[Tricks]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Not- ... 7103.shtml

I wonder who intel is going to have to prop up next.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks wrote:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Not-Competing-With-Intel-Anymore-Goes-Mobile-237103.shtml

I wonder who intel is going to have to prop up next.

Intel at this point is a natural monopoly and the courts and the Federal Trade Commission will leave them alone. And Europe really is in no position to muck around with Intel because who do they have to compete in the PC-server market? Nokia?

[Tricks]

I feel like they'll try to split it. Intel could always prop up ARM

[jeff744]

BartSimpson wrote:

Tricks wrote:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Not-Competing-With-Intel-Anymore-Goes-Mobile-237103.shtml

I wonder who intel is going to have to prop up next.

Intel at this point is a natural monopoly and the courts and the Federal Trade Commission will leave them alone. And Europe really is in no position to muck around with Intel because who do they have to compete in the PC-server market? Nokia?

Pretty much, it is only hurting business to make others able to compete with them, instead just leave Intel to build superior products for less.

[Proculation]

jeff744 wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Tricks wrote:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Not-Competing-With-Intel-Anymore-Goes-Mobile-237103.shtml

I wonder who intel is going to have to prop up next.

Intel at this point is a natural monopoly and the courts and the Federal Trade Commission will leave them alone. And Europe really is in no position to muck around with Intel because who do they have to compete in the PC-server market? Nokia?

Pretty much, it is only hurting business to make others able to compete with them, instead just leave Intel to build superior products for less.

I like the irony.
This has nothing to do with a natural monopoly, not even a simple monopoly, else there would not be an AMD CPU in my computer right now, which I paid a fair price compared to an Intel equivalent some weeks ago.

[Tricks]

jeff744 wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Tricks wrote:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Not-Competing-With-Intel-Anymore-Goes-Mobile-237103.shtml

I wonder who intel is going to have to prop up next.

Intel at this point is a natural monopoly and the courts and the Federal Trade Commission will leave them alone. And Europe really is in no position to muck around with Intel because who do they have to compete in the PC-server market? Nokia?

Pretty much, it is only hurting business to make others able to compete with them, instead just leave Intel to build superior products for less.

None of that made any sense.

1) They propped up AMD for years because letting them fail would have caused them to have a monopoly, and thus be split because of anti-trust laws. Part of why Microsoft bailed out apple.
2) With others competing, they are forced to make better products constantly within reasonable price. If they have no competition, then they can make their prices outrageous and people will have to pay it.

[jeff744]

Tricks wrote:

1) They propped up AMD for years because letting them fail would have caused them to have a monopoly, and thus be split because of anti-trust laws. Part of why Microsoft bailed out apple.
2) With others competing, they are forced to make better products constantly within reasonable price. If they have no competition, then they can make their prices outrageous and people will have to pay it.

By making an outrageous price you encourage competition and you will also lower your market size because people that don't need the latest processor won't buy it. computer processors are an elastic demand, raise the prices too high and eventually nobody buys them. Hell, I have an i7 that is already more than enough for the next several years of gaming at this rate.

[Tricks]

And manufacturers? Who will they buy from? Plus, gaming isn't exactly processor intensive. If someone is running stuff that actually requires the processor, Intel has them.

[jeff744]

Tricks wrote:

And manufacturers? Who will they buy from? Plus, gaming isn't exactly processor intensive. If someone is running stuff that actually requires the processor, Intel has them.

The vast majority of the population doesn't need the power of an i7. Itel can increase the price all they want but they will soon notice that they are getting less money from the increased prices than they are from when they had them lower and everyone wanted them.

If I have 3 cars and normally sell all 3 at $25,000 each I end up with $75,000. If I raise the price to $35,000 and sell two cars I am making $70,000. Where do you think the car retailer will set his price?

A monopoly can only freely change the price on inelastic markets and experience little to no change, on elastic ones they can only raise it so far before they start losing money.

[Tricks]

jeff744 wrote:

The vast majority of the population doesn't need the power of an i7. Itel can increase the price all they want but they will soon notice that they are getting less money from the increased prices than they are from when they had them lower and everyone wanted them.

i7 aren't even the issue, cause AMD didn't really have anything to compete with it anyways. i3s and i5s will go up in price.

Quote:

A monopoly can only freely change the price on inelastic markets and experience little to no change, on elastic ones they can only raise it so far before they start losing money.

That's looking only at people who build computers themselves. You're theory 1) underestimates people's need to have the latest and greatest. It also, fails to account for the people who don't have any fucking clue about computers and just buy what they get told to. Will they sell less? Maybe. But manufacturers still need to build systems. So even if consumer builders buy less, manufacturer requirements probably won't change. They need to ensure that stores are constantly stocked, and warehouses are good to go, and changing the price of the part isn't going to change that.

If you honestly think raising the prices on shit to astronomical levels dissuades people from purchasing it, look no further than Apple. They have to have a 100% margin on their products with the kind of prices they have, and iPads still get sold like hotcakes.

[jeff744]

Tricks wrote:

jeff744 wrote:

The vast majority of the population doesn't need the power of an i7. Itel can increase the price all they want but they will soon notice that they are getting less money from the increased prices than they are from when they had them lower and everyone wanted them.

i7 aren't even the issue, cause AMD didn't really have anything to compete with it anyways. i3s and i5s will go up in price.

Quote:

A monopoly can only freely change the price on inelastic markets and experience little to no change, on elastic ones they can only raise it so far before they start losing money.

That's looking only at people who build computers themselves. You're theory 1) underestimates people's need to have the latest and greatest. It also, fails to account for the people who don't have any fucking clue about computers and just buy what they get told to. Will they sell less? Maybe. But manufacturers still need to build systems. So even if consumer builders buy less, manufacturer requirements probably won't change. They need to ensure that stores are constantly stocked, and warehouses are good to go, and changing the price of the part isn't going to change that.

If you honestly think raising the prices on shit to astronomical levels dissuades people from purchasing it, look no further than Apple. They have to have a 100% margin on their products with the kind of prices they have, and iPads still get sold like hotcakes.

Most people want a computer because they are cheap, when there is suddenly a massive jump in the price of low level machines the demand will fall, I know of a ton of people that only bought new computers because of how cheap they are. I also know of many that only upgraded because they decided that the upgrade was actually worth it for the cost, the number of people using 6+ year old computers increases as their bottom price increases.

Apple products built a fad followed by the gullible, with Jobs gone they will start to slide away again.

[Tricks]

That won't last, because technology advances so quickly that within two-three years it's completely useless for current activities. Sure if you're surfing the web, you're probably fine. But any current games, video editing, anything that requires power they're gonna need new shit. Especially since the "cheap" computers right now are fucking awful.

[Scape]

“640K of memory should be enough for anybody.”

Right Jeff?

[sandorski]

Calling Shens on this conclusion. AMD's strength right now is with their Bobcat and Llano parts which are both suited best in the Mobile Laptop Market. Focusing there makes the most sense, but does not mean they're getting out of the Desktop Market.

4ish years back a similar rumour was going around.

[saturn_656]

AMD needs to gut its management team. It's quite unbelievable how they have screwed things up with their desktop CPU line. Bulldozer (the CPU and its launch) were so bloody amateur I still can't believe, months afterward, that an established company like AMD fucked up so badly.