Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th May 2009 08:46 UTC
Permalink for comment 362850
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-07
The problem here is with the artificial restrictions by Intel (aka ChipZilla) to corner AMD into limited market growth by strong arming the OEMs.
Is it morally acceptable for a dominant competitor to corner an underdog by strong arming their clients? How could we expect an underdog to continue to compete when they can't rake in the needed revenue for R&D and manufacturing?
It's like fighting with your arm tied behind your back. You might get lucky but its still isn't a fair fight. AMD has proven that despite the odds, they could deliver outstanding products, the playing field has to be fair if consumers expect them to do more of that.
ChipZilla guilty of anti-trust outside of the US? Who would have thunk it? *wink*wink*
FYI, I concur with your comment, just adding some thoughts that others may miss.
-Ad
Edited 2009-05-11 16:08 UTC