AMD Strikes Back Against Intel anti-trust and skype.

followiung up from http://forums.xisto.com/topic/88802-topic/?findpost=1064338422

AMD are striking back... http://news.a.com.com/

Skype version 2.0 tests for the manufacturer of the CPU you are using to decide how many calls you cam make on skype.

and only allows people who buy intel chips to make 10 person conferance calls.

Skypes official excuse for this is...

Intel's chips offer the performance necessary to host the 10-way call

which is absolue rubbish !

If performance really is an issue, then they should restrict the calls based on chip PERFORMANCE, not VENDOR !

Wow, this is really really stupid!! C'mon, AMD.. but anyway, it's not fair for AMD to send lawyers attacking on Intel or Skype because it's the VENDOR'S choice to limit the use, not anyone's. I mean, yeah, isn't Skype the vendor? The company who owns it? No?C'mon, people. Think. I have to say it's not fair for siding with a chip company but, its all about business, industry, and economic warfare, isn't it? It's all about money. But then, I ask why is Skype doing this. I mean... WHY, really!Or... well, hmm.. again, I don't know.

I agree with cyborgxxi... I mean yes they gave the most stupid explanation possible but that doesn't mean AMD has the right to do anything about it. If Skype wanted to cap their software at only 3 way calls for everyone across the board, that would be their choice. If they feel like picking random numbers of connections out of a hat, again their choice. I don't see why they can't give a company an edge in their software, it's their loss if people buy their product less due to the reduced AMD performance.

I totally disagree with you guys Jeigh and Cyborg. To me, this reeks of something similar to racial discrimination or apartheid. Let's just say Intel and AMD are 2 religions. And people have the freedom to choose whichever faith they wish to follow. Even though it's a very small thing (after how many people require 10 people conferencing?), it's a beginning. Skype had better be justified in saying that Intel is more 'capable' than AMD for their software, because ... I feel ... if they just prefer Intel because they don't like AMD's packaging or something, that stinks.

Yeah ... I'd say that Intel's really getting scared of AMD. Just because AMD's processors work better. *snickers* Maybe Intel should work on making their chips more efficient so that people will want to buy them instead of AMD.Instead of just pulling whiny monopolistic stuff like this. But oh well - this is a capitalist country, after all. Maybe if enough consumers write complaints to Skype, Intel, etc. something will change ... or at the least, Intel will think long and hard before trying this b.s. with the next product that consumers want to use.

Ok here is what I see happening in the market and why I think Intel is starting to "jump into bed" with comanies like Skype.As AMD is now able to get companies like Gateway, Dell, Emachine, HP, etc to put their processor into their machines without fear of reprisal from Intel their market share is going up almost exponitialy. With this influx of AMD chips in Box computers that can be bought at stores like Best Buy, Future Shop, Fry's (Big Box electronic stores) more of the general public is now getting to know AMD as a Major competitor on the CPU market with, IMHO, a better product Intel if feeling the heat.Now if we look at history and what Major companies do when they feel treatened by an "upstart" company, they make deals with other companies to dirty the name of their competetor with claims that their product doesn't work as well on it as their "partners" product/platform. Now when MS tried this with bundling software into their operating system they got away with it for a long time. The main problem here is that Intel can't "bundle" their CPU's for the most part.Intel is starting to flounder, they know it, so they are scrambling and trying to put egg on the face of AMD in the process, in my opinion AMD is well within their right to answer Intel and Skype's character assault. After all if you can crack the 'anti-AMD' code and run SKYPE at 10 clients on a AMD processer (XP 2600 and up) you'll find that it performes just fine....But alot of what I've stated here is just what I've seen, as well as my own opinions.

Edited March 3, 2006 by Logan Deathbringer (see edit history)

I agree with both cyborgxxi and Logan in both cases it all boils down to consumer/profit margin. Intel is definitely starting to feel the heat as AMD grows more popular by the minute so to get back some of the market it once had using the joint marketing venture or co-branding tactics would be one of the ways to go, this shouldnt be suprising in the least as in the other topic a fair few companies are shown to do this and we accept it without a blink, companies such as Nvidia with a host of other companies ranging from tv tuner cards to games. Then on to cyborgs part of the topic it is true that a company can specify they exact use of its product no matter how ridiculous it may sound aslong as it complies with the laws of the country because you as a consumer have the right to accept the TOS or decline it and be on your merry way. This cannot be classed as a monopoly because they do infact allow it to run on AMD chips aswell as Intel so there will be no Microsoft type lawsuits with this. And unfortunately abhiram this is nothing like reacial discrimination or apartheid, one for the obvious reasons we are dealing with inanimate objects and because it is perfectly legal in business law as stated above as joint marketing which again i point out has been going on for some time, probably just not to this extent.But i can assure you whatever the outcome of the Intel, Skype, AMD case this will not be the end of co- branding, maybe in a few years from now Skype 5.0 will allow 20 user conferences on AMD and 5 on Intel .....Its all about the money people never forget that.

Reaver,

For the most part you nailed every part of the conversation properly except on one point, and this is just my opinion but....this isn't really a case of cobranding but a case of, for lack of a better term, deflimation of character, and yes I know that is streching it a bit but...

