Nvidia accuses Intel of unfair pricing [Archive]

View Full Version : Nvidia accuses Intel of unfair pricing

Audionut

20th May 2009, 16:50

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1287587#post1287587

Nvidia makes graphics chips that pair with Intel's low-powered Atom in lower-priced netbook computers. He said Intel sells an Atom chip by itself for $45, but sells a three-chip set for $25 to lure business away.

"That seems pretty unfair," he said. "We ought to be able to compete and serve that market."

Hmm. Someone should lodge legal action with McDonalds. They sell large chips for $2 and large drink for $2 and a burger for $4 but when you buy the lot together its only $5.50.

"That seems pretty unfair."

MfA

20th May 2009, 16:57

The meal would have to be sold below 4$ for the analogy to succeed.

Audionut

20th May 2009, 17:01

Makes no difference.

MfA

20th May 2009, 17:03

It does to me :)

gizzin

20th May 2009, 17:19

People should stop eating that slop they call food from Mcdonalds.

TinTime

20th May 2009, 18:13

Hmm. Someone should lodge legal action with McDonalds. They sell large chips for $2 and large drink for $2 and a burger for $4 but when you buy the lot together its only $5.50.

A closer analogy would be this. McDonald's sell $4 burgers, but if you go in and tell them that you're going to remove the burger from the bun and use your own bread instead they decide to charge you $7.20.

Audionut

20th May 2009, 23:52

We have a touche lot here don't we.

Sharktooth

21st May 2009, 02:18

intel is damaging nvidia and their ion platform since they're selling atom CPUs at higher prices than Atom+Chipset.
this is an unfair practice and intel was already punished for such practices by the EU antitrust commission (as well as korea and japan for an unknown amount of $) for the record fine of 1.06 billions of euros.

burfadel

21st May 2009, 03:29

Like the EU complaining of Microsoft bundling Windows Media Player and IE with Windows (doesn't matter what they're actually like or whether you use it), but then being ok with Apple for doing the same thing bundling Quicktime, Safari, iTunes and their other software!

Sharktooth

21st May 2009, 04:06

Dont worry. A complaint was filed in US Federal Court too and the decision is coming soon... very soon... and i feel it wont favour Intel.
Monopolists are going to face hard times... expecially if they sistematically break the laws.
Oh, and btw, if you didnt notice, apple is in a different position than MS or Intel... even if i dont like apple at all, it is not a monopolist...

adam.fred

21st May 2009, 04:32

It will be Apples turn soon enough.

ChronoCross

21st May 2009, 05:34

I just think the whole monopoly argument in this case is retarded. It's their product....they should be able to price it however they want. Nothing says that nvidia has to have a chipset for the atom platform as there are many other netbook CPU's.

MfA

21st May 2009, 17:17

Well that is a perfectly reasonable position to hold ... but just so we are clear, you think predatory pricing in general (including dumping) should be allowed?

ChronoCross

21st May 2009, 21:48

Well that is a perfectly reasonable position to hold ... but just so we are clear, you think predatory pricing in general (including dumping) should be allowed?

As long as I the consumer have some sort of alternative choice that is perfectly fine with me.

I have no sympathy for Nvidia in this case as they are choosing to make chipsets for the ATOM when there are alternative CPU options out there.

MfA

21st May 2009, 22:35

As long as I the consumer have some sort of alternative choice that is perfectly fine with me.
That's a rather grey area, when is the competition (only VIA really at the moment) close enough to provide a realistic alternative choice?

ChronoCross

21st May 2009, 22:54

That's a rather grey area, when is the competition (only VIA really at the moment) close enough to provide a realistic alternative choice?

Yes. i can't just base it on whether the VIA product is **** or not. It's not Intel's fault that the competing products may or may not be poor in comparison.

So long as the choice remains.

MfA

21st May 2009, 23:05

A choice is only one when 2 realistic alternatives are present, otherwise it's a predetermined decision.

TinTime

21st May 2009, 23:12

Isn't chipset choice being restricted here?

