Hector says: Intel is a monopoly, Microsoft isn't

[Nyte]

In a keynote address this morning to the American Antitrust Institute in Washington, AMD CEO Hector Ruiz gave attendees what he described as "an idea of what it's like to do business day in and day out when you are competing against an abusive monopolist." Although he also invoked the phrase "illegal monopoly," he left a convenient 846-word buffer zone between that phrase and his first invocation of the term "Intel."

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

I think someone's a bit confused...

For once its not me.

Although I do have to say microsoft is quickly losing their death grip on the market.

The whole marketing lawsuit is cool and all, but AMD's slacking...

and they're getting a beating for it..

 

[Jimmy 2004]

WTF? Intel is less of a monopoly than M$ however you look at it - after all, a monopoly is judged based on market share, with M$ being above 90%.

 

[Deleted member 3]

WTF? Intel is less of a monopoly than M$ however you look at it - after all, a monopoly is judged based on market share, with M$ being above 90%.

How does MS have a monopoly? There are plenty of alternatives and they aren't forcing us to use their stuff. The fact that many companies make programs for Windows and not for the alternatives isn't their doing.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

WTF? Intel is less of a monopoly than M$ however you look at it - after all, a monopoly is judged based on market share, with M$ being above 90%.

No it is not.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define:+monopoly&btnG=Google+Search

A market type in which there is a sole supplier of a good, service, or resource that has no close substitutes and in which there is a barrier preventing the entry of new firms into the industry.

A monopoly is caused when one is able to stamp out competition.

While market share is a "value" to how much competition is there, theres much more to it.

If you were to have 100% of the furby market, it is not technicly a monopoly.

Now, if you were to sell furbys in every store and disallow every store to sell a competitor, that is then in turn a monopoly.

 

[oldcrank]

Standards

I've been around so long that I can remember when Microsoft operating systems didn't dominate the market. The closest thing to a non-proprietary standard operating system was CP/M from Digital Research. The biggest selling computers -Apple, TRS-80,ect.-all used their own proprietary systems. Nothing for one computer would run on anything else. It sucked! What everybody wanted was a de facto standard, so that you could buy or write software that would run on anycomputer. The application software people were dying for it. Now we have it because of Microsoft's market dominance, starting with MS-DOS. When I remember the way that things were, the last thing that I want to do is go back to competing systems. I just wish Microsoft didn't write such huge systems. I wish that they would hire some good Assembly language programmers.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

I've been around so long that I can remember when Microsoft operating systems didn't dominate the market. The closest thing to a non-proprietary standard operating system was CP/M from Digital Research. The biggest selling computers -Apple, TRS-80,ect.-all used their own proprietary systems. Nothing for one computer would run on anything else. It sucked! What everybody wanted was a de facto standard, so that you could buy or write software that would run on anycomputer. The application software people were dying for it. Now we have it because of Microsoft's market dominance, starting with MS-DOS. When I remember the way that things were, the last thing that I want to do is go back to competing systems. I just wish Microsoft didn't write such huge systems. I wish that they would hire some good Assembly language programmers.

Thing is now, its almost trivial to make a lot of programs cross platform

 

[oldcrank]

Good point, Dippyskoodlez. The compilers are vastly better now. There were no globally optimizing compilers in the era that I spoke of. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[a111087]

i don't think Intel is complete monopoly, although they were trying to make their biggest clients to buy only Intel, I still hope AMD will get something from it

 

[shmig]

You are all missing the importance of an "illegal monopoly". Your local cable provider is most likely a monopoly. That radio-station company owned by Disney is a monopoly. The electrical company, even if owned by the city/county/state is a monopoly. Anti-trust laws are not there to combat monopolies, but to assure that no company acts in a monopolistic-way. That's it. So, essentially, as long as a majority share of the market is owned by one company, and that company is taking advantage of this position at the expense of its competitors or its clients it is an "illegal monopoly". Microsoft is not a good example of this. The fact that there are all these baby-bell companies is a good example. I have not read what this guy talked about, but I bet there is alot more to it than on the surface. Here's a hunch: Intel recently decided to delve into graphics cards. This is a problem because they already have a 1-up on precessor designing and scale of production, and that is also the other major component of the AMD/ATI company. AMD is already losing tons of money because of this merger, and Intel's decision to enter this market could potentially sink AMD before they've even finished merging their checkbooks with ATI. This in monopolistic, and is essentially independent of Intel's majority share in processors.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

