Tim,
Paying an "industry analyst" a fee to knock a competitor's product is just the latest example. Misleading FUD papers and "seminars" just compound the matter. I don't understand why Intel feels the need to hit below the belt, even when they are winning, and there is no need to do so. The only explanation I can think of is that the executives, the culture at top of Intel management is to be sleazballs.
* Intel and Rambus. This was a decision which turned out to be a bad one, it looks. So? This was not "sleazeball." In fact, AMD benefitted from this misstep by Intel.
You are missing the point of Rambus. The point was to corner the industry.
* Low prices cutting AMD's ability to make a profit? AMD started the price war, let's not forget ("we will be priced 25% below Intel"--which they pretty much _had_ to be to get any business a few years ago)
low prices in general are fine, but a low prices by a monopoly to to target a small competitor are highly questionable. For example, there were cases of monopoly airline (one owning a hub at a large airport) charging for example $200 to fly to a smaller city from the hub. A startup airline started flying the same route, charging say $150, and the monopoly airline undercut them to say $120, while not changing prices on any other routes (not facing copetition). Something like that is illegal.
I see an Intel that is rolling out new products, expanding 300 mm production more rapidly than many of us expected, shrinking geometries, and basically expanding its lead.
As for "sleazeball" and "unfair," companies have no responsibility to make things nice for other companies. Schumpeter called it the "creative destructionism of capitalism." Niceness is not valid, and anyone who claims here it does is naive, a simp-wimp wuss-ninny.
I have no problem with Intel winning on merit. But your statement of "Niceness is not valid" just confirms how ethically bankrupt the business world can get.
Joe |
