Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 17 to 29 of 29

Thread: [You Tube] Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology

  1. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    1 time in 1 post

    Re: [You Tube] Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology

    Quote Originally Posted by Zak33 View Post
    I've edited the Youtube channel name out from the title of this (far too spammy and promo) - I won't edit the post as it's an open forum, though I see you're an Intel user yourself, so I'd not take this film with more than a pinch of salt
    Why would Intel users take this with a pinch of salt? Do you think they don't care?

    This video was top of Intel Reddit for over a day and one of the most highly upvoted posts on there in years. (you can still see it on page 1, just scroll down a little)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason.Lyons View Post
    Intel CPU, AMD GPU. I'd agree that a lot of people aren't aware of what they did, heck i only knew maybe 10% of the vid. Interesting this was released just as AMD are having product launches
    Yeah there's no chance that the recent hit-piece slides they just released on Epyc, or their current action against Qualcomm for being anti-competitive could have anything to do with the timing here? It surely must be something else

    What *is* telling is how many admins on this forum seem keen to wipe the whole thing under the carpet when nearly everybody else sees it for what it is - a systematic abuse of monopoly and severely anti-consumer. Good job on that, I never considered Hexus to be so biased until now.

  2. Received thanks from:

    Nelly. (28-07-2017)

  3. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,947
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked
    364 times in 254 posts

    Re: [You Tube] Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology

    That must be the most boring video I've ever had the misfortune to watch, it's just a guy reading out text from wiki articles, not exactly an infallible source of information, and bits of other publicly available information, it's probably useful to da yoof but for an old fart like myself it just goes over old ground, dragging out court cases is as old as the hills and particularly effective when it comes to the fast moving world of technology, Intel's far from the only company who uses such tactics.

  4. Received thanks from:

    Jonj1611 (28-07-2017)

  5. #19
    HEXUS.timelord. Zak33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I'm a Jessie
    Posts
    34,344
    Thanks
    2,628
    Thanked
    2,703 times in 1,700 posts
    • Zak33's system
      • Storage:
      • Kingston HyperX SSD, Hitachi 1Tb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Nvidia 1060
      • PSU:
      • Coolermaster 800w
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT01
      • Operating System:
      • Win10
      • Internet:
      • Zen FTC uber speedy

    Re: [You Tube] Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology

    Welcome Adored, are you THE Adored?

    Enjoy your visit.

    We aren't slanted at all... we just love Tech from everyone

    if you're NOT the Adored (from Scotland I think) then sorry for the confusion but welcome none the less
    Last edited by Zak33; 28-07-2017 at 03:51 PM. Reason: typo

    Quote Originally Posted by Advice Trinity by Knoxville
    "The second you aren't paying attention to the tool you're using, it will take your fingers from you. It does not know sympathy." |
    "If you don't gaffer it, it will gaffer you" | "Belt and braces"

  6. #20
    HEXUS.staff MLyons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    445
    Thanks
    267
    Thanked
    115 times in 76 posts
    • MLyons's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS PRIME X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 2700x
      • Memory:
      • 16GB DDR4 Corsair RGB
      • Storage:
      • 500GB MX500 500GB HDD 2TB SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA SC2 1080Ti
      • PSU:
      • Corsair tx650
      • Case:
      • Corsair Air 540
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 Asus 1080p

    Re: [You Tube] Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology

    Quote Originally Posted by Adored View Post
    Why would Intel users take this with a pinch of salt? Do you think they don't care?

    This video was top of Intel Reddit for over a day and one of the most highly upvoted posts on there in years. (you can still see it on page 1, just scroll down a little)



    Yeah there's no chance that the recent hit-piece slides they just released on Epyc, or their current action against Qualcomm for being anti-competitive could have anything to do with the timing here? It surely must be something else

    What *is* telling is how many admins on this forum seem keen to wipe the whole thing under the carpet when nearly everybody else sees it for what it is - a systematic abuse of monopoly and severely anti-consumer. Good job on that, I never considered Hexus to be so biased until now.
    Nothing going on here, I fully agree that Intel have done a bunch of sketchy stuff and we've done nothing to hide it on the forums. It's interesting that the first post a user makes is about attacking Intel though.

  7. #21
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    10,102
    Thanks
    501
    Thanked
    1,041 times in 885 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 30 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: [You Tube] Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology

    Quote Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH View Post
    The video is well researched - I don't agree with all his views,but its well researched and its even relevant now due to things like contra-revenue and the Ultrabook fund.
    It isn't bad, though I think it is actually rather kind to Intel. It doesn't mention the harm they did Intergraph, or the way they killed off the DEC Alpha cpu. The way they tried to ram the awful Itanium down our throats as their 64 bit solution was only given passing reference in that video but shows how strong Intel thought their position was, we can thank Microsoft for not letting them get away with that.

