to keep marketshare.

Why do people have a problem with business decisions like this? Both companies agreed to it and both are profiting in their own way. The word "bribed" is used in a negative way here, but it is just business as usual. I will give you money if you use my product. I don't see anything wrong with this.

I voted yes anyways because of what they did to Project Offset. They bought Offset software out then shut them down. I wouldn't have a problem with a business decision like this except that they won't allow the original Offset team have the rights to any of the game assets created before and after acquisition.

hoola

You know that intel got dinged for approximately 4 billion dollars in settlements and fines because of this ILLEGAL ANTI-COMPETITIVE practice?

Definitely its not something you can compare to console makers and exclusivity rights with publishers. The fact is there are literally thousands of publishers out there making games. You can get an exclusivity deal with one game but there will ALWAYS be another similar game out there that is not exclusive, so there is still competition. With pc makers Dell and HP probably make 95% of the marketshare for prebuilt PC's. If Intel bribes both of them to only use Intel cpu's then AMD is pretty much screwed.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]$7 billion is not a small amount of money, and I'm stunned that they were able to turn a profit on such an enormous investment. Anyway, I wouldn't call this bribing. It's more like an exclusivity agreement, much like what console makers do with publishers when they want another exclusive for their console. JohnF111

"I'll give a poor country £100bill only if you buy our hospital equipment and buy food from our country" - If you think this is bridery then you are just plain wrong.

All the charity that my country gives is based on humanitarian grounds. While Intel's purpose was to save their behinds because they didn't have a quick fix to the Athlons that were outperforming the Pentium 4's at the time so they bribed to keep market share and make money at the same time and buy some time to "catch up" to AMD. And no AMD couldn't have done it. They not only don't have that kind of money to throw around it would be illegal to do so as witnessed by the countless lawsuits Intel faced and LOST in court. This Includes the $1.25 billion dollars settlement that Intel had to pay out to AMD for this bribing scheme which is besides the point because AMD could have made billions more if Intel wasn't bribing so in the grand scheme of things what AMD got was chump change. Also, as someone mentioned Intel had to pay record fine to the EU for these type of bribing schemes.

As for the poor countries buying hospital equipment from the richer countries, of course they would. Where else would they buy these medical equipments from? Logic fail.

Its not bribing, bribing is illegal this isn't, this is common in business, they want to run amd over and make money. All they did was buy rights to have there chips in pcs.

Its not bribing, bribing is illegal this isn't, this is common in business, they want to run amd over and make money. All they did was buy rights to have there chips in pcs.

James161324

One reason I don't buy pre-made computers like the rest of the world.

Isnt this some old news? And yeah it was evil, but i think AMD have recovered and are now doing pretty well. As long as the new chips can perform anything like the the sandy bridge cpus.

The whole intel and nvidia deal, favours intel hugely too.

this comes as no suprise from my line of retail laptop and desktop sales. i currently have about 25 laptops on display from most brands at any one time (Dell, HP, acer/emachines, compaq, toshiba, asus, sony). usually no more then 3 models out of those will have AMD's, almost always strickly low end. currently two emachines are both using the AMD Athlon II 2.2ghz cpu's for around the $600-$700Au depending on HDD size, ram and GPU. the BEST amd cpu i have seen in a laptop at work was a 1.6ghz Phenom Quad in a toshiba for $1200AU. the slowest chip we currently have apart from the ATOMS in the netbooks is the 2.3ghz V130 AMD (single core btw, its LAME but only $478AU, compared to the nearest intel for $598).

Does AMD acutally have stronger laptop CPU's to compete with? or are they ACTUALLY being kept out the market by companies not choosing them?

Its called a financial incentive.

If someone sells a lot fo your products its normal to give the more money to reward them and get them to sell more of your.

Although it is dodgy to make it a requirement to NOT ever use the competition.

Its called a financial incentive.

If someone sells a lot fo your products its normal to give the more money to reward them and get them to sell more of your.

Although it is dodgy to make it a requirement to NOT ever use the competition.

Daytona_178

It is in fact, 100% illegal.