Intel are making it impossible for Nvidia chipset / Atom to compete with Intel chipset / Atom.

ChronoCross

21st May 2009, 23:32

A choice is only one when 2 realistic alternatives are present, otherwise it's a predetermined decision.

It is a realistic option. there is nothing that says I won't by the VIA.

Isn't chipset choice being restricted here?

Intel are making it impossible for Nvidia chipset / Atom to compete with Intel chipset / Atom.

Not impossible. Just more difficult. There is nothing in the ATOM architecture that forbids the use of a different chipset. Nvidia is just pissed about the price point.

But I haven't heard anything from Nvidia about why their chipset is an improvement over the intel based one. Rather than whining about $20 they should be working on ways to tell us why spending an additional $20 would be worth it.

I have a feeling that like most nvidia products they are simply trying to push their own probably overpriced chip.

TinTime

22nd May 2009, 00:52

Not impossible. Just more difficult. There is nothing in the ATOM architecture that forbids the use of a different chipset. Nvidia is just pissed about the price point.

Ok then, they've made it effectively impossible for other chipset manufacturers to compete. Or very, very difficult if you prefer.

But I haven't heard anything from Nvidia about why their chipset is an improvement over the intel based one. Rather than whining about $20 they should be working on ways to tell us why spending an additional $20 would be worth it.

I have a feeling that like most nvidia products they are simply trying to push their own probably overpriced chip.

It would be more than $20 extra. It's $20 extra for the just the CPU without Intel's additional graphics and southbridge chips. Before Nvidia (or any other chipset manufacturer) add anything it's already close to twice the price.

Perhaps if Intel priced their CPU on it's own fairly then the Nvidia / Atom solution could be cheaper than the all Intel one. That would be an improvement. The problem is that with Intel's pricing structure we'll never know, and consumers lose out.

Shinigami-Sama

22nd May 2009, 03:21

But I haven't heard anything from Nvidia about why their chipset is an improvement over the intel based one.

then you've already shown you're to ignorant to participate in this discussion :)

current ATOM chipset = 3 chips, very low end graphics, higher power consumpion(on paper), larger form factor

Nvidia ION chipset = 2 chips(atom+9400m), low-mid graphics, smaller form factor, higher speed memory, more peripherals, HD ready, dx10

Sharktooth

22nd May 2009, 04:46

And also pricing a CPU higher than CPU+Chipset is an unfair practice intel was ALREADY PUNISHED FOR.
Judged guilty of anti-competitive measures in Japan, Korea, EU, soon US and others are joining.
With that behaviour Intel killed competition and companies so they could rise prices at their will AND earn maximize profits estabilishing a monopoly. that's called trusting and it's punished by almost all civilized nations laws.
This is not about estabilishing if intel is guilty or not... IT IS and it was proven. the question is "how much must they pay for their CRIME?"

