I am a AMD fan, and i know lately they haven't been doing so well against the Core2Duo. Sometimes i feel was it completely Intel's entire fault? rarely did i see AMD advertise on commercials. So it's kinda hard for me to judge why AMD was only stuck at second. And again you can argue that Intel pretty much gave discounts to manufactures that exclusively carried Intel only CPUs. So, as I am writing I now see how it all plays. If AMD was to advertise, they wouldn't be able to keep the low prices to compete and change manufactures minds to go with them because of there price/performance ratio. So Intel had the upper hand in mass marketing and more exclusive rights, and the ability to have lower cost per waffer. If AMD was to do little advertise to keep the cost down then they wouldn't be able to gain ground to change manufactures minds about going with AMD.
The European Commission confirmed that it has sent a Statement of Objections (SO) to Intel on 26th July 2007. The SO outlines the Commission’s preliminary view that Intel has infringed the EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant position (Article 82) with the aim of excluding its main rival, AMD, from the x86 Computer Processing Units (CPU) market. In the SO, the Commission outlines its preliminary conclusion that Intel has engaged in three types of abuse of a dominant market position. First, Intel has provided substantial rebates to various Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) conditional on them obtaining all or the great majority of their CPU requirements from Intel. Secondly, in a number of instances, Intel made payments in order to induce an OEM to either delay or cancel the launch of a product line incorporating an AMD-based CPU. Thirdly, in the context of bids against AMD-based products for strategic customers in the server segment of the market, Intel has offered CPUs on average below cost. These three types of conduct are aimed at excluding AMD, Intel's main rival, from the market. Each of them is provisionally considered to constitute an abuse of a dominant position in its own right. However, the Commission also considers at this stage of its analysis that the three types of conduct reinforce each other and are part of a single overall anti-competitive strategy. Intel has until October 8th to reply though may seek an extension to this, and will then have the right to be heard in an Oral Hearing. If the preliminary views expressed in the SO are confirmed, the Commission may require Intel to cease the abuse and may impose a fine of up to 10% of Intel’s world wide turnover last year!
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I am a AMD fan, and i know lately they haven't been doing so well against the Core2Duo. Sometimes i feel was it completely Intel's entire fault? rarely did i see AMD advertise on commercials. So it's kinda hard for me to judge why AMD was only stuck at second. And again you can argue that Intel pretty much gave discounts to manufactures that exclusively carried Intel only CPUs. So, as I am writing I now see how it all plays. If AMD was to advertise, they wouldn't be able to keep the low prices to compete and change manufactures minds to go with them because of there price/performance ratio. So Intel had the upper hand in mass marketing and more exclusive rights, and the ability to have lower cost per waffer. If AMD was to do little advertise to keep the cost down then they wouldn't be able to gain ground to change manufactures minds about going with AMD.
Sounds right people?
I gotta agree with you, AMD's marketing is too subtle and does go far enough.
At least people are starting to learn what AMD's place in the market is.
The European Commission confirmed that it has sent a Statement of Objections (SO) to Intel on 26th July 2007. The SO outlines the Commission’s preliminary view that Intel has infringed the EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant position (Article 82) with the aim of excluding its main rival, AMD, from the x86 Computer Processing Units (CPU) market. In the SO, the Commission outlines its preliminary conclusion that Intel has engaged in three types of abuse of a dominant market position. First, Intel has provided substantial rebates to various Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) conditional on them obtaining all or the great majority of their CPU requirements from Intel. Secondly, in a number of instances, Intel made payments in order to induce an OEM to either delay or cancel the launch of a product line incorporating an AMD-based CPU. Thirdly, in the context of bids against AMD-based products for strategic customers in the server segment of the market, Intel has offered CPUs on average below cost. These three types of conduct are aimed at excluding AMD, Intel's main rival, from the market. Each of them is provisionally considered to constitute an abuse of a dominant position in its own right. However, the Commission also considers at this stage of its analysis that the three types of conduct reinforce each other and are part of a single overall anti-competitive strategy. Intel has until October 8th to reply though may seek an extension to this, and will then have the right to be heard in an Oral Hearing. If the preliminary views expressed in the SO are confirmed, the Commission may require Intel to cease the abuse and may impose a fine of up to 10% of Intel’s world wide turnover last year!