Slashdot Mirror
AMD Subpoenas Skype
I_am_Rambi writes "AMD has issued a subpoena to Skype in the battle of the anti-trust case against Intel. From the article: 'AMD is now focusing on a feature in Skype 2.0 that enables the ability to make 10-person conference calls only with Intel dual-core processors. Users with AMD dual-core chips or single-core chips are restricted to hosting five-person conference calls because only Intel's chips offer the performance necessary to host the 10-way call, according to Skype. [...] Skype's software is using a function called "GetCPUID" to permit 10-way conference calls only when that function detects an Intel dual-core processor on start-up.'"
So they should. This kind of artificial limitation is IMO, unethical, and counterproductive to advancing society.
Skype into this relationship? Why is this not a perfectly acceptable competitive advantage offered to a partner?
Not trolling...whats the skinny on this issue?
Always value the individual over the system. --Bruce Lee "I don't need a Sig - I have a custom 191" - me
As multiple people pointed out, there was no way that this was going to slip through. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/13/201523 6/
Intel isn't helping their legal cause when they are waving a red flag waving 'we are anti-competative'.
If the deal between Intel and Skype isn't the DEFINITION of antitrust, I don't know what is.
How fine editor humor,...
Related Stories is about "Intel and Skype Exclude AMD"
-Woof woof woof!
And I thought the Intel compiler ignoring features of AMD chips when it knows full well how to use them was brazen . . . . . . .
I mean come on! AMD processers are JUST as good as INTEL, if not better. Why shold Skype give intel an advantage... Hrm... is eBay makeing deals with Intel?
I wonder how easy would it be to set up an environment variable for "GetCPUID" and have it return a different CPU-ID to the program? If that is possible, I'd like to know how and set my computer to return and INTEL CPU. Once done, I'd like try Skype out with my AMD machine.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
about processor speed it could simply have a list of processor minimums that it checked against. Or allow the user to set the parameter much the way video clips let you pick "Broadband" or "56k modem".
And every other piece of software on the shelf just has the requirements written on the box, and it's up to the user to make sure your system is up to spec. But for some reason, Skype, and only Skype, has to check your CPU's make. Not clockspeed, not memory, not cache or storage space but cpu manufacturer to run.
They're gonna get nailed on this one. Hard. And they deserve it.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Apple, for failing to include AMD processors in their offerings, upon their switch to x86.
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
If only AMD had used open source as the underlying code for their CPU.
Users should be allowed to change their CPU User Agent.
I have a super duper 16 terrahertz mega AMD processor now serve my phone calls biatch.
liqbase
Then again it says a lot about skype that they even put in a hard limit in their software. Since hardware is improving all the time this will make your software quickly fall behind. It is like those software installers that check the platform string and refuse to install if it doesn't match their list. So you have to hack the game to work install on w2k3 (MS greatest gaming platform ever, would want it in a server room but runs games perfectly).
Even if intel launches some 6hgz chip skype would still be limited to 10 callers. Even if you run it on a super computer, skype would still be limited by 10 callers.
Oh well, pretty much everyone here on slashdot predicted this would end up in court.
Limiting your online product to a segment of the market. Oh yeah, the bubble is back with a vengenance. Does their website insist you run IE as well?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I wonder if the reaction would still be the same if it was AMD that was chosen by Skype for the 10-way call feature.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
I wonder how long it will take someone, somewhere in the world to 'fix' this little feature of Skype? IMHO, it does not take a lawyer to realise this is a very sharp practice indeed. It makes a total mockery of Microsoft's "Designed for Windows xxxx" branding marque. Personally, I hope that Skype gets sued all the way to the bankrupcy court on this one and drage Intel along with it. Consider this analogy Esso/Exxon produce a brand of unleaded fuel that can only be used by Brand X vehicles. If you use it in any other marque then the engine will only deliver 50% of the horsepower that it would in an equivalently sized & tuned vehicle of Brand X. The fuel was able to tell what sort of engine it was being burnt in and changed its chemical formulae of the fly. What sort of rucus would that scenario raise with the users of other vehicle makes. Very soon there would be a million class action law suits filed. Just my take on the issue. I was using IP telephony 4 years ago so skype is nowt new. /s
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
Threats such as retroactively withdrawing rebates and removing future discounts on chip purchases have ensured that the major PC manufacturers in the US push Intel chips. To do otherwise would increase the cost of a given manufacturer's PCs to the point where the manufacturer couldn't be competitive.
