Intel reportedly reserved $ 3 billion in 2019 to competitively block AMD

Master_shake_ said:
pepsi doesn't hang out at the grocery store telling the owner that pepsi only and i'll wet you beak a bit.
Click to expand...
I remember a while ago, a guy was fired at Pepsi because his wife brought him a cold meal with a Coke inside. When you work for Pepsi you mustn't allow family members to drink Coke.
Pepsi and Coke used to make agreements with countries where they were building fabs and those agreements would allow only Pepsi or Coke to be sold in that country. Not sure how much the politicians got their share in it.
 
Jandor said:
I remember a while ago, a guy was fired at Pepsi because his wife brought him a cold meal with a Coke inside. When you work for Pepsi you mustn't allow family members to drink Coke.
Pepsi and Coke used to make agreements with countries where they were building fabs and those agreements would allow only Pepsi or Coke to be sold in that country. Not sure how much the politicians got their share in it.
Click to expand...

If I worked there and that had happened, I would have found some way to place Coke products all over the premises.. and then went and worked for Coke.
 
Jandor said:
Pepsi and Coke used to make agreements with countries where they were building fabs and those agreements would allow only Pepsi or Coke to be sold in that country.
Click to expand...
last time i was in jamaica every parish(county) sign was a pepsi sign.

HanoverA20121002mt.jpg
 
My bet is they don't tell but using all that money to convert factories to 10nm. You will be surprised.
 
Jandor said:
My bet is they don't tell but using all that money to convert factories to 10nm. You will be surprised.
Click to expand...
Based off the rumors and expected roadmap I think they're more likely to jump straight to 7nm (except for laptop that will get the 10nm likely)
 
ManofGod said:
So, anti competitive practices are competition? Sure thing dude, sure thing. Next thing you tell me is it is competition if Intel only offers those discounts if the OEM does not sell the competition, eh?
Click to expand...

Maybe if you spent a couple of minutes, you could figure out the difference between competitive and anti-competitive. Perhaps with Anti-Intel blinders your can't.

(A) Offering discounts is competitive behavior. Everyone offers discounts to win big deals. This is how business functions. And that is what is talked about here. Absolutely ZERO wrong with this.

(B) Offering discounts, only if the buyer agrees to not buy any competing product, is anti-competitive behavior. Intel did this before and was heavily fined for it. This is NOT what is being discussed in useless article.

If you think Intel doing (A) is somehow wrong, that is nothing more than your own biases warping your perception.
 
Snowdog said:
Maybe if you spent a couple of minutes, you could figure out the difference between competitive and anti-competitive. Perhaps with Anti-Intel blinders your can't.

(A) Offering discounts is competitive behavior. Everyone offers discounts to win big deals. This is how business functions. And that is what is talked about here. Absolutely ZERO wrong with this.

(B) Offering discounts, only if the buyer agrees to not buy any competing product, is anti-competitive behavior. Intel did this before and was heavily fined for it. This is NOT what is being discussed in useless article.

If you think Intel doing (A) is somehow wrong, that is nothing more than your own biases warping your perception.
Click to expand...

Wrong. These discounts are thinly veiled kick backs just like they were two decades ago. Haven't we learned about quid pro quo in the news lately? These discounts are not consumer facing, that's what makes it anti-competitive.
 
Snowdog said:
Every single deal like this has negotiated discounts. AMDs included.

It's completely absurd to suggest that all business to business deals that include discounts are anti-competitive.
Click to expand...

They are if they manipulate the market and products don't compete on their own basis. That's why its fucking illegal.
 
thesmokingman said:
They are if they manipulate the market and products don't compete on their own basis. That's why its fucking illegal.
Click to expand...

Stop making up nonsense. There isn't anything remotely correct in that post.

It's not illegal to offer discounts. It's how deals get closed.

You logic impaired argument seems to be that Intel's parts are currently noncompetitive (because they are priced too high) and it's illegal for Intel to offer discounts to address that. :rolleyes:
 
Snowdog said:
Stop making up nonsense. There isn't anything remotely correct in that post.

It's not illegal to offer discounts. It's how deals get closed.

