Cyberdyne:

I can't believe people are still falling for AdoredTV's witch hunt.

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

Cyberdyne:

It's simple competition. If your competition makes a better product for the price, you either need to make a better product or lower your price. Their products are very similar at this point, so you lower the price.

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).

Loophole35:

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.

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.

TieSKey:

Last time, conditions for the cashbacks were considered monopolistic and anti-competitive, and if they are actually doing it again, I bet my house the conditions will be more or less the same. Offering cashbacks to an end user/consumer is not the same as offering it to a third party corporation/oem. Imagine Coke paying cashbacks to Wallmart so they don't sell Pepsi or relegate it to a tiny corner without refrigeration... now apply that same logic to every product category.... This kind of practice on business that are basically distributors cut down on consumer choice while doing nothing to make things cheaper or better for them. Btw, this is why net neutrality is so important xD

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.

Cyberdyne:

Then it would be cheaper for OEMs. That changes nothing.

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.

TieSKey:

If u sell your stuff cheaper, that's it, u lose control and is up to consumer and oems to chose what to buy. This programs are made in a way to keep a constant eye over them ala big brother. Also remember contracts with big oems and server firms can last several years, while this "programs" can be started and ended anytime at intel's discretion.

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.

MegaFalloutFan:

You didnt even read the article, did you?

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

The recent official unveiling of Cascade Lake X might already the result of that program as the CPUs are selling twice as low per core compared to the chips from Intel's previous generation.

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.

kings:

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.

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....

schmidtbag:

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.

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?

TieSKey:

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....

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.

Loophole35:

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

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.

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.

--> 1890 and 1914...comments?

Cyberdyne:

witch hunt.

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.

Aura89:

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.

Cyberdyne:

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?

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.

It doesn't become bad because there are only two cpu makers. If AMD were to put extra heat on Intel by hypothetically signing a contract with Alienware to only use AMD CPUs then I also wouldn't care. And I doubt you would. Also understand that it takes two to tango here, Intel wouldn't be forcing OEMs to take the deal. OEMs would accept it because it's a good deal. They can say no, and still build both kinds of computers. This kind of competition is fine, using your money to reinvest makes sense. Having more money than the competition makes that easier, of course. And this behavior could lead to a monopoly, which is illegal. But it's important to understand that's the vicious cycle of any company. Every company aspires to be the monopoly, every move they make ideally moves them closer to that. Which is perfectly legal. But the reward for actually meeting that goal is to be punished by the law. Intel believes (rumor mind you) that taking this action will make them competitive. Which is true, Ryzen is a threat they can't ignore. If that leads them to be a monopoly, then they will be punished, it's happened before. You can argue that it's immoral if you like. But that's a conversation I have no interest in.

kings:

Since when is cashback illegal? Not only is it not illegal, as it happens every day in various brands. For example, when I bought my OLED TV from LG, I had a cashback, It's a promotion like any other. People are confusing the act of paying/bribing not to use a particular brand and offer a discount/cashback. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Last time Intel did this, the cashback was contingent on OEMs buying no AMD products, which is illegal. LG didn't make you sign a contract to not buy a competing product in the future for example. Now remember at the time Intel started the practise AMD processors were faster, and cheaper than Intel, but that AMD was capacity constrained and unable to supply more than ~25% of the market. The position it put the OEMs in was 1) either buy the ~25% of their processor demand from AMD and forego the ~30% cashback that Intel offered on the remaining 75% of OEM processor demand, or 2) forego any AMD purchase and get 30% cashback on the 100% of processor demand that Intel could meet. The end result is that no matter how AMD priced their processors or how competitive they were, they were essentially locked out of the medium to large OEMs because the Intel cashback was conditional on them purchasing no AMD products, and OEMs still had to purchase the majority of their processor needs from Intel to meet their product demand needs. If Intel (like LG) had offered the cashback with no conditions like that, then AMD could have competed on price and captured some percentage of marketshare. Instead they were locked out of the OEM market, significantly impacting their ability to generate the marketshare growth and hence revenue they should have achieved with a higher performing cheaper (unit price) processor. All that is not to say Intel is doing the same thing again, but it is not unreasonable to worry.

They're probably planning on losing at least $3B to catch AMD, is the way I read it. Just retooling their extensive FABs for 7nm will cost billions. They've already ponied up a cool $1B to AMD when they settled their AMD anti-trust suit a few years ago. So, as terms of that settlement, they can't do what they did last time--float Dell for several quarters and pay out lots of money for OEMs to buy Intel instead of AMD--so they won't be doing that again, most likely. But they will definitely have to become the "value proposition" until further notice--they will do as the market dictates as opposed to what they dictate--quite a switch for Intel's management, I imagine.

kings:

Since when is cashback illegal? Not only is it not illegal, as it happens every day in various brands. For example, when I bought my OLED TV from LG, I had a cashback, It's a promotion like any other. People are confusing the act of paying/bribing not to use a particular brand and offer a discount/cashback. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Cashback to end users - good cashback to mass purchase partners and oem vendors = anti competitive.