Eeeeerm how exactly increasing the price and delaying shipment helps them monopolise the market?
It is not Intel's fault that AMD cannot compete at the moment Intel is simply taking advantage of the situation to maximise profit which is what any and every company would do at similar situations.
I don't remember a time when AMD truly did compete with Intel. AMD does offer a cheaper product which every now and then managed to outperform the Intel equivalent (Athlon Vs. the Pentium 3; Duron vs. Celeron) but AMD has lagged behind Intel mostly because of Intel's aggressive marketing strategies.
Lay computer buyers have no idea what the hell an "AMD" is, but they do know they've seen Intel Inside stickers everywhere. Or, perhaps they've seen the Pentium 4 commercials.
Nowadays, Intel is beating the hell out of all other processor manufaturers - they basically have no real compeition anymore. They've got multiple markets of proccessors and you'd need a damn benchmark performance chart just to know which CPU does what.
I am not sure what Thomas' angle is. Maybe making more profit means they will have more money to invest in future processor factories and design.. which would make it harder for a competitor? I doubt this is a problem though because if AMD had good ideas for processors they would be able to get investors to build the factories needed. The other scenario is that Intel jacks up the prices now so that they can have enough money to sell processors at a loss in the future with the purpose of preventing a competitor from arising. This would get found out easily though.
Price fixing is considered monopolistic behavior. If you aren't a monopoly, you can't artificially set a price. If you went to the grocery store to buy an apple and the apples were $100, you'd be like ZoMG!&WTF@!!!1!! and go shop somewhere else. But with microprocessors, you have an oligopoly with only two major players, which is turning into a monopoly quickly as of late, which means you can't exactly shop somewhere else, can ya?
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.
Eeeeerm how exactly increasing the price and delaying shipment helps them monopolise the market?
It is not Intel's fault that AMD cannot compete at the moment Intel is simply taking advantage of the situation to maximise profit which is what any and every company would do at similar situations.
I don't remember a time when AMD truly did compete with Intel.
AMD does offer a cheaper product which every now and then managed to outperform the Intel equivalent (Athlon Vs. the Pentium 3; Duron vs. Celeron) but AMD has lagged behind Intel mostly because of Intel's aggressive marketing strategies.
Lay computer buyers have no idea what the hell an "AMD" is, but they do know they've seen Intel Inside stickers everywhere. Or, perhaps they've seen the Pentium 4 commercials.
Nowadays, Intel is beating the hell out of all other processor manufaturers - they basically have no real compeition anymore. They've got multiple markets of proccessors and you'd need a damn benchmark performance chart just to know which CPU does what.
I am not sure what Thomas' angle is. Maybe making more profit means they will have more money to invest in future processor factories and design.. which would make it harder for a competitor? I doubt this is a problem though because if AMD had good ideas for processors they would be able to get investors to build the factories needed. The other scenario is that Intel jacks up the prices now so that they can have enough money to sell processors at a loss in the future with the purpose of preventing a competitor from arising. This would get found out easily though.
Price fixing is considered monopolistic behavior. If you aren't a monopoly, you can't artificially set a price. If you went to the grocery store to buy an apple and the apples were $100, you'd be like ZoMG!&WTF@!!!1!! and go shop somewhere else. But with microprocessors, you have an oligopoly with only two major players, which is turning into a monopoly quickly as of late, which means you can't exactly shop somewhere else, can ya?
@Andrew
You sure can shop somewhere else: single core CPUs, dual core CPUs, etc.
When you go to the store to buy an apple and it costs $2800... then you say WTF do I need a quad core for when there's plenty of cheaper apples!
What would be the proper pricing strategy if Intel and others wanted AMD to survive?
Aaaaand thus it begins. Welcome children, to the days of the Pentium III.