Topic: Bad move for intel?

[Nemesis]

Link to first article

Chip giant Intel is betting that at least some people would. Last week, Intel cut a deal with voice over Internet Protocol provider Skype that calls for the VoIP company to provide advanced conference-calling features exclusively on PCs that run Intel chips. As long as the deal is in place, it could effectively keep customers who want to take advantage of multiperson conference calls from going with AMD-based machines.

Not surprisingly, AMD is already crying foul. AMD officials claim this is just another example of Intel using its sheer size to decide where AMD is allowed to compete, reinforcing the notion that Intel doesn't play fair. AMD charged in a 2005 antitrust compliant that Intel uses its marketing programs in a selective manner to punish companies who have used AMD's chips, or to reward companies like Dell who have cut exclusive deals with Intel--claims Intel has strongly denied.

But there are no specific instructions in Intel's current Pentium D or Core Duo chips that enhance the performance of VoIP applications, an Intel representative said. Skype is using an operation called "Get CPU ID" to identify the type of processor running on the PC. The Skype software has been preset to only accept Intel's chips as having the performance necessary to host conference calls of more than five people, the representative said.

Link to second article

Intel approached Skype with its plan to optimize code on its chips for Skype's software so users would have a good experience while hosting a multiperson conference call, Crooke said. In recent years, Intel has increasingly touted its software development resources as a competitive advantage over AMD, which also trails Intel in the marketing budget category

By choosing to work exclusively with Intel, Skype is excluding technology that is arguably more powerful than Intel's. A series of benchmark tests conducted last year  by Tom's Hardware gave an overall performance edge to AMD's dual-core chips but rated Intel's dual-core chips better in some multitasking situations.

Considering that Intel is currently in court over anti-trust actions I think that this is a highly inadvisable move not to mention anti-competitive which I am always against.

[Tus-XC]

I would actually consider it a bad move for skype, not for intel, mainly because skype will have to deal w/ any loses that result from the ensueing uproar

[Bonk]

I just don't get the whole concept of "anti-trust". It strikes me as punishment for good business everytime I see it. It strkes me as money grubbing, power hungry lawyers and judges with no real idea of how technology works. It strikes me as "Mommy! He's not playing fair! Waaahhhh!".    Its just plain silly if you ask me. Not that I disapprove of Apple getting flak over iTunes however... .  I think that the US government set a dangerous precedent with its "anti-trust" suit against Microsoft. Now, as soon as any competitor comes up with superior marketing tactics businesses feel they are entitled to clog up the courts with this crap. I just don't buy it. I think it is a meme, people just like to say "anti-trust", it must feel good or sound cool to them, or activate some kind of neurochemical addiction to a victimisation complex.

It's like - "Its a free market economy... when it suits us."

Or - "Oh my, that's too clever, we hadn't anticipated that in existing taxation schemes, we'll have to invoke the anti-trust tax."

Or perhaps most accurately - "Oh, as your biggest single customer you did not give us the volume liscening deal we wanted? Well then, we'll just recoup our costs with this anti-trust rebate"

[E_Look]

No, Bonk, don't confuse lawless, laissez faire free market economics with a lawfully, morally regulated one in which predatory, fraudulent, and economically unhealthy practices are illegal... at least in theory.

[Mr_Tricorder]

The whole idea of anti-trust laws is to keep a healthy free market healthy and free.  Once a company, like Microsoft, gains so much market share that no one else (like the UNIX family, which includes Linux and Mac) has a chance at gaining market share even if they have a superior product because MS cut off their ability to be useful ("everyone uses Windows, so we only make software for Windows" or "everyone else uses Windows so we'll use it too so we know it's compatible"), then it can dictate the pace, quality, and price of technology in order to fit its needs, not the consumers.  This procudes an unhealthy and unfree market.  It is unhealthy because the "demand" role of the consumer is diminished in importance and the "supply" role of the producer is the only real driving force of any significance.  It is unfree because any healthy and well-developed competion has been either absorbed or destroyed and any new upstart competition would easily be stifled and would only be able to generate a minute amount of demand before going under.