  8. Received thanks from:

    CAT-THE-FIFTH (28-07-2017)

  9. #22
    Bows out! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hopefully somewhere less backstabby
    Posts
    28,789
    Thanks
    3,203
    Thanked
    4,456 times in 3,442 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: [You Tube] Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    It isn't bad, though I think it is actually rather kind to Intel. It doesn't mention the harm they did Intergraph, or the way they killed off the DEC Alpha cpu. The way they tried to ram the awful Itanium down our throats as their 64 bit solution was only given passing reference in that video but shows how strong Intel thought their position was, we can thank Microsoft for not letting them get away with that.
    I had forgotten about what happened to the Alpha(I even saw one in operation when I was young and the first 1GHZ desktop system was Alpha based IIRC) and I didn't even know about Intergraph - all I can say I am history noob compared to you!


    Those despicable Elk,stealing the pond weed!

  10. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Sussex
    Posts
    1,075
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked
    132 times in 124 posts
    • kompukare's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77-V LX
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5-3570K
      • Memory:
      • 2 x 8GB Crucial Ballistix Elite PC3-14900
      • Storage:
      • Crucial MX200 | Sandisk Extreme 120GB SSD | WDC 1TB Green | Samsung 1Tb Spinpoint
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 290 VaporX 7950
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650 Gold TruePower (Seasonic) or Seasonic SII-330
      • Case:
      • Aerocool DS 200 (silenced, 53.6 litres)l)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10-64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x Dell P2414H

    Re: [You Tube] Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology

    Quote Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix View Post
    It isn't bad, though I think it is actually rather kind to Intel. It doesn't mention the harm they did Intergraph, or the way they killed off the DEC Alpha cpu. The way they tried to ram the awful Itanium down our throats as their 64 bit solution was only given passing reference in that video but shows how strong Intel thought their position was, we can thank Microsoft for not letting them get away with that.
    Well, the Itanium part in the video is treated a bit simply as ATM it wasn't AMD they were worried about in servers but rather POWER, HP-PA, SPARC and all the other RISC server vendors.

    But of course from a desktop user perspective what Intel really tried to ram down everyone's throat at great cost was RAMBUS. Unless the P4 was really an even worse architecture than I remember there never was a good technical reason for RAMBUS so far more likely someone at Intel or their board owning RAMBUS shares is the only logical explantation.

    Quote Originally Posted by peterb View Post
    than any other industry. The object (and duty) is to add shareholder value.
    AdoredTV does address that the biggest problem in all of this as being a lack of governmental, regulatory and legal action. Corporations may have to maximise shareholder money, but that absolutely depends on government and regulators strongly enforcing monopoly and anti-trust legislation because otherwise those (very powerful) corporations will do anything they can get away with.

  11. Received thanks from:

    CAT-THE-FIFTH (28-07-2017)

  12. #24
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,867
    Thanks
    1,502
    Thanked
    935 times in 805 posts

    Re: [You Tube] Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology

    The sad thing is, the penalties they've faced for their disregard of laws is probably less than what they voluntarily pay in 'exclusivity fees' or 'contra-revenue' (or pour down the drain in bizarre acquisitions) - why should they care about fines when the reward far outshines any financial risk? The fines they've had don't come remotely close to equalling the damage they've caused to countless other companies. Even when they're ordered to take action, they drag their heels so much that the damage is already done.

  13. Received thanks from:

    CAT-THE-FIFTH (28-07-2017),Corky34 (28-07-2017),Nelly. (29-07-2017)

  14. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    West Sussex
    Posts
    1,075
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked
    132 times in 124 posts
    • kompukare's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77-V LX
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5-3570K
      • Memory:
      • 2 x 8GB Crucial Ballistix Elite PC3-14900
      • Storage:
      • Crucial MX200 | Sandisk Extreme 120GB SSD | WDC 1TB Green | Samsung 1Tb Spinpoint
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 290 VaporX 7950
      • PSU:
      • Antec 650 Gold TruePower (Seasonic) or Seasonic SII-330
      • Case:
      • Aerocool DS 200 (silenced, 53.6 litres)l)
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10-64
      • Monitor(s):
      • 2 x Dell P2414H

    Re: [You Tube] Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology

    Quote Originally Posted by watercooled View Post
    The sad thing is, the penalties they've faced for their disregard of laws is probably less than what they voluntarily pay in 'exclusivity fees' or 'contra-revenue' (or pour down the drain in bizarre acquisitions) - why should they care about fines when the reward far outshines any financial risk? The fines they've had don't come remotely close to equalling the damage they've caused to countless other companies. Even when they're ordered to take action, they drag their heels so much that the damage is already done.
    This is very much true, and that whole 'contra-revenue' stuff was strange starting with the name. Dumping is dumping, although apparently (and bizarrely) dumping is not illegal in the US unless consumers are directly affected (presumably at the time - fat chance of that since the whole point of dumping is to destroy the competition and only then raise prices).