LOL Intel to take a charge of $700 million to fix their new Sandy Bridge chipsets:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4142/intel-discovers-bug-in-6series-chipset-begins-recall

Karma is a B$tch. Goes to show cheaters never prosper. What goes around comes back around. :lol:

whats up with all the Intel haters/AMD fanboys in here.. lol.

Its not like Intel is affecting the supply of AMD chips; Companies like Dell have a choice of what to put in their systems. Intel is giving them financial incentive to use their chips; this is along the lines of advertising.

Casual user who only buys from mainstream computer brands - "Oh hey! Dell is exclusively using Intel now. Dell is a cool company, so them choosing Intel probably has good reason to it.. Intel probably makes good chips!"

It's sort of along the lines of how pro athletes are paid by sports companies to exclusively use their gear to advertise to the general public that,

Tennis Fan - "Oh! Rafael Nadal [top tennis player in the world] uses Babolat tennis racquets! Babolat must be awesome! The next racquet I'm buying is gonna be a Babolat!"

I know the arguments are a little irrelevant to each other, but it was the first thing that popped up in my mind :P

Now, a completely illegal scenario is something like Intel bribing a production plant to sabotage AMD chip production.. :/

Though this shouldn't matter to most people in this forum, since most enthusiasts build their systems anyways; unless you're an amd or intel stockholder :P

What intel did was illegal. It's called exlusive dealing. A form of anti competitive behavior.

No fanboyism. It's the law. Sorry chums.

It's called business.

I voted yes, not just because of this, but because of the way Intel acts as a whole.

wis3boi

Ditto. Intel keeps finding new ways to dissapoint me.

EDIT: or in this case, old ways.

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"]

Its called a financial incentive.

If someone sells a lot fo your products its normal to give the more money to reward them and get them to sell more of your.

Although it is dodgy to make it a requirement to NOT ever use the competition.

GummiRaccoon

It is in fact, 100% illegal.

intel buying exclusive rights is a risk in itself. The makers that received the money has to sell the products and even with the extra money on intel's hands, research is not always just a monetary problem. i think this topic is biased.fishing666

How so? Exposing Intel's criminal behaviour is now biased?

No, it makes them a normal company.X360PS3AMD05

It makes them a criminal enterprise.

Its not bribing, bribing is illegal this isn't, this is common in business, they want to run amd over and make money. All they did was buy rights to have there chips in pcs.

James161324

It is illegal. They got slapped with over $1 billion dollar fine in the EU. This type of practice is monopoly like which all governments are against. They are also under investigation in the state of New York for this type of behaviour. They also settled out of court with AMD with a price tag of $1.2 billion for doing exactly these kind of things. So, yeah it is illegal.

things dont work that way, if dell made intel exclusive to them then it wouldnt be illegal. This is like if microsoft pays wal-mart to stop selling ps3s.

things dont work that way, if dell made intel exclusive to them then it wouldnt be illegal. This is like if microsoft pays wal-mart to stop selling ps3s.

TerrorRizzing

But Intel bribed them that is the thing. That's why it's illegal.

Its called a financial incentive.

If someone sells a lot fo your products its normal to give the more money to reward them and get them to sell more of your.

Although it is dodgy to make it a requirement to NOT ever use the competition.

Daytona_178

it is abuse of their monopoly status. If they continued doing it AMD would no longer exist and we'd be back to the days where we were spending $300 for mid range intel cpu's and $500 for high end. If both companies had equal or relatively close market share and intel then decided to give "incentives" for pc makers to use their products exclusively then it would'nt be such a big deal. But when you already own 80% of the market share.....

we'd be back to the days where we were spending $300 for mid range intel cpu's and $500 for high end. blaznwiipspman1

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]we'd be back to the days where we were spending $300 for mid range intel cpu's and $500 for high end. tequilasunriser

Not really, the sandy bridge processors, the i5 2500k would cost me $260 with tax, but back in the pentium 4 days, a socket 478 prescott 2.66 ghz cpu could cost you approximately the same price but when adjusted for inflation is actually well over $300. Since AMD started woopin intels arse you never see them price their midrange cpu's at that level again. They will only sell their high end cpus at a premium since AMD still can't compete with them there yet. But if AMD bulldozer meets expectations, then intels profit margins are gonna take a beating.