What does this say for AMD's new CPU line by years end

:shadedshu

 

[hat]

Intel is not a monopoly. You can just as esily buy an AMD 6000+ as you can an INTEL E6600. Microsoft is more of a monopoly because everyone makes new drivers and hardware for windows XP and VISTA, you hardly ever see any new stuff for LINUX or OSX.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

What does this say for AMD's new CPU line by years end

:shadedshu

Means they're too busy with all their lawyers to care. :shadedshu

Intel is not a monopoly. You can just as esily buy an AMD 6000+ as you can an INTEL E6600. Microsoft is more of a monopoly because everyone makes new drivers and hardware for windows XP and VISTA, you hardly ever see any new stuff for LINUX or OSX.

Again, you still don't understand the monopoly concept.

 

[WarEagleAU]

I think he might be right in a sense. But I dont knock Intel for what they are doing. While the opponent is down, kick them. Its business 101 pure and simple. They have a proc that is whooping AMD. AMD, for awhile was whooping Intel. Now, they arent as powerful. Thats AMDs fault for resting on its laurels. Take a page from Intel, as they did you AMD, and rectify it.

 

[XooM]

If anything, i suppose apple is more monopolistic than microsoft... OSX requires apple hardware, but windows merely requires x86 hardware. Additionally, more hardware and interfaces of apple's are proprietary to apple than with microsoft, since apple controls both the hardware and software end of things.

 

[3991vhtes]

I agree with XooM....apple os's require APPLE COMATIBLE hardware. whereas windows is extremely universal

 

[jocksteeluk]

i feel this is more AMD trying to deflect its failings on rival, if the didnt try to create a prestige with the X2 chips making them more expensive than the weaker but cheaper pentium d chips they would still be in pole position right now, Lets just hope with quad core chips they don't try to adopt the same approach once more.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

If anything, i suppose apple is more monopolistic than microsoft... OSX requires apple hardware, but windows merely requires x86 hardware. Additionally, more hardware and interfaces of apple's are proprietary to apple than with microsoft, since apple controls both the hardware and software end of things.

What?

Just because they make an operating system in NO WAY delegates one must make it work on everything.

If thats true, then why doesn't windows work on my POWERBOOK?


Thats not even close to what a monopoly is...

Apples tight control is about controlling their product, not their market.

Now, if apple had as much market share as microsoft and dominated things with an Intel CPU and never used AMD, that would maybe fit the bill.

 

[Grings]

i cant see how intel has a monopoly at all myself, just over a year ago (prior to c2d's release) the majority of gaming enthusiasts were all using amd chips, were they forced to change to intel?? no

 

[shmig]

Here is an example of why microsoft is being considered a monopoly: Google is complaining that the search engine built into vista is 'hardwired' so that at no point can the user choose an alternative search engine. This is monopolistic because google is unable to provide their product to vista users because microsoft won't let them. The use of IE in windows can still be considered monopolistic because you can never truly remove it from your computer, but mostly because you cannot update your version of windows without it. They are forcing you to choose their product.

Rockefeller was accused of monopolistic practices by setting prices so low that it was impossible for his competition to stay in business without losing money. It was claimed that Rockefeller could do this because he controlled such a large portion of the market and had so much money to work with that he could accept temporary losses (that's right, they said he was losing money to make this work) until his competition was forced to sell their company to him. This, in fact, is logically impossible and untrue, but that was the claim.

Now, AMD controls something like less than 5% of the processor market and has been in 2nd position for.... well, ever. Arguably, ATI was never controlling GPU market sales either. Merging the two companies actually seemed like a good idea: share resources to cut costs and so on. Now, IF Intel chose to enter the GPU market because of this merger, with the intent on forcing AMD out of one or both markets, then they are most likely (if not undoubtedly) acting in a monopolistic way that would violate anti-trust laws. Keep in mind, I still haven't read this speech, and I'm no lawyer. But that's the logic I see. Hopefully this clarifies what this guy from AMD is claiming.

