Why the AMD Intel Settlement actually matters
The large percentage of people out there cast aside the many business lawsuits out there as dull and boring in favor of much more entertaining news, such as the strange names of celebrity children (admittedly, somewhat amusing, and a trivia question the other night).
However, this is one that matters: Intel agreeing to pay AMD $1.25 billion if AMD stop suing it all over the globe on anti-trust issues.
It matters because it is a shot in the arm for AMD at a time it was very much needed. For years, they made as good as, nearly as good as, or better chips than Intel, and they did not gain market share because of Intel's business practices, with some pretty egregious monopoly tactics.
Why does this matter? Because every computer you have ever used or will use for the next 15 years most likely had, has, or will have a AMD or Intel processor. On top of that, they probably had AMD or Intel chipsets as well, and possibly (especially in the case of laptops) graphics cards.
Though some will argue that a monopoly does not have a negative effect, I believe it can. Today, with AMD bloodied and trying to get back in the ring (roughly 20% market share vs. Intel's 80%), Intel is postponing all its delivery dates for new chips to stretch margins and profits on the old ones. This means more months of basically the same chips and processors in laptops and netbooks we have been seeing for the last year. It means a slower development of the personal PC market, and it means higher costs as Intel no longer needs -kickbacks- rebates to move its chips.
Finally, and one that does really piss me off, is that Intel will not be supporting USB 3.0 (which is much much faster, and would allow USB hard drives to operate at basically the same connection speed as internal drives) in its chipsets until 2011. Why? Because they are working on their own rival technology, Light Peak, with Apple which wont be ready until about then.
Futher evidence of why monopolies are bad for consumers? Internet Explorer. Sure, Firefox eventually came along and broke its monopoly if not its dominance, and now we have modern, standards compliant, app-running, tabbed browsing, music streaming and almost OS like (you can do a lot with Firefox addons) browsers. But for 5 or so years, there was just internet explorer, and man were those dark times.
However, this is one that matters: Intel agreeing to pay AMD $1.25 billion if AMD stop suing it all over the globe on anti-trust issues.
It matters because it is a shot in the arm for AMD at a time it was very much needed. For years, they made as good as, nearly as good as, or better chips than Intel, and they did not gain market share because of Intel's business practices, with some pretty egregious monopoly tactics.
Why does this matter? Because every computer you have ever used or will use for the next 15 years most likely had, has, or will have a AMD or Intel processor. On top of that, they probably had AMD or Intel chipsets as well, and possibly (especially in the case of laptops) graphics cards.
Though some will argue that a monopoly does not have a negative effect, I believe it can. Today, with AMD bloodied and trying to get back in the ring (roughly 20% market share vs. Intel's 80%), Intel is postponing all its delivery dates for new chips to stretch margins and profits on the old ones. This means more months of basically the same chips and processors in laptops and netbooks we have been seeing for the last year. It means a slower development of the personal PC market, and it means higher costs as Intel no longer needs -kickbacks- rebates to move its chips.
Finally, and one that does really piss me off, is that Intel will not be supporting USB 3.0 (which is much much faster, and would allow USB hard drives to operate at basically the same connection speed as internal drives) in its chipsets until 2011. Why? Because they are working on their own rival technology, Light Peak, with Apple which wont be ready until about then.
Futher evidence of why monopolies are bad for consumers? Internet Explorer. Sure, Firefox eventually came along and broke its monopoly if not its dominance, and now we have modern, standards compliant, app-running, tabbed browsing, music streaming and almost OS like (you can do a lot with Firefox addons) browsers. But for 5 or so years, there was just internet explorer, and man were those dark times.
Comments
Post a Comment