Read on...
by rimcrazy on slashdot (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1231593&cid=27936221):
I was the Director of Engineering for VLSI Technology's PC Chip set division back in the 80's. Back in those days, there were dozens of companies making chip sets for Intel CPU's and Intel, surprising as it may sound, did not. The chip set business was interesting in that it started with C&T. Zymos was second and VLSI was third. By the time we got into it, and in particular, after we were picked by IBM to be their chip set provider, the bay area VC market must have been swamped with business plans of every dog and his brother wanting to start a chip company making chip sets. If you can remember too, there were hundreds and I do mean hundreds of PC companies. Fast forward a few years. Things are now pretty crazy. VLSI made it to be the top chip set supplier but the competition was intense. The hundreds of PC companies has now fallen to around 10-12. The dozens of chip set companies has fallen to 4 or 5 but still no Intel. This is around the time that the Pentium first made its debut. Now, to make a chip set, you need these very important things called "Yellow Books" ( maybe they were Red.... hmm that was a few years ago) . These are the specifications of the next CPU from a "certain" CPU manufacturer. Without the yellow books, you can't make a chip set because you have no idea what the memory interface is going to look like. If you don't know the memory or peripheral interface you can't make a north bridge for sure and your south bridge is going to be a hack. Soooooo, it was at this time that we were working on our next generation chip set for the Pentium. We were going crazy because, for some very strange reason, we had yet to get the "Yellow Books". We could and did make educated guesses as to what the memory interface should be but we did not know for sure what it would look like. Well you know what? Gee, like magic, Intel announces and samples their Triton chipset. (Which we taught them in large part how to make pursuing a CF called Polar and Draco with Intel, but that is another story.... I digress) And Andy G. tells the press how Intel was just "forced" into making their own chip sets because the external chip set vendors just could not keep up. Oh yea, gee wizzz, we get the specs the same week you sample and yea, we just can't keep up can we. Where it really got interesting is when we got our chipset out and our sales team was trying to sell to our customers, which now as I said is a VERY short list, it seems a certain "I" company was bundling their chip sets with their CPU's. You, as a PC company, "could" buy just CPU's from them for price A or you could buy CPU's + Chip set for price B. I let you guess which was the larger. Oh, yea, and if you selected the A option. They ( the "I" company) could not guarantee delivery.

So, we went from $250M/year in sales to $25M/year in sales in 12 months. Our division was decimated. I have never seen anything, short of last Octobers stock market, fall so hard and so fast.

In retrospect, I don't blame Intel for getting into the chip set business. Hell, I am surprised actually it took them as long as it did but both the tactics they used, and quite frankly, the stupidity of the upper management at VLSI laid waste to an incredible group of people, and at the time, a great place to work. Ah, well. That's competition. It was fun while it lasted.
now, ask yourself, how much ppl lost their job coz of criminal intents of intel?

ChronoCross

22nd May 2009, 05:44

Ok then, they've made it effectively impossible for other chipset manufacturers to compete. Or very, very difficult if you prefer.

It would be more than $20 extra. It's $20 extra for the just the CPU without Intel's additional graphics and southbridge chips. Before Nvidia (or any other chipset manufacturer) add anything it's already close to twice the price.

Is it entirely possible that making a fully integrated CPU/Chipset is less expensive than selling just the CPU? Perhaps this is a good business decision.

Lets look at it this way. What would have happened if intel said "I'm not selling the ATOM standalone anymore." Would you still be arguing unfair practices?

In reality intels processor is the only reason Nvidia even has a product. It's not like Nvidia developed a CPU.

then you've already shown you're to ignorant to participate in this discussion :)

current ATOM chipset = 3 chips, very low end graphics, higher power consumpion(on paper), larger form factor

Nvidia ION chipset = 2 chips(atom+9400m), low-mid graphics, smaller form factor, higher speed memory, more peripherals, HD ready, dx10

I'd be interested for you to show me where their chipset uses higher speed memory. Every model I have found using the nvidia chipset is using the same 533mhz DDR2 memory as the intel chipsets.

Low-Mid graphics - Could you be any less vague about this?

DX10 - why does this matter? The ATOM is designed to be a low powered netbook processor, not a gaming rig.

More Peripherals - Again with the being vague.

HD Ready - I'm sure HD will look great on that 10" screen.

The Dual Core ATOM 330 has the processing power of approximately 10-20% better than a Pentium 4 3ghz. It's not supposed to be a PC replacement. It's a ultra mobile platform.

And also pricing a CPU higher than CPU+Chipset is an unfair practice intel was ALREADY PUNISHED FOR.
Judged guilty of anti-competitive measures in Japan, Korea, EU, soon US and others are joining.
With that behaviour Intel killed competition and companies so they could rise prices at their will AND earn maximize profits estabilishing a monopoly. that's called trusting and it's punished by almost all civilized nations laws.
This is not about estabilishing if intel is guilty or not... IT IS and it was proven. the question is "how much must they pay for their CRIME?"

Read on...

now, ask yourself, how much ppl lost their job coz of criminal intents of intel?