You logic impaired argument seems to be that Intel's parts are currently noncompetitive (because they are priced too high) and it's illegal for Intel to offer discounts to address that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Actually you are the nonsensical one. You seem to be in denial and are rationalizing what exactly discount means. You also seem to act like this exact shit has never happened before.
 
thesmokingman said:
Actually you are the nonsensical one. You seem to be in denial and are rationalizing what exactly discount means. You also seem to act like this exact shit has never happened before.
Click to expand...

Wrong (again), I specifically address that in post #50.

I can discriminate between (A) completely normal business discounts, that happen on all volume business deals, and (B) the case in the past where Intel tied discounts to excluding AMD products which was illegal.

You seem to have lost the ability to discriminate, and attribute any discount by Intel as some kind of illegal act. This your extreme bias blazing away. Nothing more. You need to take a chill pill and look at things rationally.
 
Snowdog said:
Wrong (again), I specifically address that in post #50.

I can discriminate between (A) completely normal business discounts, that happen on all volume business deals, and (B) the case in the past where Intel tied discounts to excluding AMD products which was illegal.

You seem to have lost the ability to discriminate, and attribute any discount by Intel as some kind of illegal act. This your extreme bias blazing away. Nothing more. You need to take a chill pill and look at things rationally.
Click to expand...

No you are not. You completely ignore the leaked slide. The WHOLE EFFING purpose is to discount sales in the number of $3B to prevent AMD from MAKING $3B WORTH OF FUCKING SALES. Get a clue. That is by nature ILLEGAL.
 
thesmokingman said:
No you are not. You completely ignore the leaked slide. The WHOLE EFFING purpose is to discount sales in the number of $3B to prevent AMD from MAKING $3B WORTH OF FUCKING SALES. Get a clue. That is by nature ILLEGAL.
Click to expand...

I ignored the slide because it looks fake as hell. It literally looks like a joke. Intel financial advantage. Big stacks of dollar bills. :rolleyes:

But even if it is real. There is nothing illegal about discounts. Price wars happen all the time for market share.

Discounts are only illegal in two cases that I can think of:

Controlling buyers with exclusionary contracts (What Intel did in the past).

Predatory Pricing. For this to be a factor in the USA, the pricing must be below cost.

There is no sign of either.

Merely discounting out of your fat margins to respond to competition, is not illegal, it's the market working as intended.

Far from illegal, this is exactly the desired outcome.
 
Snowdog said:
I ignored the slide because it looks fake as hell. It literally looks like a joke. Intel financial advantage. Big stacks of dollar bills. :rolleyes:

But even if it is real. There is nothing illegal about discounts. Price wars happen all the time for market share.

Discounts are only illegal in two cases that I can think of:

Controlling buyers with exclusionary contracts (What Intel did in the past).

Predatory Pricing. For this to be a factor in the USA, the pricing must be below cost.

There is no sign of either.

Merely discounting out of your fat margins to respond to competition, is not illegal, it's the market working as intended.

Far from illegal, this is exactly the desired outcome.
Click to expand...


LMAO, so this whole time you are just making up your own godamn argument. smfh
 
thesmokingman said:
Wrong. These discounts are thinly veiled kick backs just like they were two decades ago. Haven't we learned about quid pro quo in the news lately? These discounts are not consumer facing, that's what makes it anti-competitive.
Click to expand...

you assume you are the consumer. You are not. The distributor, OEM, or reseller is.
 
thesmokingman said:
LMAO, so this whole time you are just making up your own godamn argument. smfh
Click to expand...

You do not understand the IT industry, nor how sales work. You do not buy directly from Intel or from AMD; you buy from a reseller or potentially a distributor (except rarely), and many buy from OEMs that install the parts into other systems. They are the consumer, you are the end customer. Except for unique bits here and there, you’re too small (as are we all) to have a direct sales relationship with the manufacturer.
 
Mega6 said:
Reviewing the AMD vs Intel case:

"AMD launched the lawsuit against its rival Intel, the world's leading microprocessor manufacturer. AMD has claimed that Intel engaged in unfair competition by offering rebates to Japanese PC manufacturers who agreed to eliminate or limit purchases of microprocessors made by AMD or a smaller manufacturer, Transmeta.["
Click to expand...

We all know that.

But just because Intel did something illegal in the past tied to discounts, doesn't mean that any time Intel offers discounts in the future, makes it automatically illegal.

Discounts are a completely normal part of volume, business to business transactions.