This is what is really scaring me about the pattern of behavior of most large technology companies of today.  They tend to outdo their competition by either buying them out or shutting them out with patents, court rulings, and deals with other companies (like what Intel is doing here), not by producing superior products.  This seriously hurts the quality and pace of technology.  After looking at some of the open source alternatives, they are leaps and bounds ahead and are almost always better quality.  In a healthy free market, open source should be ahead, not companies like Microsoft who is continually pushing back the release date of their next version of Windows while cutting features from it and deciding what to leave in based on what legal battles it can win easily (which is why I believe they cut out anti-virus but left in anti-spyware), or Symantec whose products have steadily gotten more bloated, more control-hungry, and less reliable with each new release yet is still on top of the PC security market.

[Bonk]

... predatory, fraudulent, and economically unhealthy practices ...

An excellent definition of capitalism. I'll stop there, I've already said too much.

[Mr_Tricorder]

... predatory, fraudulent, and economically unhealthy practices ...

An excellent definition of capitalism. I'll stop there, I've already said too much.

not when there is no way to legally compete
Competition is what allows capitalism to work.  Once the "winners" eliminate competion, capitalism fails.
Don't get me wrong.  I'm very pro-capitalism, but it can't run unchecked or else it will destroy itself.

[Dracho]

Capitalism can be a fox in a henhouse.  If he ever lets his appetite move from eggs to chickens, he'll eventually starve (after a huge glut of a feast).  So long as he can make himself subsist on eggs, he'll be fine, but a little bland and a little hungry.

[E_Look]

Hey, Dracho, Bonk, look here: if a fighter ignites his afterburners, boy can he zip through the sky... and FAST!  FUN!  FURIOUS!  But his ride will be shortlived by far, compared to cruising at a regular fuel burn rate.

Bonk, the whole point of having a good government is to regulate a nation.  Capitalism DOESN'T HAVE TO BE predatory, fraudulent, nor unhealthy; why do you focus on the few spectacular criminals who have tried to milk the system like the way we conservatives focus on the spirit-dampening, drive-killing, initiative-prohibiting, in short, smothering, fraudulent, unhealthy aspects of socialism?

If you must, "elements of socialistic practice" (I'd just rather call it for what it is, legal regulation of a free market so that the evil bastards don't take advantage of the freedom) must be implemented to temper the things you fear in capitalism.

(Of course, it's the evil bastards that take advantage of the inherent authoritarianism of socialism so as to freeze the common man out of its benefits; six of one, half dozen of the other.)

[Nemesis]

It's like - "Its a free market economy... when it suits us."

When one company controls the market there is no market freedom.

This is the reason patents and copyrights are supposed to be temporary.

[E_Look]

Very good point!

It's like - "Its a free market economy... when it suits us."

When one company controls the market there is no market freedom.

This is the reason patents and copyrights are supposed to be temporary.

[Just plain old Punisher]

If Linux was as easy to use as windows, I might agree.

Linux and Unix aren't for the average user.

[Mr_Tricorder]

If Linux was as easy to use as windows, I might agree.

Linux and Unix aren't for the average user.

What exactly do you mean by "easy to use"?  If you mean that Linux doesn't assume that you're a moron and that it's creators know everything that you should and shouldn't do with your computer, than you're correct.  If you mean that Linux isn't as easy for a Windows user to use because it doesn't work exactly like Windows and you have to learn the differences, then you're correct.  If you mean that it is more difficult to accomplish normal computing tasks on Linux if you have about the same level of know-how on Linux as you do on Windows regardless if you're a guru or just an average user, than you are sadly mistaken.  Just try out a Live CD Linux distro with KDE, like Slax, Knoppix, Mepis, or kubuntu and you'll see just how easy it is to use Linux.  Without any Linux background and with only a simple working knowledge of common Windows programs, I can guarantee that you'll be able to use office programs (Open Office), browse the internet (Mozilla, Firefox, and Konqueror), use an email client (kmail and Thunderbird), chat (gaim and kopete), burn CDs and DVDs (K3b), watch videos (mplayer, xine, kaffeine), listen to music (amarok, JuK), create 2D artwork (GIMP), create 3D artwork (blender), and many other things that you can do with Windows without any real difficulty or serious learning curve.  And for those who aren't afraid of using a command line, you'll find that once you get comfortable with it, it's much faster and easier to use sometimes than looking around for the right icon or the right menu or panel in the GUI.  You can't say the same about Windows.  Also, if something doesn't work right, it's a lot easier to fix it in Linux than in Windows.  For instance, I was having trouble with Blender recently after I installed it.  Whenever I clicked on the icon, it tried to open but never did.  I opened up the CLI and typed "blender" and it told me exactly what was wrong.  I needed to download a dependency.  I downloaded the package for the dependency and installed it and everything worked fine.  If I had the same problem in Windows, who knows if I would've ever figured out how to fix it.