Guess instead of making chipsets that run the brain of the computer they should have spent more time creating their own CPU. When your buisness model is based off of another product as being central to your design your at the mercy of what that company decides to do. You don't like it, make your own product.

Shinigami-Sama

22nd May 2009, 07:58

I'd be interested for you to show me where their chipset uses higher speed memory. Every model I have found using the nvidia chipset is using the same 533mhz DDR2 memory as the intel chipsets.

Low-Mid graphics - Could you be any less vague about this?

DX10 - why does this matter? The ATOM is designed to be a low powered netbook processor, not a gaming rig.

More Peripherals - Again with the being vague.

HD Ready - I'm sure HD will look great on that 10" screen.

The Dual Core ATOM 330 has the processing power of approximately 10-20% better than a Pentium 4 3ghz. It's not supposed to be a PC replacement. It's a ultra mobile platform.

from the main page news like last month
http://hothardware.com/News/First-NVIDIA-Ion-Win-Announced-Acer-AspireRevo/
and a little while before that
http://hothardware.com/Articles/NVIDIA-Ion-Reference-PC-Platform-Performance-Deep-Dive-/

lern2google

kypec

22nd May 2009, 10:45

TinTime

22nd May 2009, 13:14

Lets look at it this way. What would have happened if intel said "I'm not selling the ATOM standalone anymore." Would you still be arguing unfair practices?

Yes.

Guess instead of making chipsets that run the brain of the computer they should have spent more time creating their own CPU. When your buisness model is based off of another product as being central to your design your at the mercy of what that company decides to do. You don't like it, make your own product.

Competition laws would tend to disagree with you on this point. Companies are not free to behave however they want. However, I'll admit that I don't know whether or not Intel are acting illegally here. It seems anti-competitive but then I'm no expert, and there may be further details that I'm unaware of.

As a general principle though, these laws exist for good reasons. They may seem unfair, they may seem like they punish success, but without them markets don't work.

ChronoCross

22nd May 2009, 16:30

from the main page news like last month
http://hothardware.com/News/First-NVIDIA-Ion-Win-Announced-Acer-AspireRevo/
and a little while before that
http://hothardware.com/Articles/NVIDIA-Ion-Reference-PC-Platform-Performance-Deep-Dive-/

lern2google

Not really impressed with either of these. What market are they catering to? It doesn't really seem all that useful other than possibly being a TV set-top box. Even then there is no CD/DVD Drive or Blu-Ray. So your limited to digital content. Plus the price point with monitor brings it into line with some low end Dell Systems with similar capabilities.

Let's not forget about the most recent child in this perspective family: Zotac NVIDIA Ion Motherboard: SFF Goodness (http://hothardware.com/Articles/Zotac-NVIDIA-Ion-Motherboard/)

I'm not a manufacturer nor a HW designer myself yet I'm 100% sure that producing any single item, like a silicon chip/clothes/grocery (unit A) can NEVER BE cheaper in terms of spent materials, time and manwork than producing that very same unit A together with similar but physically separate unit B which is exactly the case of ATOM CPU and DG945 chipset.

With a majority of things being automated, having to do two separate fabrications, one line for just ATOMs and another for the combined chipset package costs additional money, combine that with packaging and distribution costs and you might notice a difference in the pricing in comparison. Most of this is simply speculation so we can't really aruge the point very well.

Yes.

Why?

Competition laws would tend to disagree with you on this point. Companies are not free to behave however they want. However, I'll admit that I don't know whether or not Intel are acting illegally here. It seems anti-competitive but then I'm no expert, and there may be further details that I'm unaware of.

As a general principle though, these laws exist for good reasons. They may seem unfair, they may seem like they punish success, but without them markets don't work.

Think of it like burger king trying to sell the big mac only putting it on a wheat bun instead. it's the same product(ATOM) they just changed the Bun (Chipset) and still calling a big mac.

TinTime

22nd May 2009, 20:26

With a majority of things being automated, having to do two separate fabrications, one line for just ATOMs and another for the combined chipset package costs additional money, combine that with packaging and distribution costs and you might notice a difference in the pricing in comparison. Most of this is simply speculation so we can't really aruge the point very well.

