| |
Vicki, Intel is showing AMD, NSM and any would-be competitor that the microprocessor industry might be best-called now a "natural monopoly" because of the huge amounts of BOTH physical (e.g. cost of fabs) AND intellectual (e.g. design teams) capital required to compete. Intel is a master of both. AMD, CYRIX, RISC have tried and failed so far to make any sustainable profit. There is nothing wrong with Intel's agressive pricing tactics leaving their competitors with losses. Intel has the cost structure to do this AND be very profitable , while its competitors do not. Too Bad. DOJ has no reason to punish Intel for that.
Microsoft, however, doesn't have this huge barrier to entry. Any good programmer(s) can write a decent operating system. Plus, there is very little physical assets. Microsoft's monopoly is based on switching costs for Application Developers to support a competing platform (e.g. Java, Netscape, etc.). If Microsoft uses illegal business practices to re-enforce this, then they should be investigated.
IMO, the best thing to happen to Intel, is having Merced being an "open platform", supporting Microsoft and UNIX programs.
joey |
|
