Monopoly games!

Lyecdevf · Post by **Lyecdevf** » 19 Nov 2009, 14:00

I find it hard to believe that Intel payed money to companies like Dell to use there products. I mean is this like a common practice now days? I mean I just can not believe this. I for my self know that I am never going to buy intel products. Just because I am angered at this practice. Some people say that intel won any way because AMD still does not have a product that could match i7 and wont have one for another year and a half but I do not care. I am going to use AMD. It may be a little bit slower but still a four core processor is good enough for me. So what do you think? Are you going to continue to be an intel fan? I know there are many AMD fans here so this is just going to increase your bias for AMD am I right?

n3rd · Post by **n3rd** » 19 Nov 2009, 14:05

Im using intel, its simple Intel is by far the dominant party in the proc. industry.

until a other company comes with a processor that can beat the shit out of intel it wont lose its position. This is basicly a pretty useless debate because things will only change if AMD or another unknown company creates a pull strategy that forces a new kind of proc. to the endusers (it would even be fun if they created a new architecture and stuff to fuck with intel and AMD).

Then again, intel wil just buy up those companies until 1 says no! look at google, microsoft wanted to buy it in its early stages and they said no, now they are direct competitor with Microsoft on certain platforms.

Lyecdevf · Post by **Lyecdevf** » 20 Nov 2009, 14:18

n3rd wrote:This is basicly a pretty useless debate because things will only change if AMD or another unknown company creates a pull strategy that forces a new kind of proc.

I do not agree with that. I think that AMD has a great strategy. They bought ATI and they made a lot of money. I am sure that they are going to make a really good processor one day. For instance this summer s six core processor is supposed to hit the stores. Now as far as I am concerned that is more than enough for me.

n3rd · Post by **n3rd** » 20 Nov 2009, 14:32

true, but its not revolutionary. It has to beat intels current I7 processors, and besides that we do not know what intel has in its arsenal.

and as for buying ATI, its just expanding its inventory. not revolutionize it

Post by **Lundis** » 20 Nov 2009, 14:37

I thought they bought ATI in order to create this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amd_fusion ^^

Lyecdevf · Post by **Lyecdevf** » 21 Nov 2009, 09:57

Well any how I am disgusted how intel pays people to use there products. I am sure there products could be cheaper if they did not pay bribes. In the end the customer suffers.

Post by **lilrofl** » 21 Nov 2009, 10:14

You're probably right Lyec, it is morally reprehensible to pay companies to use your products exclusively, but it's allowed in the capitalist model to an extent, and the truth is that the end-user is making it possible for the practice to continue.

Most users buy what's easy, rarely delving into the practices of the business providing the resource, and concerning themselves more with the solution that takes the fewest resources to reach fruition.

I prefer AMD to intel, but they have been playing catch-up for a while, and as long as they fail to produce something revolutionary, most people will continue to buy what is forced down their throats.

AMD chips have worked better in my experience then intel chips, even at lower clock speeds, and so I buy AMD when I am given the option (in situations where my options are limited)

Don't forget though that intel owns a fair amount of AMD stock, so it's a win-win situation for them in the end, and nothing you should loose sleep over I think.

Lyecdevf · Post by **Lyecdevf** » 23 Nov 2009, 05:12

lilrofl wrote:You're probably right Lyec, it is morally reprehensible to pay companies to use your products exclusively, but it's allowed in the capitalist model to an extent, and the truth is that the end-user is making it possible for the practice to continue.

Indeed it is reprehensible as you put it but I do not think that it is allowed. I mean why did this than go to court and intel than agreed to a plea deal in which it is going to pay AMD a huge sum of money. It is wrong! It is simply wrong.

I always thought that the whole concept of capitalism was to produce an item that was so good that no one would need to buy any one to use it. It would be simply clear to every one that the product is so far beyond what the competition is offering that there would be no reason why not to buy it.

It is ironic how just a few weeks ago I watched a documentary about Robery Noyce and how he started Intel. The title was the podfather. Now the documentary presented him as such a briliant person but if he set up a culture in that company that was open to using bribes to achieve goals or even he him self did it than I have no respect for him at all.