Re:Perhaps it is simpler to say that Intel was disrupted
by rasz on Tuesday July 03, 2018 @11:29AM
(#17450970)
Intel hasn't paid a cent of those fines, in fact they lately successfully appealed for the first time.
https://www.ft.com/content/f460ef98-930f-11e7-bdfa-eda243196...
Re:Perhaps it is simpler to say that Intel was disrupted
by aoeusnth1 on Tuesday July 03, 2018 @02:39PM
(#17452672)
Interesting, thanks for pointing that out. However, your link is paywalled. Do you have another source?
Re:Perhaps it is simpler to say that Intel was disrupted
by rasz on Wednesday July 04, 2018 @09:08AM
(#17457044)
damn FT, it wasnt paywalled when I went there from google :/
https://www.google.com/search?q=Intel%20wins%20review%20of%2...
Intel illegally abused their monopoly to prevent AMD from getting as much traction as they should have gotten. They've been convicted and payed billions in fines over that behavior.
Intel should have suffered much more at the hands of the Opteron and Athlon 64 chips; if they hadn't been abusing their market position things would have worked out better for AMD and their stumble with Bulldozer wouldn't have hurt as much as it did.
For the curious, Intel would sell CPUs at retail to OEMs, then provide a rebate/kickback to discount those CPUs. Shipping AMD processors would reduce those rebates. Shipping too many AMD processors would eliminate the rebates outright. This made selling AMD-based systems non-tenable for many OEMs.