[Nemesis]

After looking at some of the open source alternatives, they are leaps and bounds ahead and are almost always better quality.  In a healthy free market, open source should be ahead,

I'd have to say that Open Source should dominate any mature software category sometime after the category matures.  Word Processors for example are a mature category.  Once the software is mature further additions merely create bloat. 

Proprietary software may run forward rapidly driven by cash where Open Source strolls forward.  This gives an early advantage to the proprietary.  Once the pinnacle is achieved though all the proprietary does is incremental changes designed more to force upgrades (consider Office bundles - what really drives upgrades?) than to enhance the functionality of the product.  Once that pinnacle is achieved the Open Source alternative will slowly but surely close the gap.  Once the gap is closed why pay large amounts for no extra useful function when equal quality is free?

[Javora]

After looking at some of the open source alternatives, they are leaps and bounds ahead and are almost always better quality.  In a healthy free market, open source should be ahead,

I'd have to say that Open Source should dominate any mature software category sometime after the category matures.  Word Processors for example are a mature category.  Once the software is mature further additions merely create bloat. 

Proprietary software may run forward rapidly driven by cash where Open Source strolls forward.  This gives an early advantage to the proprietary.  Once the pinnacle is achieved though all the proprietary does is incremental changes designed more to force upgrades (consider Office bundles - what really drives upgrades?) than to enhance the functionality of the product.  Once that pinnacle is achieved the Open Source alternative will slowly but surely close the gap.  Once the gap is closed why pay large amounts for no extra useful function when equal quality is free?

I think you hit the nail on the head, Browser and Office software being prime examples.  I've been using Firefox for a while now and I see no reason to upgrade from Office 2000.  They both do exactly what I need them to do.  Well with two notable exceptions concerning IE.  I still have to use IE to load pictures or stuff to my on-line web space and for WinXP updates, once Firefox includes those features I will be done with IE.  Although I'm not holding my breath on the WinXP updates via Firefox.

[E_Look]

I'm still using Office 97... on a Athlon 64 running Win XP!

Hear the birdies?

<cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep>

[Just plain old Punisher]

If Linux was as easy to use as windows, I might agree.

Linux and Unix aren't for the average user.

What exactly do you mean by "easy to use"?  If you mean that Linux doesn't assume that you're a moron and that it's creators know everything that you should and shouldn't do with your computer, than you're correct.  If you mean that Linux isn't as easy for a Windows user to use because it doesn't work exactly like Windows and you have to learn the differences, then you're correct.  If you mean that it is more difficult to accomplish normal computing tasks on Linux if you have about the same level of know-how on Linux as you do on Windows regardless if you're a guru or just an average user, than you are sadly mistaken.  Just try out a Live CD Linux distro with KDE, like Slax, Knoppix, Mepis, or kubuntu and you'll see just how easy it is to use Linux.  Without any Linux background and with only a simple working knowledge of common Windows programs, I can guarantee that you'll be able to use office programs (Open Office), browse the internet (Mozilla, Firefox, and Konqueror), use an email client (kmail and Thunderbird), chat (gaim and kopete), burn CDs and DVDs (K3b), watch videos (mplayer, xine, kaffeine), listen to music (amarok, JuK), create 2D artwork (GIMP), create 3D artwork (blender), and many other things that you can do with Windows without any real difficulty or serious learning curve.  And for those who aren't afraid of using a command line, you'll find that once you get comfortable with it, it's much faster and easier to use sometimes than looking around for the right icon or the right menu or panel in the GUI.  You can't say the same about Windows.  Also, if something doesn't work right, it's a lot easier to fix it in Linux than in Windows.  For instance, I was having trouble with Blender recently after I installed it.  Whenever I clicked on the icon, it tried to open but never did.  I opened up the CLI and typed "blender" and it told me exactly what was wrong.  I needed to download a dependency.  I downloaded the package for the dependency and installed it and everything worked fine.  If I had the same problem in Windows, who knows if I would've ever figured out how to fix it.