Illegal? I'm not sure, but I don't think so (IANAL). Immoral? Duh (IAAHB)!
Does no one have mod points anymore? =( Today 95% (yes, that's right - exactly 95%) of all comments seem to be left with no moderation.
Is it possible that the code that handles multiple connexions takes advantage of an Intel-only instruction? Or register operation? Mayhaps they've managed to get the Skype code to be stable at ten connexions on the Intel, but not the AMD? More overhead? Hoops to jump through? Unoptimised or unstable machine code on the AMD?
I'd love to see Skype's technical case for the rationale behind this.
It had better be good. IT had better be because they're pushing the limits of the hardware and the investment for optimising it for AMD's processor just isn't worth it economically, or technically.
Depends who put it there. If Doritos put it there, hey, its Doritos product, and it is a free market. The consumer will decide whether they want to consume doritos with an alternate beverage or consume another chip.
If however Pepsi had some say in the design there are other issues...
*THAT* is the question GP was asking and you completely missed...
Why is this not a perfectly acceptable competitive advantage offered to a partner?
As in nature, it's all to do with cuteness. You see when people like something they don't objectively make up their opinion after considering the evidence. They make up their opinion and then seek ways to justify it (much easier, because you don't need to do justification weighting or relativization).
So, the answer to your question is: "It is because intel is not Apple". Intel is not cute and cuddly like the iPod. Intel doesnt have a cult of warrior fanboys poised to justify its every profiteering move.
When microsoft (apple is to M$FT as bunny rabbit is to sewer rat), does what coca cola/restaurants, car manufacturers/car dealerships, do it's regarded as evil. C'est la vie.
Reading this article really warm my heart. News articles rarely speak of proper uses of the legal system.
It's a function, so you can't override with with an environment variable.
- sigs are for wimps.
It's not a function, it's a machine code instruction. This means you also can't override it by simply changing the CpuId function in some DLL. You'd have to trap the instruction itself.
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
I wonder what the Mac users think about Macs now having Monopolistic Intel making the most important hardware component in their ideal computers.
I'm obviously not a mac user. But I know that the Mac users made heavy use of evil monopoly mentality to stoke the fires against MS and Intel in the past. I just wonder if any Mac users feel a bit uneasy about supporting an evil monopoly now that Intel CPUs are the workhorse of every new Mac.
It's an honest question. Will Mac users find a creative way to spin it? Or will some of them now actaully admit that it's a mark against the Apple/Mac reputation and mentality?
Skype should be ashamed of themselves. If anything, they should simply check CPU usage and warn against adding more callers when there isn't sufficient horsepower left in the tank for a good connection. To claim, however, that only Intel dual cores have the power to support twice as many calls is pure garbage!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
... whether AMD's lawyers hibernate during the winter? That might explain why this took so long, I have been waiting for this to happen since that deal was announced.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
If Skype really needs extra horsepower for a 10-way audio conference it is impressively lame.
I understand the real time encoding and decoding required for multiperson video is processor intensive but audio streams should be pretty light weight. iChat AV can support 10-way audio conferencing using the now ancient G3 processor. http://www.apple.com/ichat/
With the market share AMD has how can Intel be remotely considered a "monopoly"? Isn't that just outright goofyness? I would wonder more if this didn't violate the IntelAMD cross licensing agreements. Maybe?
Ten to one Skype found the AMD kit just couldn't handle the load of that many calls. Instead of burdening their customers with inferior performance and choppy connections, they decided to restrict those connections to chips that could actually handle it. Why is there so much fapping over AMD here anyway?
An Uncomfortable Truth
Skype optimized and tested their code on Intel duel core CPUs. Maybe they compiled using the Intel compiler and their code will only support 10 users when running on an Intel CPU?
Intel chips do tend to out perform AMD cpus on programs that are optimized for SSE3. It may be just laziness and not a plot.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Assuming intel is behind this, it would only be illegal if they were a monopoly. All of the recent numbers show that AMD is selling close to as many as intel is now. Historically intel has been a monopoly, but it doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
Intel and Skype worked together to produce code which would allow the sound processing to be done faster than it could otherwise on intels processors.