The problem here is that SKYPE and Intel are trying to sway public opinion and its knowledge base with a disinformation campaign. The false information being that the AMD X2 processor can't handle the 10 person confrence call that a Dual-Core Intel can (and please forgive my use of descriptive language here) but thats just bull. As stated in the second referenced article:

An Intel representative confirmed that there are no instructions that specifically enhance the performance of voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) software like Skype's in Intel's dual-core chips.

So it basicly comes down to the fact that Intel and SKYPE are trying to sully the AMD name and since Intel can't bully companies like Gateway and Dell into only offering their chips in their computers anymore they have taken to mud slinging, which in certain cases is illegal, and AMD is pushing back. Will AMD actually have a leg to stand on in this case, probably not, can they let it go without a response...no.

And unfortunately abhiram this is nothing like reacial discrimination or apartheid, one for the obvious reasons we are dealing with inanimate objects and because it is perfectly legal in business law as stated above as joint marketing which again i point out has been going on for some time, probably just not to this extent.

Well, let's just take a hypothetical case then. Say there are two hypothetical brands of Jeans ... Lee and Levi. Let's say the telephone company has a new technology which let's them know which brand of clothing any subscriber is wearing whenever they make a phone call.

Now, Lee enters into a deal with the telephone company (secretly of course!) telling them not to allow people wearing Levi make Long-distance phone calls for more than 5 minutes at a time whereas subscribers wearing Lee can make Long-distance phone calls for upto 10 minutes at a time. In exchange, Lee offers discounted Jeans to all the employees of the telephone company.

Now ... when subscribers wearing Levi Jeans call up the phone company and ask them why they're being allowed only 5 minutes, the company tells them, "Sir, Lee Jeans are much superior to Levi when you are using the phone. I am afraid we cannot allow you to call long-distance for more than 5 min at a time for the safety of your <insert name of vital part of human anatomy here>" ... instead of just saying that they've entered into a deal with Lee and that is why subscribers wearing Lee Jeans get extra benefits.

I would say Levi jeans is perfectly right to demand proof about the validity of their statement. That's exactly what AMD is doing here ... asking them to prove that AMD does not perform well with Skype.

Joint marketing is fine ... but why not be open about it? You don't have to deal with brown envelopes. Intel and Skype could have had an open announcement saying that they've entered into a deal and Intel has asked Skype to grant extra features (10 people conferencing) for all users that use Intel. The normal features will be available to AMD users (5 people conferencing).

Besides, it's a bloody chat service! Not a resource-hungry-cpu-cycle-eater! How bad can AMD fare with that?

I think that Intel should've used whatever resources it used as an insentive to skype on building some better processors. It is obvious that AMD processors are more than good enough to handle a 10 person conference call. I don't think Intel should be doing this and trying to damage AMD's reputation. That being said I can't say that i wouldn't try to do the same thing if i was in their position.

ab, I'll agree that AMD is weell within their rights to ask proof of Skype/INtel's stupid logic that the software performance is noticeably better on Intel then AMD chips.I mean you go to buy food at McDonalds, they don't necessarily warn you "YOU CANNOT BUY PEPSI PRODUCTS HERE" prior to ordering but then... once you get the the counter only Coke is offered. Sure it's great for Coke fans like me but another, as a Pepsi lover, may think it's similar to apartheid :oThe explanation was retarded, that is a given, but the actual core reason behind people caring (Skype giving Intel the adge) is perfectly valid. Company A gives Company B money, Company B favors Company A in the agreed upon ways of their monetary based partnership. It happens in all industries... just to greater or lesser extents.

The explanation was retarded, that is a given, but the actual core reason behind people caring (Skype giving Intel the adge) is perfectly valid. Company A gives Company B money, Company B favors Company A in the agreed upon ways of their monetary based partnership. It happens in all industries... just to greater or lesser extents.

Agreed. The problem only starts when the buggers start giving lame excuses like "You'll get gastroenteritis if you drink Pepsi with a McDonald's burger, but you grow taller with a Coke and Burger combo" .

Haha yea, but then again lieing isn't exactly new in the corporate world either Nor is false advertising. Officially though I'm sure they could get benchmarks showing skype being more efficient on intel chips... just harass the code so that it used some random miniscule feature that intel does way better or something. Be fun to watch how this one turns out.

LOL to true about the benchmark point but I could give you a bench mark showing you that Windows XP runs best on an old 486 Cyrix based machine. The whole problem with this Skype/Intel/AMD issue is that Intel paid Skype to say that their product works best on Intel chips and then use the GetCPUID call to make the program work at 50% on an AMD chip.The problem with this is that there is no proof that the program works better on one chip vs the other just the fact that Intel paid for the option to have the program work better on their processor and then have the company make it sound like the intel chip is better....this is not only dirty but in some ways could be concidered as illegal due to it being false advertising. If AMD can prove that their was false advertising then they win, the problem with raising false advertising charges is that AMD has to prove that there was intent behind the advertising and that there is no proof of fact.

Let's just say Intel and AMD are 2 religions. And people have the freedom to choose whichever faith they wish to follow. Even though it's a very small thing (after how many people require 10 people conferencing?), it's a beginning.

*cough*payoff*cough* lol

I've YET to see a Dell PC come off the assembly line with an AMD CPU installed in it, same with an HP, Gateway, and NEC back in the day. If Intel was to pay you to support them over the competition, heck I'd take the offer! So why can't other companies other than OEMs get benefits of Intel payoffs? I DON'T support this kind of business since it is VERY wrong, but if a few million bucks is sitting on the table, I'd take it just like anyone else.

[N]F