First, I'm glad you answered the way you did to the various situations. Do you see now that no matter what Intel does with their pricing strategy, higher, lower, or same, they are guilty of breaking antitrust laws? What is a company to do if they are breaking the law no matter where they set their prices?
Second, what makes you think something such as a "fair price" can be defined, besides some politician's arbitrary guess? Who's to say what is a fair price and what is unfair? Someone has an inflated sense of entitlement. People like you always use undefinable terms to confuse the issue or mislead.
Third, I really don't have the time or energy to explain fundamental economics to you. If Intel is indeed a monopoly, they became one with the help of the same government that you are now asking for help. They became so through protectionism disguised as regulation, or just regulation in general. If you want to know exactly how the U.S. government regulates business, read their publication which lists all their regulations on business. It's called the federal register and it's 80,000+ pages (double columned).
The situation you describe with a company like Intel selling products at a loss in order to keep competition out has never been successfully implemented in history. The reason why is that the competition is relentless (because people always jump at opportunities to make fortunes) and as soon as Intel raises their prices back up in order to recoup their losses the current competition or a new company will undercut Intel and force them to do it all over again, resulting in even greater losses...and rinse and repeat. Eventually, Intel or whatever company will either completely go out of business, or they will learn their lesson and realize that their strategy is flawed and lower/raise prices back to market level. They will never do it again, as they will have lost billions in the process.
The only reason the above result will not happen is if Intel is being protected in the marketplace by a governing body. This governing body could restrict new competition to Intel by delaying or denying a business license to the new start-up competitor, or through zoning restrictions, or selected enforcement of regulations, or a seemingly endless supply of other tactics.
You seem content to shove a gun in Intel employee's faces and tell them, "You have a sworn duty to charge more for your products, so that I can buy products from your competitors. If you don't take more money for your products, I'll fine you."
Finally, you missed the primary point of my previous post. I'll paraphrase it in here so you won't miss it this time...
Don't you see the contradiction in what you're saying? You are saying that if Intel gains market share on Nvidia, then Intel no longer has incentive to innovate. What incentive does Nvidia now have to innovate when they can instead use the government to keep them competitive?
Who are you to tell an industry you have nothing to do with, what their products should cost?
If Nvidia is better and people are willing to pay more for the Nvidia they will. If not, they won't. Deal with it without putting guns to people heads and forcing them to raise prices...
@Barry Anti-competitive my ass!! If someone wins the competition by obtaining an optimum price/performance ratio they're being anti-competitive?
Do you have a right to cut down your competitor if they're winning? If so, you were never competing in the first place. The game for which you were competing has been fixed from the start.
Don't you see the contradiction in what you're saying? You are saying that if Intel gains market share on Nvidia, then Intel no longer has incentive to innovate. What incentive does Nvidia have to innovate when they can instead of spending all that money innovating, use the government to keep them competitive?
You people that use the term anti-competitive need a reality check.
Let's briefly examine the anti-trust laws in the EU and the US (their similarities).
Situation A: Your prices are higher than your competitors...(regardless whether you product is superior to your competitors)
Law: You can be charged with "Price Gouging" or "Abuse of market position".
Situation B: Your prices are similar or the same as your competitors...(regardless whether you product is superior to your competitors or vice versa)
Law: You can be charged with "Attempt to fix prices" or "Collusion"
Situation C: Your prices are lower than your competitors...(regardless whether you product is superior to your competitors or vice versa)
Law: As we've seen you can be charged with "Attempt to monopolize" or "Unfair Competition" or "Predatory Pricing".
Are these the laws that you are glad are being enforced?
Barry, if you want better chips than the current "janky" Intel chips, you have three options. 1) Go work for Nvidia and help them cut costs on their chips or help them make an CPU 2) Start your own company to do the same 3) STFU !!!
You seem to want to use a fourth option. That is to put a gun to the heads of Intel employees and stockholders and force them to raise their prices.
You might want to rethink who you think is evil...
Thank you OnlyShawn. You seem to be the only person on this site with half a brain in his head. Without government protectionism, a coercive monopoly ie. predatory pricing has never existed, and I don't see how it ever could. Study economics people!!!
OnlyShawn said it best, that predatory pricing is sasquatch, it just can never and will never work.
You people are all missing the point of the MacBook Air. It is not meant as a replacement for MacBook or MacBook Pro. It's just a new, thin, less-featured version. Of course it's not going to have all the features of a full sized laptop. (Were you foolishly expecting different?) Ah Yes...If Apple does not achieve my impossibly high expectations, then their design is flawed.
Rueben, Your complaint, a valid one, is with apple memory prices. I dare you to configure the mac pro with standard memory (2Gb) No one said you should buy your memory from Apple. If you want more memory buy it elseware.
"I'm in the market for a new laptop, and I want a 13-incher. I need something with a great keyboard for typing, as this will mostly be used for note taking in class. I am absolutely smitten with the XPS 13, but I'm afraid that with its age Dell is going to give it an update soon. Any advice for someone in my shoes?"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
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.
First, I'm glad you answered the way you did to the various situations. Do you see now that no matter what Intel does with their pricing strategy, higher, lower, or same, they are guilty of breaking antitrust laws? What is a company to do if they are breaking the law no matter where they set their prices?
Second, what makes you think something such as a "fair price" can be defined, besides some politician's arbitrary guess? Who's to say what is a fair price and what is unfair? Someone has an inflated sense of entitlement. People like you always use undefinable terms to confuse the issue or mislead.
Third, I really don't have the time or energy to explain fundamental economics to you. If Intel is indeed a monopoly, they became one with the help of the same government that you are now asking for help. They became so through protectionism disguised as regulation, or just regulation in general. If you want to know exactly how the U.S. government regulates business, read their publication which lists all their regulations on business. It's called the federal register and it's 80,000+ pages (double columned).
The situation you describe with a company like Intel selling products at a loss in order to keep competition out has never been successfully implemented in history. The reason why is that the competition is relentless (because people always jump at opportunities to make fortunes) and as soon as Intel raises their prices back up in order to recoup their losses the current competition or a new company will undercut Intel and force them to do it all over again, resulting in even greater losses...and rinse and repeat. Eventually, Intel or whatever company will either completely go out of business, or they will learn their lesson and realize that their strategy is flawed and lower/raise prices back to market level. They will never do it again, as they will have lost billions in the process.
The only reason the above result will not happen is if Intel is being protected in the marketplace by a governing body. This governing body could restrict new competition to Intel by delaying or denying a business license to the new start-up competitor, or through zoning restrictions, or selected enforcement of regulations, or a seemingly endless supply of other tactics.
You seem content to shove a gun in Intel employee's faces and tell them, "You have a sworn duty to charge more for your products, so that I can buy products from your competitors. If you don't take more money for your products, I'll fine you."
Finally, you missed the primary point of my previous post. I'll paraphrase it in here so you won't miss it this time...
Don't you see the contradiction in what you're saying? You are saying that if Intel gains market share on Nvidia, then Intel no longer has incentive to innovate. What incentive does Nvidia now have to innovate when they can instead use the government to keep them competitive?
Well...