This is a fair point and as you say we just don't know. However it does seem incredibly unlikely that it would cost Intel $20 extra to distribute the CPU by itself, as opposed to in a bundle.

Think of it like burger king trying to sell the big mac only putting it on a wheat bun instead. it's the same product(ATOM) they just changed the Bun (Chipset) and still calling a big mac.

I kind of wish the burger analogies hadn't started, and I know I'm guilty of joining in! This is different anyway. BK don't buy burgers from McD's. They both (presumably) make their own products and compete with each other on a level playing field.

The problem, from Nvidia's point of view, is this. Their business is GPUs and motherboard chipsets. This is also Intel's business, but they additionally make CPUs. They are also dominant in the CPU sector.

This means that there's a good chance that any final product (PC, notebook, whatever) is going to have an Intel CPU. If Nvidia want to sell their GPUs and MB chipsets then they need to go into products with an Intel CPU. Nvidia's argument is that Intel are using their dominance in the CPU market to deliberately price out competitors in the GPU and MB chipset market by effectively adding a $20+ premium to any non-Intel solution.

If Nvidia are right and Intel are using unfair pricing then, rightly or wrongly, they are breaking competition laws. The same would be true if Intel refused to sell the CPU by itself at all. This is why Microsoft were fined by the EU. They were using their dominance in one market (operating systems) to stifle competition in other markets (web browsers and media players). This was despite the fact they were all bundled together as Windows.

There are two different questions here that should be separated.

"Is Intel acting illegally?"
I don't know. This is one for lawyers, but does ultimately have a yes or no answer. We can wait and see.

"Are competition laws a good thing?"
I think they are. You think they're not, if I understand you correctly. I'm not sure we can debate it further without getting close to breaking Rule 15 though, and I guess it's outside the scope of doom9 anyway :)

ChronoCross

22nd May 2009, 22:02

T
I kind of wish the burger analogies hadn't started, and I know I'm guilty of joining in! This is different anyway. BK don't buy burgers from McD's. They both (presumably) make their own products and compete with each other on a level playing field.

The problem, from Nvidia's point of view, is this. Their business is GPUs and motherboard chipsets. This is also Intel's business, but they additionally make CPUs. They are also dominant in the CPU sector.

This means that there's a good chance that any final product (PC, notebook, whatever) is going to have an Intel CPU. If Nvidia want to sell their GPUs and MB chipsets then they need to go into products with an Intel CPU. Nvidia's argument is that Intel are using their dominance in the CPU market to deliberately price out competitors in the GPU and MB chipset market by effectively adding a $20+ premium to any non-Intel solution.

If Nvidia are right and Intel are using unfair pricing then, rightly or wrongly, they are breaking competition laws. The same would be true if Intel refused to sell the CPU by itself at all. This is why Microsoft were fined by the EU. They were using their dominance in one market (operating systems) to stifle competition in other markets (web browsers and media players). This was despite the fact they were all bundled together as Windows.

There are two different questions here that should be separated.

"Is Intel acting illegally?"
I don't know. This is one for lawyers, but does ultimately have a yes or no answer. We can wait and see.

"Are competition laws a good thing?"
I think they are. You think they're not, if I understand you correctly. I'm not sure we can debate it further without getting close to breaking Rule 15 though, and I guess it's outside the scope of doom9 anyway :)

I don't mind competition laws I just think Nvidia shouldn't bitch and moan about it because their product doesn't exist without intel. No ATOM no ION Chipset. As everyone has made abundantly clear the VIA processor is garbage so it's not a viable alternative.

Also as far as I know there is no rule against not selling a processor as a standalone unit. but someone please do feel free to correct me.

TinTime

23rd May 2009, 02:22

I don't mind competition laws I just think Nvidia shouldn't bitch and moan about it because their product doesn't exist without intel. No ATOM no ION Chipset. As everyone has made abundantly clear the VIA processor is garbage so it's not a viable alternative.