  15. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    396
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked
    78 times in 67 posts
    • Firejack's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus PRIME X470-Pro
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
      • Memory:
      • TG Dark Pro "8pack Edition"
      • Storage:
      • Crucial 250GB SSD, Sandisk 128GB SSD, Samsung 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire RX VEGA 56 8GB Pulse
      • PSU:
      • SeaSonic Focus Plus 650 Gold
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define S
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2719DGF
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 2

    Re: [You Tube] Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology

    Quote Originally Posted by Corky34 View Post
    That must be the most boring video I've ever had the misfortune to watch, it's just a guy reading out text from wiki articles, not exactly an infallible source of information, and bits of other publicly available information, it's probably useful to da yoof but for an old fart like myself it just goes over old ground, dragging out court cases is as old as the hills and particularly effective when it comes to the fast moving world of technology, Intel's far from the only company who uses such tactics.
    Intel is beaten right now. There is no reason to buy the vast majority of their products for all but a small percentage of users who have very specific needs.

    Intel can either;
    • Come out fighting and start delivering for its customers. (Decent solder under the IHS and a CPU cooler in the box of expensive K-series CPUs would be a good start!)
    • Or Intel can return to its old-tricks.... bribes, lies and shady deals.

    The latter being why personally I believe this YouTube video to be the perfectly timed warning we all need. We either sit back and let history repeat itself. Or we all follow Intel's moves over the next few months like a Hawk. The first sign of anything anti-consumer we have to send a clear message its unacceptable and stop buying their products.

  16. #27
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    10,867
    Thanks
    1,502
    Thanked
    935 times in 805 posts

    Re: [You Tube] Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology

    @kompukare - At least it seems to have backfired on that occasion - the random tablet companies took all the free gubbins offered to them, then just moved right back to ARM when the supply dried up, and Intel more or less abandoned the entire market. Suspiciously, AMD's small cores never got a look in though, despite seeming like very capable products. I kept an eye out but never saw anything significant - it was either one of the dumped Atoms, or ARM. http://www.anandtech.com/show/7974/a...ance-preview/3

  17. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,947
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked
    364 times in 254 posts

    Re: [You Tube] Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology

    Quote Originally Posted by Firejack View Post
    Intel can either;
    • Come out fighting and start delivering for its customers. (Decent solder under the IHS and a CPU cooler in the box of expensive K-series CPUs would be a good start!)
    • Or Intel can return to its old-tricks.... bribes, lies and shady deals.

    The latter being why personally I believe this YouTube video to be the perfectly timed warning we all need. We either sit back and let history repeat itself. Or we all follow Intel's moves over the next few months like a Hawk. The first sign of anything anti-consumer we have to send a clear message its unacceptable and stop buying their products.
    I'd place my money on option two as silicon valley is littered with the dead corpses of companies that have fallen not because their product wasn't good but because of shady going on's, yes the video maybe well timed however history has taught me that majority rules and sadly us tech enthusiasts are nothing but a gnats gaseous expulsions in the wind.

  18. #29
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    10,102
    Thanks
    501
    Thanked
    1,041 times in 885 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 3700X
      • Memory:
      • 16GB 3200MHz
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Linux, 1TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 30 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Samsung 2343BW 2048x1152
      • Internet:
      • Zen 80Mb/20Mb VDSL

    Re: [You Tube] Intel - Anti-Competitive, Anti-Consumer, Anti-Technology

    Quote Originally Posted by kompukare View Post
    Well, the Itanium part in the video is treated a bit simply as ATM it wasn't AMD they were worried about in servers but rather POWER, HP-PA, SPARC and all the other RISC server vendors.
    It is a bit dirtier than that.

    It sounds like Intel had worked out how to do something like AMD64 years before, and it was quite obvious that the desktop was going to go 64 bit before long. But Intel shelved their original 64 bit x86 design and stated that for 64 bit they would only do Itanium which would do x86 code through emulation. As time went on die shrinks of the Itanium and sales volume of servers would make it cheap enough for the desktop in time for the 64 bit transition. The Itanium design isn't based on x86, so anyone with an x86 license is locked out at 32 bit and the only cost to us users would be using slow expensive CPU parts only available from a single vendor who could charge what they want. What's not to like

    If it wasn't for that meddling Microsoft backing AMD64, they might have gotten away with it.

    The Itanium project did seem to come with a non compete contract with HP who were involved in the design, so that killed off PA-RISC and by unlucky chance when HP bought out Compaq it meant as part of that deal the Alpha team got handed to Intel where it was axed, so from Intel's perspective a few billion to knock out two RISC chips they could never beat on technical terms was probably a bargain.

    I have used an Itanium server. When the hard disks died in it, no-one could be bothered to fix it which shows how nice it was to use even in the P4 days.

    The Rambus thing was another scary tale. Intel signed a contract with Rambus to use their interface technology for some number of years. You didn't have to buy a P3 box with Rambus though, as VIA stepped up and offered chipsets with a DDR interface which saved Intel's bacon in system prices vs the Athlon. By the time Intel's agreement with Rambus expired and they could use cheaper DDR ram like everyone else, VIA was a big name in Intel chipsets. Clearly this wasn't acceptable, Intel declared VIA's chipset licence illegal for the P4 and went after not just VIA but threatened motherboard companies that used VIA chips. If no-one dare put the chips on a motherboard, it is no surprise the business died off pretty fast.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •