Intel reserved $ 3 billion in 2019 to competitively block AMD

Nvidia is not stealing "freesync" they are using the VESA adaptive synce open standard (which is what Freesync uses).

Oh wait, "GrEEn VidEo CaRDs aRe EVil DURRRRRRRRRR!"

Did I do it right?

BTW AdoredTV is an AMD shill/fanboi please take every video he makes with a huse grain of salt. He states half truths and opinion as fact.

 

Question is: Would that behavior surprise you when thinking about intel?

 

If all Intel is doing is lowering their prices then yes, I totally agree and I don't see what's illegal about this. If the money comes down to bribing OEMs again, that is anticomptitive, and would still technically cause prices to be lowered (assuming the OEMs don't just take all that money and hoard it to themselves).

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Nvidia release G-Sync before Free/Adaptive sync were made? If anything, Freesync was the copy.

 

Cashbacks happen between corporations all the time. I have a business (nothing to do with computers) and virtually every brand offers it time to time to make the products more attractive.

Some make direct discounts, others make cashbacks, others if you buy x units they offer y units, etc ... this practice is not exclusive to the end user selling.

As I said before, it is one thing to offer money not to use a particular brand, another is discounts/cashbacks on your own products. This is what some people are confusing.

 

That depends entirely on how said "incentives" are constructed. Previously that hinged upon said OEMs not buying from the competition. Again, I'm not saying that's the case here - especially as this could be all bs to begin with - but that's why we're all speculating about it.

Personally I don't have a very supportive stance about under-the-table incentives regardless (and by that I mean those that are largely invisible to end users, I'm sure the actual deals are in writing) but that's just my own feelings on the matter.

That's an excellent point!

Actually dropping the price would create a long-term shift in perceived value while something like this allows Intel more control. I hadn't considered the situation in that light, appreciated.

Let me quote your quote, but with slightly different highlights.

We don't know what form these ~$3B takes. It might be allocated towards actually lowered prices (Cascade Lake X, the $25 price cut on F-series chips etc.), it might be something more sinister or it might be entirely made up. I've been abundantly clear that's the case, and my speculation is regarding the worst-case scenario.

 

But is your business about re-selling those goods to other consumers or are u using them yourself? Offering upfront discounts is good, offering some extra products upfront is good too, paying cash "back" after u meet some condition is shady as hell and when a big corpo with a criminal record does it..... u can't really hope for the best.
The smell with this cashback programs is u can't really prove that, under the table, the real condition to get them is not selling competing brands.

Ofc we don't yet know the truth behind it but I rather overreact now than let history repeat itself....

 

Nvidia "made" Gsync first but AMD responded by supporting the open standard Adaptive sync VESA had available for a while.

 

If the OEM exclusive rumor is true, that still doesn't mean anything. It's no different than the epic store paying for exclusivity. Companies make these contracts all the time. If HP only used Corsair ram under contract, would that upset you?

 

Cashbacks are discounts, just not directly!

Some brands end up not offering direct discounts as to not devalue their brand in the market and so, cashbacks are a way to discount the products.

For example, Asus currently has a cashback campaign in place (I don't know if in all countries, but in mine yes), if we buy a Ryzen CPU + board.

Of course I don't get my hands on fire for anyone, but I doubt Intel is so stupid as to even make slides showing everyone that it's doing illegal things.

 

I really don't see an issue here. This seems to be little more than clickbait, which isn't too surprising considering the source - AdoredTV should always be taken with a truckload of salt.

FYI, AMD was the one who developed adaptive sync, which they then handed over to VESA to be used as an open standard (both authors of the white paper were from AMD). They then created FreeSync to implement that technology on their side.

 

So... what's the surprise here? Correct, none.
And tbh I'm not sure this, even if true, is shady by the sense of the word. It's just business tactics.

 

• Adored TV is the equate to a Tabloid
• If Intel did this, it's stating the obvious
• Nothing to see here

EDIT: yeah gotta say - total clickbait

 

To very deliberately use your monopolistic advantage, and thus, linked financial clout, in a blatant attempt to buy off and thus significantly reduce any chance for a competitor to gain traction - a behaviour whose sole purpose is to stifle opposition- is absolutely legally wrong!
Intel's growing history in this area will no doubt result in a different approach from the respective courts.

I'm quite shocked at the number of individuals here who fail to see this.

 

It's not illegal. At least not in the USA. Saying it should be illegal is a conversation on the morality of capitalism, an argument that doesn't belong here.

Relax, it's fine.

 

Bingo!

 

--> 1890 and 1914...comments?

 

It's so sad that in todays age we put "witch hunt" on anything and everything as though whatever it is they claiming is a "witch hunt" is actually as bad as the actual witch hunts......pretty pathetic actually.

 

Witch hunt is a figure of speech, you don't seriously expect me to clarify that this is not as bad as witch hunts from ancient history, do you?
Get real.
It's what he's known for. He's reported rumor as truth before, in real journalism he would have never been able to find a job.

 

Bit of a stretch there don't you think?

 

You have no problem with a company in a position of strength in an oligopolistic market paying for the manufacturers to not use a competing product. Man this is something.

This is different than Epic versus Steam. Both market are competitive ones. There's like 10 online stores selling games (GOG, Humble Bundle, Green Man Gaming, Uplay, Origin, EPIC, Bethesda, Rockstar Social Crap, Windows Nope, XBox store, PS4 store, Switch Store, etc etc etc etc). There's countless of offline stores selling games. Lot of the online ones are selling Steam keys but it's still a competitive market and Steam is just 1-2 mistakes away from being the next Intel Compatible or Sony Walkman. And there's like trillions of developer and publishers. I mean most of them are not highly popular but unless you're a brainwashed triple AAA only gamers there's a vast world outside of EA, Activicrap and Ubisoft. Still what Epic does is imo despicable even though their store would normally be a welcome addition to maintain a competitive market.

The desktop/laptop CPU and GPU markets are everything but competitive markets though. They are like the desktop/laptop OS market. In fact Intel should pray for AMD to remain alive and well cause without them they pretty much become a monopoly in the desktop cpu market and the government might very well see this as a security problem in the long term.

Intel is very welcome to reduce the price of their products to OEM and resellers and offer freebies to the end users. Very very welcome in fact. Paying to prevent OEM from building AMD computers nope nobody outside of fanboys ever wanted that. Let OEMs build AMD and Intel computers and let the end users decide which ones they want to buy.