| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
AMD CEO: Intel Is a Monopoly, Microsoft Isn't | |
|
||
| Time: 07:35 EST/12:35 GMT | News Source: BetaNews | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
In a keynote address this morning to the American Antitrust Institute in Washington, D.C., 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." "I do not need my fortune teller hat to tell you one truth about which I am absolutely certain," Ruiz told attendees, "There is no proper or defensible place for illegal monopolies in the 21st century global marketplace...My purpose is not to argue for competitive advantage - we know how to compete. My purpose is to lay out the facts so that law and economics can do their job to protect consumers." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 156 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:09:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 6/22/2007 8:34:03 AM |
|
Oh, palease...
TL |
| #2 By 8556 (12.207.97.148) at 6/22/2007 9:37:27 AM |
|
If Intel is a monopoly then how did AMD attain a majority share, for a brief time, of processors used in US retail computer sales? http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P1534
|
| #3 By 48398 (70.102.157.10) at 6/22/2007 12:38:18 PM |
| I didn't know monopolies sold entire divisions and laid off thousands of employees to regain lost profits to their competitors. |
| #4 By 61 (72.64.155.150) at 6/22/2007 5:22:00 PM |
| bob, not defending Intel or AMD here at all, but you can't determine if a company is a monopoly by comparing sales 2 competing products during a months time frame. |
| #5 By 9589 (75.183.125.87) at 6/22/2007 6:18:02 PM |
|
Expect this CEO's drivel to show up in diatribes to extract confiscatory fines and impose ridiculous restrictions from state attorneys general that have gubernatorial ambitions and of course, the laughable if it weren't so evil, EU "Competitiveness" Council. <barf>
My advise to AMD, get back to the lab and make CPUs that runs faster, cooler, use less electricity, and cost less than your competitor and stop your whining. |
| #6 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 6/22/2007 8:25:42 PM |
|
Intel is not a monopoly just a bruising competitor.
I wouldn't want to make a play for their space. |
| #7 By 20 (66.68.61.203) at 6/23/2007 12:23:00 AM |
|
I wish losers like this would stop calling everyone and his brother a monopoly. MSFT never was a monopoly. A domineering, cut-throat, ruthless (unethical even) 8,000e10^27 pound Gorilla, yes, Monopoly NO.
The barrier to entry was EXTREMELY high, but still doable. By way of comparison, (yes, here it comes... the auto analogy) the US Auto consumer market was cinched by American auto companies with a near-impossible barrier to entry, yet somehow Honda, Toyota, and numerous others were able to seize it in relatively short time. Apple has carved out a nice niche for itself despite anything MSFT does and despite of any sort of DOJ activity. Linux has overcome some of the hardest hurdles (investment in time/resources to produce a usable, stable, modern OS/kernel) but has not reached critical mass because it continually spites itself, but that's not MSFT's fault (unless, of course, you consider MSFT's constant pot-stirring activities to keep the Linux dorks arguing amongst themselves and fuming at MSFT's next move while they pound their fists into the dust and post furiously on listservs and usenet) |
| #8 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 6/24/2007 2:17:05 AM |
| #7 Did you miss a few legal documents, court decisions etc when coming to the conclusion that Microsoft never had a monopoly? Or are you just holding on to your definition of 100% being Monopoly any any less being ok, hence assuming all those lawyers and judges are just wrong. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/25/2007 12:19:33 PM |
| #8: Makes perfect sense for the apologia set. It's impossible to accuse MS of illegally leveraging their monopoly when they never had a monopoly to begin with, right? Plus, they throw in a bit of the time-honoured MS tactic of just redefining words to suit themselves. Apparently, monopoly now means you have 100.00% of a market. It doesn't apparently matter that the effects of monopoly (dictating to partners, suppliers and customers alike; contempt of government; breaking laws as they see fit, with fines calculated as costs of doing business; etc, etc, etc) can be had for much less than 100% market share. |
| #10 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at 6/25/2007 11:27:33 PM |
| Within a couple of years of AMD"s killer Athlon 64 systems being released they became number 1. They had a better product. Intel is kicking AMD's behind now because they incorporated several new technologies into the Core 2 Duo. Otherwise, the two companies would have comparable perfoming processors. Intel did a superior job of moving ahead quickly, after years of the lame P4 designs. AMD may catch up to them again. In the meantime on the low end one can build a superb system using a $30 Sempron from NewEgg, a $45 board and 2-GB DDR2-800 for under $250. That's awesome. AMD still is great, just not the greatest right now. |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/26/2007 2:12:39 PM |
| #11: More impressively is how AMD came back despite anti-competitive pressure from Intel similar to the pressure MS used to put on OEMs that dared to ship a system without Windows on it. Intel threatened the major OEMs that started sniffing around AMD. Aren't monopolies wonderful things? Well, wonderful for the monopolist, and the shaft for everyone else. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 156 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:09:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