Also as far as I know there is no rule against not selling a processor as a standalone unit. but someone please do feel free to correct me.

This (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/art82/guidance_en.pdf) is for Europe. See page 24, paragraph 76. Also page 25, paragraph 80 (along with footnote 54) and the section on bundling (page 18).

The fact that one company's product doesn't exist without another company's product is dealt with directly by competition law.

ChronoCross

24th May 2009, 01:19

This (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/art82/guidance_en.pdf) is for Europe. See page 24, paragraph 76. Also page 25, paragraph 80 (along with footnote 54) and the section on bundling (page 18).

The fact that one company's product doesn't exist without another company's product is dealt with directly by competition law.

So if I'm reading this correctly a company can choose to not supply it's product to X company for X use if it feels that it would be against their own innovative interests.

whether dominant or not, should have the right
to choose its trading partners and to dispose freely of its property

Also, competitors may be tempted to free ride
on investments made by the dominant undertaking instead of investing themselves

This one is what I'm most interested in, in this debate. As Nvidia should definitely develop it's own processor for the ION platform.

Doom9

24th May 2009, 20:10

Easier said than done... intel is behaving just as anticompetitive when it comes to allowing competitors to the market. Over the years, there've been countless legal tussles between intel and its competitors about patents that you need to license to build your own x86 processor.
Even now, intel wants to jank AMD's license and the chances of nVidia ever getting the required license are close to zero.
And it's kind of presumptuous to even claim that a several year old chipset and southbridge can be produced more cost effectively together with a modern low power CPU - I doubt even intel would make that claim (especially given that they're produced in completely different production lines and using different production process (only the cpu is 45nm)) - the pricing is clearly aimed at discouraging hardware makers to buying into ION. And speaking of ION, you seem to misread its purpose... 1080p acceleration doesn't make much sense for a 10" netbook... but the Atom 230/330 are Nettop processors... so they're aimed at cheap small desktop computers and HTPCs.. and suddenly 1080p acceleration makes a whole lot of sense (and not even intel's new nettop chipset (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3565) can handle Blu-ray).

saint-francis

25th May 2009, 00:04

Not really impressed with either of these. What market are they catering to? It doesn't really seem all that useful other than possibly being a TV set-top box. Even then there is no CD/DVD Drive or Blu-Ray. So your limited to digital content. Plus the price point with monitor brings it into line with some low end Dell Systems with similar capabilities.

The title of the article is NVIDIA Ion Reference PC Platform Deep Dive Note the the "reference". Have you ever seen an Intel reference mother board? They generally look pathetic. Look at the new P55 reference board by Intel. It looks like a complete POS but I'm sure other companies will make fantastic P55 boards.
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x270/saint-francis-photos/3556989192_bfb4694cd7_o.jpg
The point is that independent manufacturers will be able to do whatever they please with this basic design. So I can easily envision something like this that says "Asus" instead of "NVidia" on it in four months with HDMI, 7.1 sound, a BD drive, etc.

Sharktooth

25th May 2009, 14:41

Intel never "innovated". They always copied here and there. The only exception was x86 (that IMHO is a really crappy architecture and not a real innovation).

Audionut

25th May 2009, 15:25

The only exception was x86 (that IMHO is a really crappy architecture and not a real innovation).

Strong words for something that has been here for over 30 years.

Sharktooth

25th May 2009, 17:25

Pretty strong, yes, but for example, the motorola m68k architecture, at that time, was way way way much better.

Dr.Khron

26th May 2009, 17:14

Pretty strong, yes, but for example, the motorola m68k architecture, at that time, was way way way much better.

Well, if history tells us anything, its that the "inferior" technology usually wins out in the marketplace.