 

[Darkrealms]

To answer an early question about Microsoft and monopoly, I believe that Microsoft received that title when they tried to purchase 49-51% of Apple a while back. At that point Microsoft would have been in control of the only operating systems really used (by the general public, people). Had the government not gotten involved I think they would have pulled it off as well.

At this point I disagree with the Intel monopoly acusation. AMD needs to work on their products, at this point I won't have anything made by them in my next system

 

[XooM]

What?

Just because they make an operating system in NO WAY delegates one must make it work on everything.

If thats true, then why doesn't windows work on my POWERBOOK?


Thats not even close to what a monopoly is...

Apples tight control is about controlling their product, not their market.

Now, if apple had as much market share as microsoft and dominated things with an Intel CPU and never used AMD, that would maybe fit the bill.

my point wasn't about the OS; it was more about the OS, hardware, and hardware interface package, including various apple-produced accessories. It is less prevalent today, as they use more standard hardware now, but video cards used to have to be built specifically for apple computers; RAM was apple-specific... hell, iPods used to require apples. Firewire?

The entire issue is reflected onto the iPod/iTunes/iTMS DRM lock-in. So you bought all your music on iTMS and it's DRM-addled? Now you can only ever use an iPod or other apple-branded device.

How is that not monopolistic? It's exactly what the massive trusts of old did, controlling every aspect of production from raw materials to finished goods, though from a consumer's angle.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

How is that not monopolistic? It's exactly what the massive trusts of old did, controlling every aspect of production from raw materials to finished goods, though from a consumer's angle.

How is it not monopolistic?

It doesn't fit under any of the defining terms of monopoly.


Apple is not paying walmart to not sell zunes.

Apple is not paying napster to keep a USELESS drm on their products.

Apple is NOT paying dell to provide handfuls of useless software on top.



Apple is winning market share because their product is BETTER.

That is what capitalism is BASED AROUND.

This is how other companys are SUPPOSED to be hurt.

And in turn should create a BETTER product than apple to SELL it.




learn how capitalism is supposed to work, then learn what a monopoly means.

Its no different from the GAME monopoly.

You own everything. But thats half the game.

The other half of the game is making everyone else run out of money.

You can only do this by FORCING them out of the game.

This is where the similaritys end, though.

In the US, you are perfectly able to control an entire market as long as you don't FORCE people out of the market. If they just can't make a dent in the market because your product is multitudes better, then bummer. Not your loss.


Thats how it works, and thats what they enforce.


Now if apple were to pay dell to sell -only- os x on their machines, to keep windows OUT... that would be a monopoly.

(do note, this is what microsoft does, and this is what AMD is accusing Intel of doing.)

 

[XooM]

Apple has erected barriers to entry around its market share, in the form of the linking of iTunes, iPod, and iTMS. By allowing music purchased through iTMS to ONLY play in iTunes and on an iPod, it bars consumers from competitors' products, unless they wish to repurchase their music library. Additionally, users are forced to use iTunes versus other applications (such as WMP10/11, winamp, etc) for their music library and music organization, as it is the only way to get music onto an iPod (again, ignoring various hackery and DIY efforts)
It is not the old model of the monopoly to be sure, but it's still monopolistic.



On a side note: apple is winning because their marketing is better; it has nothing to do with the product they're selling.

 

[Dippyskoodlez]

Apple has erected barriers to entry around its market share, in the form of the linking of iTunes, iPod, and iTMS. By allowing music purchased through iTMS to ONLY play in iTunes and on an iPod, it bars consumers from competitors' products, unless they wish to repurchase their music library. Additionally, users are forced to use iTunes versus other applications (such as WMP10/11, winamp, etc) for their music library and music organization, as it is the only way to get music onto an iPod (again, ignoring various hackery and DIY efforts)
It is not the old model of the monopoly to be sure, but it's still monopolistic.



On a side note: apple is winning because their marketing is better; it has nothing to do with the product they're selling.

Odd.

All of my itunes library that I purchased are MP3's.

Wheres the anti-competition?

Its locked down, because thats the only possible way for it to actually remain a DRM. I think that argument could hold a very strong case in court.


And theres always CD's. Napster. What about napsters DRM? prevents me from using it on my ipod. WAAAH.

Apples business model for selling music is the only successful one.