Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th May 2009 08:46 UTC
Intel Microsoft isn't the only company in the technology industry with a monopoly. Its partner in crime, Intel, has often been accused of monopoly abuse as well, and is currently under scrutiny by the same European Commission who fined Microsoft. Sources have told eWeek (which generally has a good track record) that Intel will indeed be found guilty this week of abusing its monopoly position to stifle the competition.
Thread beginning with comment 362917
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by flanque
by phoenix on Mon 11th May 2009 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by flanque"
Member since:

Every AMD laptop so far out that I have seen ships with Broadcom wireless devices; I'd love to use an AMD based laptop but due to aligning with opensource hating companies like Broadcom, I am forced to go with Intel.

Adding a separate, known-good, working wireless card from a different manufacturer is hard because ... ?

You don't think that a surge in after-market, third-party wireless cards (like those with Atheros chipsets) would send a message to the OEMs, motherboard makers, and chipset makers?

Is it really that hard to disable devices you don't need/want in the BIOS?

I can understand picking a laptop, desktop, motherboard, etc based on the core chipset, but to reject the entire thing based on a single, replaceable option?

So please, tell me, why should I go with AMD when AMD are their own worst enemy?

Perhaps because they have some the nicest server chips out there? Because they have some of the nicest prices for chips? Because there's more than one usable chipset maker for this CPUs? Because you get more bang-for-the buck in everything segment except ultra-portable and uber-HPC-style servers?

Because there's more to a computer than just a wireless chipset?

Lets also remember the length of time that it took for them to finally open up the specifications to ATI graphics cards (even now the documentation isn't complete).

So, instantly, as soon as the paperwork was signed, they should have just dumped a tonne of documentation on the world and said, "Have at it?"? As opposed to taking the time to do due diligence, and make sure they have the right to release the documentation and what not?

How long did it take Intel to release documentation on their graphics chipsets?

Again, AMD is its own worst enemy

They certainly aren't their best friend, and they have made several mistakes over the years, but the reasons you give aren't the end-all and be-all of the issue.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by flanque
by daedliusswartz on Mon 11th May 2009 23:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by flanque"
daedliusswartz Member since:

I certainly like how they maintain the mainboard socket for a long time, unlike Intel who seems to "require" a new socket each time a new chip comes out.

Reply Parent Score: 1