I used to work for a large telecom company. Every single deal was a negotiation where the buyer tried to maximize the discount, and we tried to minimize it, while still making the sale. Discounts are in EVERY single deal. It's how this kind of business works.
 
Snowdog said:
We all know that.
Click to expand...
Not so sure everyone does.

Snowdog said:
But just because Intel did something illegal in the past tied to discounts, doesn't mean that any time Intel offers discounts in the future, makes it automatically illegal.
Click to expand...
It was illegal because the discounts were tied to NOT buying competing products from AMD. We dont have any proof of that here.

Snowdog said:
Discounts are a completely normal part of volume, business to business transactions.

I used to work for a large telecom company. Every single deal was a negotiation where the buyer tried to maximize the discount, and we tried to minimize it. Discounts were in EVERY single deal. It's how it works.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, provided that's all they are - discounts - with no strings attached.
 
It is certainly possible that Intel is selling some chips at a loss given the new <discount> pricing. That also implies that there very well be a $3 Billion set aside to cover. That's not even taking into account direct discounts to server builders HP, Dell, ect. We all know Intel can't come close to pricing on the medium top end with AMDs chiplets and smaller dies.

Edit: qualifier: Just because it makes sense, doesn't make it true. Pointing out some logical reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Mega6 said:
We all know Intel can't come close to pricing on the top end with AMDs chiplets and smaller dies.
Click to expand...

Do we?

Intel has mature processes in their own fabs, AMD is hiring out to the most advanced large third-party fab?

Idle speculation isn't going to really lead to an answer one way or another.
 
thesmokingman said:
Everyone as in the handful of intel fanboys and shills? You tools ignore the leak slide and what it means to make up your own interpretation.

For the last time the slide has $3B on one side with -$3B of AMD on the other side. Only a SHILL would not see what that means.
Click to expand...

Geez, you can't even correctly read the (likely fake) slide you keep ranting about. You seem to be seeing things on the slide that aren't even there.

The slide says Intel will be offering ~3Billion in discounts in 2019. There is no -$3B on the AMD side. The slide mentions AMD only made $0.3 Billion in net earnings in 2018.

The implication is that AMD can't afford to discount as much as Intel can.

But do note this was 2018 earnings for AMD.

If this slide is real, it's Intel saying that 2019 would stop the market share slide with discounts AMD couldn't match.

But , 2019 is mostly OVER, and AMD has had record revenues and record market share gains.

So if that was the 2019 strategy, apparently the discounts weren't enough.

Intel discounting $3B doesn't even give them price parity with AMD. It's a paltry amount out of Intels fat margins.

Again, there is NOTHING remotely illegal or even unethical, in Intel trying to lower it's effective pricing with discounts, to get closer (but still not even match) AMD pricing.

Discounts/Price reductions are only illegal if used in exclusionary contracts, or if they represent predatory pricing. The former seems almost impossible, since nearly all vendors are selling AMD systems (AMD was shutout when Intel did this in the past), and the latter is obviously NOT happening either, as Intel maintains fat margins and pricing nowhere near AMDs.
 
Last edited:
thesmokingman said:
Error aside, the leak is internal. They don't need a freaking internal memo to issue discounts. And since this is internal putting aside its veracity, the intention of it is clear ESPECIALLY since they've been doing this for decades. And as proven, even when caught they still gained a decade and a half of dominance built up a coffer of tens of billions by fleecing the market at will. And you guys sit here defending this shit? You come across like WH staff, disgusting.
Click to expand...

You are the one with bias blinders so bad, that you can't even read one sentence on a slide correctly.

Offering discounts for sales is not illegal.

What Intel did in the past (exclusionary contract tied to discount) was illegal, and I further say it was slimy, evil and wretched. There was no excuse at all for this kind of behavior. They should have been penalized even more.

But you have absolutely no shred of evidence that they are doing it again. You are leaping to a conclusion with ZERO evidence.

You even have obvious counter evidence. When Intel used illegal exclusionary contracts, you could NOT buy an AMD system from major Vendors, they were all Intel exclusive. But today, everyone has more and more AMD systems available, basically completely disproving that there is any kind of exclusionary contract.

So in summary, you are so biased that you can't read one sentence off a slide, without imagining it says something else, you believe something is happening without any evidence, and lots of available counter evidence everyone can see.