I find it interesting though that after having contact with Intel, they chose to use the CPU ID to enable extra features, rather than a speed test, so fast machines could do 10, slow machines less than that, and have it purely based on the speed of the processor.
If this continues, I'm sure AMD will end up providing an option to give out
false CPUID info, simply switch this bios setting, and you look like a intel... now that'd be an uguly day.
These subpoenas are irrelavent. Skype's customers will hate them for doing this.
What skype is actually saying:
"I don't care about my customers I'd rather do some crossmarketing with intel, the next time I might omit features for those people that don't have [insert brand here] monitor XYZ"
Skype get the clue stick!
If I want to write software that only works on a specific chipset, why can't I?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Are they insane? They require a dual-core CPU to host 10 simultaneous audio streams? We're not talking 100MBps streams here, with strong cryptography and stuff - we're talking about 10 lousy audio streams (well, 20 if you cont both incoming and outgoing).
If they REQUIRE a dual CPU system (especially something as bad as Intel, when AMD CPU's are way, way more efficient when it comes to more-than-one-core), I'd say they are insane and I'm happy I never touched that POS (and that's not the acronym for Point-Of-Sale). I hope they get sued and lose for even trying to pull of this scam, disguised to look like they were programming morons, able to produce even more inefficient code than interpreted VB.
OpenWengo... It's open source. :-)
In an effort to prove that they're bigger than MS: Intel and eBay make a deal that delays the bids of all ebay users who aren't using the newest pentium processors.
In other news...AMD whips the snot out of Intel in yet another Tom's Hardware shootout.
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
Sorry, don't drink Pepsi... and the analogy is borked then cause intel doesn't own a major stake in Skype as far as I can tell.
At this point in time we don't know why there is a processor preference in Skype.
Was it a payback from Intel?
Was it some technical engineering thing at Skype?
I don't know, you don't know. That is the point of this subpoena.
The more Skype adds stupid restrictions like this, the more it will lose market share.
People should chill out, stop the lawsuits, and let free markets work. Free markets make dumb BS like this eventually go away.
Now this is pure BS on skype's part as it's common knowlage that even a single core AMD fx 64 will out perform an intel core duo in most real world apps esp in something that requires memory bandwidth. ,the presence of a dsp in the sound card,even the OS version etc also can effect performance. How hard is it to simply read the processor load from the OS with a synthetic bench and have the app give a recomdation of a perfered setting.
Last I check intel processors tend to perform lower in high memory bandwidth applications because they lack hyper transport and an integrated memory controller.
Also it's an example of shoddy programming as chipsets
Over clockers also must be upset over this since I personally have gotten sempron 64s to OC to 2.8 to 3ghz and still remain stable.
If the whole thing is only relying on the return from an API call, just wait until the program gets modified by someone so the conditional jump becomes a JMP (or the API is hooked to pretend to be an Intel processor) and it works on any processor. If they are using architecture-specific assembly for the realtime encoding/decoding it may be a poorly implemented program, but they have a shred of a case. If it works fine on AMD X2s or other sufficiently fast processors, I'd say the cover is blown.
AMD should set their CPUID to "GenuineIntel". It's for interoperability grounds - Intel have shown they will use it to try and damage the performance of programs on AMD machines - so there shouldn't be any trademark issue, and it would stop this kind of crap once and for all.
I am trolling
Even a sempron 64 can handle more then 5 web cam quality video streams with ease the daul core amd64 and opterons processors likely can handle much more then skype's max of ten. Last I checked my web cam app never took more then 6% of my processor time this is on a single core AMD fx.
It's becoming clear why Apple went the Intel route - this kind of restrictive and unpleasant nonsense is right up their street.
When AMD keeps on beating intel to the post (by country mile after country mile) then what the hell else can they do but cheat?
Maybe they should diversify into high-end sound systems and make their money there! Anyone for monophonic intellihance surround, a mere snip at $300.
In recent versions of Intel's MKL the README states that the AMD x86_64 architecture is supported but they still use the GetCPUID function on 32-bit OS and the code crashes when executed on an AMD processor.
