fancuckerDoes anyone have hard evidence of bribery or is it just ayymd conspiracy theories? Plus the majority of their customers are committed to Intel systems, to avoid teething issues in updating or because of performance advantages in certain applications. Its as simple as that.

fancuckerDoes anyone have hard evidence of bribery or is it just ayymd conspiracy theories? Plus the majority of their customers are committed to Intel systems, to avoid teething issues in updating or because of performance advantages in certain applications. Its as simple as that.

Hossein AlmetHow comes? One survey after another, all say 'sales of PC have been down and down'.

KhonjelHeh. If only these companies had the foresight of not taking bribes and diversify supplies. Oh wait PC = Intel Inside.

fancuckerDoes anyone have hard evidence of bribery or is it just ayymd conspiracy theories? Plus the majority of their customers are committed to Intel systems, to avoid teething issues in updating or because of performance advantages in certain applications. Its as simple as that.

The Commission found that Intel engaged in two specific forms of illegal practice. First, Intel gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 CPUs from Intel. Intel also made direct payments to a major retailer on condition it stock only computers with Intel x86 CPUs. Such rebates and payments effectively prevented customers - and ultimately consumers - from choosing alternative products. Second, Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing competitors' x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products.

The EU’s top court ruled that Intel’s appeal had to be re-examined by a lower tribunal, criticising judges for failing to properly analyse the economic aspects of the case in its 2014 decision to reject the chipmaker’s initial challenge.
The lower court “was required to examine all of Intel’s arguments” regarding a test to check whether the rebates used by the company was capable of harming competition, the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg said on Wednesday.
The lower tribunal – the EU General Court – has to examine “whether the rebates at issue were capable of restricting competition”.

The ruling shows that it cannot be taken into account that dominant companies’ exclusivity discounts are always restrictive. There is an assumption that the discounts are restrictive, but the company may present proof which may lead to the opposite conclusion. When companies present proof supporting that conduct is not suited for restricting competition, the competition authorities and subsequent appeal bodies must investigate the arguments.

For dominant companies, the ruling means that it is possible to defend exclusivity discounts, but it is for the dominant company to prove that the discounts do not restrict competition and exclude competitors from the market.

FrickWell, there was thisa decade ago:



I believe that is what people are referring to when talking about bribes. Seems like a done deal. But then thishappened (and here):




And then it gets murky. When is a bribe not actullay a bribe? I assume they are still working on it. I would definitely argue that it was a bribe at the time (mid 2000's IIRC), when AMD totally rocked their Athlon stuff yet few OEM's actually used them AND at the same time Intel made exclusivity deals with them, but apparently that's up for legal discussion. Note how it's not about Intel not doing the things in the first quote, but about whether it actually hurt competition.

fancuckerSo essentially competitive deals for OEMs that the competitor couldn't offer? A bit underhanded but strictly within the realm of traditional business practice. These OEMs have to consider them alongside the pricing of products.

Intel also made direct payments to a major retailer on condition it stock only computers with Intel x86 CPUs.

laszloDear Dell, you want more revenue ? buy from amd why wait after intel?

notbAnd what will they do? Sell you a dead XPS 13 without an Intel SoC, but with an AMD thrown inside the box? :D

fancuckerDoes anyone have hard evidence of bribery or is it just ayymd conspiracy theories? Plus the majority of their customers are committed to Intel systems, to avoid teething issues in updating or because of performance advantages in certain applications. Its as simple as that.

fancuckerDoes anyone have hard evidence of bribery or is it just ayymd conspiracy theories? Plus the majority of their customers are committed to Intel systems, to avoid teething issues in updating or because of performance advantages in certain applications. Its as simple as that.

notbRyzen 1 wasn't interesting. Ryzen 2 was fine. Ryzen 3 is good, but APUs aren't out yet.

bmacsysYou are kidding I hope? Ryen 1 not interesting? Ryzen 2 fine? Ryzen 3 "good"? If Ryzen 3 is only "good" then all Intel cpu's must suck as they are trounced in 90% of most any benchmark you can shake a stick at.

windwhirlIt kinda depends on who's buying. In my case, I waited for Zen 2 mostly to get an upgrade on single threaded performance over Haswell and avoid some potential issues with the IMC, besides the 4 extra cores that I already planned on getting...

fancuckerDoes anyone have hard evidence of bribery or is it just ayymd conspiracy theories? Plus the majority of their customers are committed to Intel systems, to avoid teething issues in updating or because of performance advantages in certain applications. Its as simple as that.

IronMetal84What a bad troll :laugh: www.extremetech.com/computing/184323-intel-stuck-with-1-45-billion-fine-in-europe-for-unfair-and-damaging-practices-against-amd