Sharktooth

28th May 2009, 03:40

And now Intel (with the help of another monopolist (http://www.microsoft.com)) is trying to enforce his dominion on netbooks targetting the next on their list (http://www.via.com.tw/en/index.jsp)...
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20090526PD211.html

ChronoCross

28th May 2009, 05:02

Sharktooth

28th May 2009, 15:14

sure, but windows is windows... 95% of the personal computers have it installed, so...
it's a monopolist consolidating his monopoly thru the help of another monopolist!

ChronoCross

28th May 2009, 16:58

sure, but windows is windows... 95% of the personal computers have it installed, so...
it's a monopolist consolidating his monopoly thru the help of another monopolist!

yeah because lord knows if intel decided to have an 11" netbook it wouldn't utterly destroy via. Seriously if the only thing VIA has is screen size then they should get out of the market.

As it stands right now you can pretty much slap the tag netbook on anything no matter the specs. With this at least we will have some sort of actual idea on what a netbook should be.

Sharktooth

28th May 2009, 17:04

ChronoCross

28th May 2009, 20:58

like i needed the "idea" of how a netbook should be...
VIA cant compete at smaller screens products but COULD compete with larger screens products. This "deal" between monopolists (ehm... i think it was prohibited by the law?) will kill VIA business by forcing them to buy FULL licenses of windows 7 while Intel based products with 10.2" screens and lower can get the discounted Windows 7 OSes...
Nice crap... I really hope they both get what they deserve... billions of euros AND dollars of fines and immediate stop of ALL illegal (anticompetitive) activities. if they dont, CLOSE their business immediately.

so what your saying is if there was a larger screen ATOM netbook it wouldn't utterly obliterate the VIA?

It's not Anti-competitive if VIA simply chooses not to make a 10" netbook. It's simply a restriction on the licensing of a netbook version of windows 7. It doesn't say "can only be installed on ATOM systems".

The EU is an overzealous organization that is just pissed that there isn't any competing EU products. They really need to stop this monopoly sh*t as honestly 98% of consumers don't give a flying f*ck about internet explorer being preloaded and in all honesty linux is about 25 years away from being a possible competitor in the Desktop marketplace.

Ajax_Undone

29th May 2009, 01:10

Wow little over the top from both parties. It seems to me that if a law is set it should be obeyed... (Like the law here in Utah that allows me to own an active nuclear war head as long as I don't set it off):p (Or like the one in Oregon that says you cant have beaver build a dam on your property cause it causes flooding). Kind of sux but what are you going to do about it.

Intel is a way overpriced chip maker anyhow and Via is not quite enough of a threat to bother with. It is my own opinion that all should be fair in love war and marketing. So! May the strongest company win...:rolleyes:

Sharktooth

29th May 2009, 02:39

so what your saying is if there was a larger screen ATOM netbook it wouldn't utterly obliterate the VIA?

It's not Anti-competitive if VIA simply chooses not to make a 10" netbook. It's simply a restriction on the licensing of a netbook version of windows 7. It doesn't say "can only be installed on ATOM systems".

The EU is an overzealous organization that is just pissed that there isn't any competing EU products. They really need to stop this monopoly sh*t as honestly 98% of consumers don't give a flying f*ck about internet explorer being preloaded and in all honesty linux is about 25 years away from being a possible competitor in the Desktop marketplace.
VIA produces other "kind" of netbooks and intel doesnt like it.
So they make deals with the major OS maker to kill that segment and the company that is pushing it.
It is not so hard to understand. That is an anticompetitive practice, expecially if it's pursued by a monopolist (ehm... two...).

ChronoCross

29th May 2009, 18:19

VIA produces other "kind" of netbooks and intel doesnt like it.
So they make deals with the major OS maker to kill that segment and the company that is pushing it.
It is not so hard to understand. That is an anticompetitive practice, expecially if it's pursued by a monopolist (ehm... two...).

This is not anti-competitive. It seems like everytime microsoft or intel blows it's nose there is another article about how microsoft is destroying innovation.

It's really silly to think that this is anti-competitive behavior and some global conspiracy to rid the world of all other companies.

I'm really surprised at you Sharktooth.