On top that you think everyone who doesn't share your warped perspective is a shill...

You really need to step back and look at this with cool rationality.
 
Snowdog said:
You are the one with bias blinders so bad, that you can't even read one sentence on a slide correctly.

Offering discounts for sales is not illegal.

What Intel did in the past (exclusionary contract tied to discount) was illegal, and I further say it was slimy, evil and wretched. There was no excuse at all for this kind of behavior. They should have been penalized even more.

But you have absolutely no shred of evidence that they are doing it again. You are leaping to a conclusion with ZERO evidence.

You even have obvious counter evidence. When Intel used illegal exclusionary contracts, you could NOT buy an AMD system from major Vendors, they were all Intel exclusive. But today, everyone has more and more AMD systems available, basically completely disproving that there is any kind of exclusionary contract.

So in summary, you are so biased that you can't read one sentence off a slide, without imagining it says something else, you believe something is happening without any evidence, and lots of available counter evidence everyone can see.

On top that you think everyone who doesn't share your warped perspective is a shill...

You really need to step back and look at this with cool rationality.
Click to expand...

The slide error is not really an error as the point is the same. They will take a 3B hit to offer quid pro quo on the back end to prevent AMD sales, that's why there's a negative on the AMD side. Their -.3B is what they hope to hold AMD down to on profits. That in itself is not how legit business is done. You calling this a discount makes it so we cannot have a dscussion. It's like Trump repeating its a perfect call. And now yer trying to call me biased, seriously? If yall don't believe the slide, that's fair play but keep rationalizing this as a kosher discount... yea ok.
 
thesmokingman said:
The slide error is not really an error as the point is the same. They will take a 3B hit to offer quid pro quo on the back end to prevent AMD sales, that's why there's a negative on the AMD side. Their -.3B is what they hope to hold AMD down to on profits.
Click to expand...

You read it wrong, AGAIN. That not a negative sign. It's a tilde ~. It means approximately. It's not an Intel future projection. It's simply a statement of past results, you can see that from the 2018 date. The rest is just more nonsense you are making up that isn't there.


You calling this a discount makes it so we cannot have a dscussion. It's like Trump repeating its a perfect call. And now yer trying to call me biased, seriously? If yall don't believe the slide, that's fair play but keep rationalizing this as a kosher discount... yea ok.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: The slide you keep worshiping (and reading incorrectly), calls it a discount, so what else is there to call it??

Your theories have ZERO evidence, and reality essentially proves them wrong.

You are really out to lunch here. I don't know if is an absence or overabundance of chemical enhancement.

But you are right about one thing. There isn't much point arguing with someone who fabricates things counter to reality.
 
Discounts are fine by me as long as it's not tied to back scene deals that would;
A) Block AMD products
B) Make on purpose AMD products more expensive or "low quality"
C) Train / force employees to sale Intel only with false claim
D) Reward sales based on which OEM is sold

There's more to this and that's my opinion. Others are right though, as of today, there's no proof Intel did something wrong.
Hope they play fair and improve their products / offering.
 
MMitch said:
Discounts are fine by me as long as it's not tied to back scene deals that would;
A) Block AMD products
B) Make on purpose AMD products more expensive or "low quality"
C) Train / force employees to sale Intel only with false claim
D) Reward sales based on which OEM is sold

There's more to this and that's my opinion. Others are right though, as of today, there's no proof Intel did something wrong.
Hope they play fair and improve their products / offering.
Click to expand...

we'll never know if any of that is happening unless someone blows the whistle.

also to B something something something cpu's glued together...
 
MMitch said:
Discounts are fine by me as long as it's not tied to back scene deals that would;
A) Block AMD products
B) Make on purpose AMD products more expensive or "low quality"
C) Train / force employees to sale Intel only with false claim
D) Reward sales based on which OEM is sold

There's more to this and that's my opinion. Others are right though, as of today, there's no proof Intel did something wrong.
Hope they play fair and improve their products / offering.
Click to expand...

This 100%.

When Intel got hammered by the EU it was because of an offer for discount to not carry AMD. That is by nature a quid pro quo.
 
OFaceSIG said:
This 100%.

When Intel got hammered by the EU it was because of an offer for discount to not carry AMD. That is by nature a quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

Which is why they wouldn't be stupid enough to do it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top