Do we think we are so smart? Not really. But we don't think we are so naive, either.
The consumer pays for everything any corporation does.
When the corporation operates legally, the consumer pays for legitimate operations, like buying materials, marketing, advertising, wages, etc.
When the corporation violates regulatory standards and breaks the law and gets caught, followed by huge fines, then the consumer pays more, for illegal acts.
The guys who perpetrated the illegalities don't have to come up with the fines, do they? The only way to spare the consumer every single corporate cost of doing business is to separate the legal from the illegal and take the illegal costs directly from the CEO's felonious hide. What are the odds of that?
I agree that companies must do business with integrity. But maybe you are not as bright as you think you are. Who will pay for the fine of billions on Intel? Consumers will. Why should you care which day of the month rebate money is paid? Do you want to micromanage someone's activities to that degree? The only thing that will come out of the Eurocrat fine is higher consumer prices for chips and more attempt at regulation. That is the very reason Europe's chip industry lags.
EE and Free Market Advocate
"you want fries with that"? type of business.
A yr ago, when nintendo wii was "2-3" per store, walmart insisted we buy the wii + 2-4 games combo for total cost much
higher than the wii itself.
I didnt like it, and didnt buy it.
I didn't think it was illegal or that Walmart should pay a billion dollars fine for it.
Their doing the same thing with graphics chip sets. The most recent example is the atom priced separately costs WAY more then if you by atom with 945G memory controller and crappy graphics controller. It's a real shame to engineers and the end consumer.
What amazes me is that people in this industry still don't understand how Intel has sold their product for decades. My group was working on a small telephone based product years ago. We liked the Motorola MC68008 better, but for other reasons (mainly software) we had to use the Intel 8088. All we needed was the microprocessor -- we had our own version of the other support chips. We were told that "Golly, we don't have any processors to sell separately, but if you buy the whole set you can have all you want." We really resented being forced to buy parts we didn't need. And it was even more repulsive to an engineer because their "companion chips" didn't even interface to each other correctly. I think the biggest offender was the i8257 in that regard. Bottom line is that Intel was out to sell parts and they would employ whatever tactic was necessary whether it was ethical or not.
I'm vehemently against TARP bailouts and vehemently against the millions I see in tax breaks, etc. I've seen go to Intel. So - politically I'm not sure where that puts one.
Perhaps it's just being in this industry for many decades and seeing the questionable tactics Intel employs that elicited such a poor analogy.
-- Mao Z. ;-}
I am interested in real life experiences where Intel or any chip maker used hardball tactics such as those described by MiguelS. This is the kind of bad behavior that only gets addressed when someone has the courage to go public about it.
Semiconductor Design Engineer
Senior Design Engineer
What a bunch of twisted socialist nonsense.
By your definition of "racism", it behooves
all successful businesses in every indsutry to protect every failing business in their
field, or face being charged with "racism".
you are truly confused between money and
EU is weak industrially, and using
really lame methods to justify its
socialism, to cripple healthy US businesses.
Perhaps Google is being spared because
of the founders origins, or they would
be next - "showing raacism by not helping
yahoo get its fair share of search ads" ?
Well, I guess your not CTO at AMD - huh? I've seen State (NM, OR, AZ, etc.) and Local governments across this nation throw millions and millions of tax incentives, elimination of construction fees, etc., etc., etc. over the decades at Intel. The picture is not so clear as you try to paint. If I for one (if living in the EU) would not mind a few of my tax dollars going to ensure a level playing field in the microprocessor market. Despite how Intel gained it's success, via marketing prowess, solid engineering, good execution, strong arm tactics, some luck, or combination of all the above. It doesn't really matter to me, it's kind of like racism in a sense (yea this is a stretch :-). Despite all the good unbiased majority of upper middle class from European heritage we have here in the US, there's a few bad seeds who might take advantage of minorities. So, we have equal opportunity laws in place to protect the minority. I may not like that solution, but understand the need and cant think of a better one at this time.
'TheColin' is either blissfully ignorant or a part of Intel's PR team. Obviously, you are sitting on a ton of evidence that clearly demonstrates Intel is completely free of ANY wrong doing. I have personally worked with many retailers in the last 20 years who chose Intel for reasons 'financial' reasons and I have always thought AMD was not getting its fair shake. Intel is not the only company. Microsoft, Oracle, and many others in a similar powerful position ALL do the same thing.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.