Shinigami-Sama

29th May 2009, 18:21

It seems like everytime microsoft or intel blows it's nose there is another article about how microsoft is destroying innovation.

because all the previous lawsuits that affirm the above are somehow wrong?

ChronoCross

29th May 2009, 18:42

because all the previous lawsuits that affirm the above are somehow wrong?

I've thus far only been able to find 3 important lawsuits that went anywhere v. microsoft. In comparison to 35 years, thousands of products, That seems to me like a small number.

Not everything they do is monopolistic. But it seems like everything they do is taken that way.

Sharktooth

30th May 2009, 05:05

i think there is a reason why EU antitrust commission and other countries trade commissions fine (multiple times) both M$ and Intel for anticompetitive behaviours.
US are not the at the center of the universe... but i think there are ppl that do not want to understand that.
The universe can "survive" (read as: would be a better place) without Intel or Microsoft or any other companies/corporations behaving like them.

ChronoCross

30th May 2009, 19:51

You shouldn't blindly follow the EU antitrust Commissions decisions. They have their own motivations behind any action they take. As I said earlier the comparission between number of lawsuits as to amount of innovation is so small that it's insignifigant in all case.

As for the world being a better place without intel or microsoft behaving in methods you think are bad is impossible to say. because as you said the earlier exampled of the VIA having the advantage at 11". Even so their product is a pile of garbage, Anti-competitve behavior had nothing to do with VIA putting out this garbage.

Same goes for AMD, they are Intels largest competitor in the processor market. What do they do with that? They put out the Phenom, one of the biggest disappointments in processing. Anti-Competitive behavior had nothing to do with that.

Competition does NOT mean better products.

Manao

30th May 2009, 21:21

Competition does NOT mean better productsIndeed. But competition increases the likelihood of having better products, faster. Without AMD's competition, I don't think we would have core i7 right now. And it is interesting to draw a parallel between the insane pace of CPU evolution these last few years and windows' (lack of) innovation in the same period. Or, on a smaller scale, internet explorer revival once firefox began to gain more and more market shares.

Sharktooth

31st May 2009, 03:11

The Phenom processor was a disappointment coz AMD was in financial troubles due to the acquisition of ATI but even more coz of Intel anticompetitive practices (proven by Japan FTC, Korea FTC, EU antritrust commission, etc) and needed to push the Phenom release when it was not ready for debut.
Phenom II is a much more appetible CPU since it is finally a competitive and performing product.
But, again, most of the AMD financial troubles were caused by Intel and its unfair practices. Intel was fined for VIOLATING the FAIR TRADING laws in several countries AND you cant deny that unless you LIE on purpouse.

Sharktooth

1st June 2009, 17:43

some usefull news on the netbooks (just to confirm the anti-competitivness of intel):
asus is planning new 11,6" atom based netbooks. they will cost more since the user will be forced to buy a full licence of windows due to the Intel-MS mafia.
qualcomm presented the snapdragon platform to compete with atom/GMA platform. they are able to play back 720p videos without problems despite the 1Ghz CPU. Asus (which will sport qualcomm based products) chosen google Android as OS due to some unspecified licensing restrictions...
Asus, Lenovo and Acer are prepearing products based on the ION platform that will cost more coz of Atom processor licensing scheme where a CPU+Chipset from Intel will cost much less than the CPU alone ***AND*** CPUs without chipsets supplies are not guaranteed.

kypec

1st June 2009, 18:11

I fully agree with you, Sharktooth. Anyway, I'm starting to wonder what prevents those manufacturers to order and buy Atom+Chipset packages from Intel with lower pricing and then just throw away the chipsets and mount bare Atoms with Ion chipsets from Nvidia? Would they violate some other agreements by doing that? Apart from lots of material being thrown away I don't see a reason why they couldn't do it like this...

Sharktooth

2nd June 2009, 15:08

Once they buy a product, I think they have some sort of agreements binding them to sell certain products.
Furnitures of those products are between manufacturers, so intel would first sell their products to those who can guarantee the best for them. it's a monopoly...