Yeah, really, WHAT THE FUCK, skype corp. I thought they were a decent company on to a good thing. I was wrong. Skype 2.0 comes with a "feature" that means you can ONLY have 10-way conference calls on an intel processor, if you use an AMD computer (intel's biggest rival) you're limited to 5-way. Supposedly "only intel dual-core processors provide the necessary power" BULLSHIT. AMD processors are mostly FASTER then intel's. Not to mention that you could have one guy on the cheapest intel processor he cud find an he'd be allowed 10-way calls, while another would have bought an AMD computer that's twice as fast and yet, according to skype "doesn't have enough power". It's ridiculous. It's outragous. It's also fuckin illegal.
When will companies stop doing shit like this, it just pisses off people who know better and confuses those who don't. What happened to "the customer is king"? I want programs to do what I want them to do, not what some greedy fucktard in marketing wants it to do.
My interpretation? I don't care. If I had a Windows computer, Intel would be making many of these decisions. With a new Mac, things are the same. While the independance of Apple was nice, it wasn't a big deal, and definiatly didn't outweight their CPU problems (the G5s were quite nice, but the laptops had gotten very sorry due to the old G4).
But what difference does it make? Apple can still add things. They can always ask for it on chipset (or get someone else to make the chipset, specifically the southbridge, for them) or they can add it on motherboard like everyone else. A few years ago it seemed like you couldn't buy anything other than a basic motherboard without getting an IDE RAID chip the manufacturer had added onto this motherboard. This stopped (mostly) when chipsets started to have that feature built in. If Apple wants to add a feature, they can just add the chip on the motherboard like everyone else.
And they are still Apple. They can still make those moves that everyone else in the PC industry seems to be afraid of. They went and used USB (only) when no one else had the guts. They went with the ExpressCard with the new MacBook Pros, which I hadn't seen anywhere (on the market yet) until Apple did it. They have options.
They can always go to AMD anyway. They won't need to do anything to do that like the big preparations to go Intel. And even if they don't, they can threaten it; like Dell does.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Someone will write a code wrapper that will tell Skype that it is on an Intel when it could be on a Mac or AMD for all i could care. Someone will do it if they get desperate. Either that or switch to Gizmo Project
I bet the program will work on a viretey of platforms, wait Macs have DC Intels never mind.
Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
All I know is that using oggenc/lancer I'm getting 35 times real-time encoding on my dual-core AMD 3800+ rig (a single-core Athlon64 at 2.7GHz encodes at 45 times real-time -- or to put it another way -- a six minute track is encoded in less than 8 seconds).
Did I mention oggenc is single threaded? I'm not naive enough to believe this translates to 2*35=70 real-time encodes, but less than ten?! No. Way.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
If Intel is a monopoly then you are right, they can't go and do anti-competitive shit like this. However if they aren't there's no restrictions, companies do this kind of thing all the time. I don't know if this has been tested in court yet, but I wouldn't want to be AMD challenging it at this point. AMD's market share has done nothing but grow and grow and they have lots of big name support behind them (like nVidia making chipsets). It's hard to argue "They are an anti-competitive monopoly shutting us out of the market" when your chunk of the market is growing apace.
Just remember: It's generally only illegal to act in an anti-competitive manner if you are a monopoly, otherwise it's generally permissable.
For the love of [insert your god's name here], please, someone make a better client for OpenH323 http://www.openh323.org/ Then I can stop using skype...
I only want it to look a little neater and to work easily with dynamic IP addresses (no, dyndns wont cut it for me, the Average Joe/Jane user)
This seemed like an obvious thing for AMD to do in their case. A lot of people thought this was fishy when it was first announced, especially since AMD appears to be making a better product for less than Intel is charging. Skype arbitrarily picking Intel on a whim is one thing, but there's no real logic behind any reasoning people have come up with. Unless you factor money into it.
With Skype being one of the leaders in VoIP and also a popular pick for podcasters, requiring Intel processors is an interesting, but smart, way for Intel to tap a growing niche market. And I doubt that it will be a niche market for too long.
Insert Sig Here
iChat doesn't encrypt all conversations using 256 bit AES keys.
