So you think monopolies are good for consumers?
In this sort of realm, unfortunately, I think a monopoly is almost required. If there were too many CPU retailers, none of them could afford the vast ammounts required for research.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel dispute fine for being a "Bully"
- Thread starter linwelin
- Start date
In this sort of realm, unfortunately, I think a monopoly is almost required. If there were too many CPU retailers, none of them could afford the vast ammounts required for research.
There is only 1 other, AMD.
AMD's revenue is about 2% of Intel, Intel already have a monopoly, AMD are just there to keep them honest and keep the prices down.
But you may soon get what you want, AMD have posted yet another massive revenue loss, Bulldozers Failure has cost them vast amounts of money, they may soon pull out of the mainstream CPU market.
Be happy then will you?
I'm almost hoaping they do for a while to let Intel jack the prices up and stagnate, work on something new, take there time with it to get it right instead of having to rush it out, and then come back with a killer CPU at way below Intel's prices, AMD don't mind small profits as they don't have a massive army of share holders.
The only people an Intel Monopoly benefits are Intel share holders, consumers will get well and truly shafted.
Last edited:
lol, I'd go so far as to compare intel's ivybridge to bulldozer. Its not giving much gain, gives out loads more heat and is more flippin expensive!!! - This is what happens when there is no longer any competition with Intel.
They milked the Pentium cow for decades!, now they'll prob do the same, seeing as AMD are literally out of the picture.
They milked the Pentium cow for decades!, now they'll prob do the same, seeing as AMD are literally out of the picture.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,207
Thats the nature of big business unfortunately, you can say the same thing about Microsoft's business practices, MS didn't get where they are in the world by making the best OS's in existance because they weren't, although I've had computers since the 80's I didn't get my first PC until the early 00's because there were better computers out there and MS's OS's before XP were frankly, ****.
No, they got where they are by being the biggest piranha in the tank, simple as that.
No, they got where they are by being the biggest piranha in the tank, simple as that.
This pretty much proves my point though. AMD is Intel's only competitor and they couldnt put enough skills/money into development to produce a comparable product. Bulldozer didn't fail because of the big bad Intel, it failed because it is no-where near as good as it claimed, or as good as the competition Intel is fielding.
If AMD can't compete, how could any others? The more competitors in a market, the more the profits are spread around but with CPUs that means less money for development of the next generation. I don't want Intel to have a monopoly (that's where the "unfortunatelty" came in, maybe you missed it?) but in this instance, I can't see any alternative that doesnt stifle development.
AMD have the skill, just not the money.
and if you think Intel as the only CPU maker will bring their prices down / invest more into development you are living in la...la land
Their shareholders will simply get fatter and fatter while the consumer pays for their mansion and yachts.
They will *have* to keep developing new products or else no one will upgrade. And how fat will the shareholders get then? Intel are by no means the perfect company, but you really are laying into them and their shareholders.
While AMD are helping to keep prices down, there not exactly scaring Intel with their products.
They will *have* to keep developing new products or else no one will upgrade. And how fat will the shareholders get then? Intel are by no means the perfect company, but you really are laying into them and their shareholders.
While AMD are helping to keep prices down, there not exactly scaring Intel with their products.
Making a perfectly accurate point is not laying into anyone, its just blunt that's all. i don't do sensitivity there for the same reason i have no love for banks and bankers.
AMD don't need to be in mainstream CPU's, there GPU's and APU's are the profitable parts of AMD, mainstream CPU's is the cancer to that.
They would be financially better off pulling out, scaling it right back and take there sweet time in coming up with something decent.
Last edited:
Really none of that is true at all.
i think what we are seeing is both companies concentrating more on the mobile market, raw cpu performance is becoming less important if buyers understand that yet or not
I don't think it follows that a monopoly is inherently bad for the consumer, no. What I do think is a bad idea is the current popularity for identifying the most successful companies and penalising them for being a success.
Woden's point is well made, it's been years since AMD was a credible threat to Intel yet Intel are continuing to improve their products. AMD are also clearly failing to "keep Intel honest".
There's also a point that processors don't really need to improve much from this point for a home computer. Microsoft office, flash, games- none are cpu limited. The odd person wants to do serious mathematical modelling and runs the processor at the limit, but they're rare in the home market. In business, engineering at least, there is always going to be a demand for faster processors. So the home market chips may plausibly stagnate at this point while the enterprise line continues to increase in speed, with cost set by whatever a company is willing to pay for the speed increase.
Woden's point is well made, it's been years since AMD was a credible threat to Intel yet Intel are continuing to improve their products. AMD are also clearly failing to "keep Intel honest".
There's also a point that processors don't really need to improve much from this point for a home computer. Microsoft office, flash, games- none are cpu limited. The odd person wants to do serious mathematical modelling and runs the processor at the limit, but they're rare in the home market. In business, engineering at least, there is always going to be a demand for faster processors. So the home market chips may plausibly stagnate at this point while the enterprise line continues to increase in speed, with cost set by whatever a company is willing to pay for the speed increase.
Have you got a link to the figures to back this up, I would be interested in reading up on it.
I doubt there is any as the last time I saw any figures the gpu's were still making a loss when at the time they had the top spot due to Nvidia not having released anything new for ages.
Plus if they put all the eggs in one basket with GPU's they would have to sack the current monkeys they use to program there drivers and hire some real programmers.
Although I guess ATI managed to successfully survive of just there GPU line so it might be possible ........Oh wait nevermind
I can't find the link for you, it was a while ago and i think it may have been comparing revenue to development costs, i think by now that will be offset as they are in profit now.... http://www.anandtech.com/show/5764/amd-q112-earnings-report-158b-revenue-590m-net-loss
Overall AMD made another loss, BUT, and this is a big but.
AMD are in profit on every single one of there products, they are actually averaging $120m a quarter on there CPU's running profit. there largest revenue and still healthy on GPU's ecte....
There problem was there stake in GloFo. they have now all but completed there buying out of it.
Next year (2013) will see them back on profit, perhaps as much as $1B across there entire product range, which is quite extensive now....
2013 is the year they can start throwing money at development again, instead of flogging what was developed 3 years ago. i think they knew then there were problems, hence the delay.
2013 just happens to be the year they are moving to 28nm with a brand new arch.
Happy days a coming...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,064
Who knows, nobody knows where a company would be today - many variables involved and many things can make or break a companies fortunes. AMD have probably used dodgy tactics also.
Kinda makes me think of Apple also. Their tactics not exactly clean cut these days either.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
Precisely. And look what's happening. BTW, I've bought my CPU 6 months ago for cheaper than it is now, and Ivy doesn't do much compared to Sandy.
Intel has no competition in the high end of the market but themselves. They can charge whatever they want.
AMD is still in with the OEMs and lower end brackets. They are not bad CPUs, just that the people in the know knows better. I'd hate to think what will happen if AMD pulls out completely of the desktop and enthusiast market. I think they'll just hang in there or there about.
Healthy Competition is good for the consumers. End of!