Aparently linux doesn't give you the ability to seperate your thoughts into paragraphs =)

[Nemesis]

What exactly do you mean by "easy to use"? 

If you mean that Linux doesn't assume that you're a moron and that it's creators know everything that you should and shouldn't do with your computer, than you're correct.  If you mean that Linux isn't as easy for a Windows user to use because it doesn't work exactly like Windows and you have to learn the differences, then you're correct.  If you mean that it is more difficult to accomplish normal computing tasks on Linux if you have about the same level of know-how on Linux as you do on Windows regardless if you're a guru or just an average user, than you are sadly mistaken. 

Just try out a Live CD Linux distro with KDE, like Slax, Knoppix, Mepis, or kubuntu and you'll see just how easy it is to use Linux.  Without any Linux background and with only a simple working knowledge of common Windows programs, I can guarantee that you'll be able to use office programs (Open Office), browse the internet (Mozilla, Firefox, and Konqueror), use an email client (kmail and Thunderbird), chat (gaim and kopete), burn CDs and DVDs (K3b), watch videos (mplayer, xine, kaffeine), listen to music (amarok, JuK), create 2D artwork (GIMP), create 3D artwork (blender), and many other things that you can do with Windows without any real difficulty or serious learning curve. 

And for those who aren't afraid of using a command line, you'll find that once you get comfortable with it, it's much faster and easier to use sometimes than looking around for the right icon or the right menu or panel in the GUI.  You can't say the same about Windows. 

Also, if something doesn't work right, it's a lot easier to fix it in Linux than in Windows.  For instance, I was having trouble with Blender recently after I installed it.  Whenever I clicked on the icon, it tried to open but never did.  I opened up the CLI and typed "blender" and it told me exactly what was wrong.  I needed to download a dependency.  I downloaded the package for the dependency and installed it and everything worked fine.  If I had the same problem in Windows, who knows if I would've ever figured out how to fix it.

Just to make things a little easier for Punisher.

Just out of curiousity Punisher what things do you find too difficult under Linux vs Windows?  Or perhaps just less easy?

[FPF-DieHard]

I've never found Windows to be unstable, but I haven't bought a PC since 1997 

[Mr_Tricorder]

If Linux was as easy to use as windows, I might agree.

Linux and Unix aren't for the average user.

What exactly do you mean by "easy to use"?  If you mean that Linux doesn't assume that you're a moron and that it's creators know everything that you should and shouldn't do with your computer, than you're correct.  If you mean that Linux isn't as easy for a Windows user to use because it doesn't work exactly like Windows and you have to learn the differences, then you're correct.  If you mean that it is more difficult to accomplish normal computing tasks on Linux if you have about the same level of know-how on Linux as you do on Windows regardless if you're a guru or just an average user, than you are sadly mistaken.  Just try out a Live CD Linux distro with KDE, like Slax, Knoppix, Mepis, or kubuntu and you'll see just how easy it is to use Linux.  Without any Linux background and with only a simple working knowledge of common Windows programs, I can guarantee that you'll be able to use office programs (Open Office), browse the internet (Mozilla, Firefox, and Konqueror), use an email client (kmail and Thunderbird), chat (gaim and kopete), burn CDs and DVDs (K3b), watch videos (mplayer, xine, kaffeine), listen to music (amarok, JuK), create 2D artwork (GIMP), create 3D artwork (blender), and many other things that you can do with Windows without any real difficulty or serious learning curve.  And for those who aren't afraid of using a command line, you'll find that once you get comfortable with it, it's much faster and easier to use sometimes than looking around for the right icon or the right menu or panel in the GUI.  You can't say the same about Windows.  Also, if something doesn't work right, it's a lot easier to fix it in Linux than in Windows.  For instance, I was having trouble with Blender recently after I installed it.  Whenever I clicked on the icon, it tried to open but never did.  I opened up the CLI and typed "blender" and it told me exactly what was wrong.  I needed to download a dependency.  I downloaded the package for the dependency and installed it and everything worked fine.  If I had the same problem in Windows, who knows if I would've ever figured out how to fix it.

Aparently linux doesn't give you the ability to seperate your thoughts into paragraphs =)

sorry.  That was a three-o'clock-in-the-morning rant