Years ago ... Nuff Said ... FU Intel
Of course, that's fiction, but it has the same absurdity. If you don't like the deal Skype has done with Intel, then go and use another VoIP client. There's nothing stopping AMD doing the same sort of deal with the Firefly IAX client. Even a simpleton should be able to see this.
...They prohibit a variety of practices that restrain trade.
And this practice restrains trade.
I dont think the guy you responded to is
completely on base, but he is not completely
off base either.
emt 377 emt 4
From my AMD dualcore based Linux server. My Turion notebook does SSE3 too. SSE3 is a way for Intel to win synthetic benchmarks versus earlier AMD CPUs that didn't have it more than anything else.
I wonder how much Intel paid Skype to do this? There certainly isn't a technical reason for rigging their program. It had to be $millions. You don't put an asset you spent several $billion on at risk for nothing.
Unless a law is passed and its declared illegal, they have the right to do what they want with their products and their partners.
No law says you have to give non partners the same treatment that you give business partners ( unless you are declared a monopoly, then the rules change )
Amd should be counter sued for brining up a frivolous lawsuit like this because they are jealous.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Processor usage for video/audio in a one-on-one convo in Skype ~85%
Processor usage in a camfrog chat room handling up to 100 camera streams (101 including your own video stream) and a dedicated audio stream (half-duplex) ~30%
Bear in mind that my Pentium 4 was one of the FIRST ever released, with a shameful 256KB of L2 cache (as opposed to the 512KB or 1 Meg in current-gen P4 processors.)
So, I call bullshit on Skype. They just don't have a clue about optimization and streamlined code. I see their program getting larger and larger with each update. Camfrog gets smaller. Camfrog used to be 4 megs, now it's 3.4 megs, and they're improving with each version as well. I paid my $50 for the ability to view 100 cameras at the same time (depending upon my internet pipeline, of course) and I'll testify that while Camfrog has no conference call features (AS OF YET,) it far pounds Skype into the dirt, video, audio, and general speed. Skype starts lagging after a while, Camfrog has yet to really do that unless I'm running many other programs at the same time, but it does manage to keep up.
*Uninstalls Skype from his computer*
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The Folding@home QMD scientific core is compiled with Intel compiler and libraries and resulting binary will not utilize SSE2 on AMD SSE2 capable CPUs:4 _%26_SSE2
http://fahwiki.net/index.php/FAH_%26_QMD_%26_AMD6
Grrrrr.... Someone should sue....
Windows and Internet Explorer, so far..
[ insert meme here ]
The appropiate way to handle this is spend your resources creating a GPL'd implementation of the skype protocol, not on lawyers.
the consumer was never the king. the consumer was always the cow which to milk.
I see this is no different from when EA signed an exclusive deal with NFL where by only EA can make NFL video games and NFL will not sign licensing agreement with other video game companies/publishers. Oh sure other video game companies can still make "football" vido games, but you are crippled because no one would play it due to you can't use real player states.
Not to be a fan boy for either side, I don't get what's the deal. So what if Skype wanted to do this? I see this as an oppurtenity for AMD and Skype's compititon to get together and come up with a suprior product such that there is no need for AMD/Intel CPU detection. This would nullify what Intel is trying to do and Skype may just drop this idea. AMD in my opinion is whinning instead of seeing it as a chance to establish alternatives and let market decide which product is superior.
Skype is releasing an Intel-only feature, for something that will likely be used by .00001% of the market place. In addition to the fact, if you don't have the Dual Core Intel processor (which makes the percentage even lower), you won't be able to use the feature that likely won't be that appealing to begin with.
Either way, I don't get the hoohah about all of it. Skype is a relatively bloated piece of software whose concept is old and done by many other companies. Now they are supporting a specific processor for an unused feature, and AMD sicks their lawyers on it. If in fact, it does have something to do with the monopolistic practices, then it's understandable... but I think it's idiotic.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
You have a company making railroad tracks named Tagart Trans-Continental. An inventive engineer named Hank Reardon designs a new metal that can improve your railroad tracks. You make deals with him to make your railroad tracks and major train parts from this metal. Its called Reardon metal. Is it wrong for you as the train company to improve your product with this new metal exclusively? Maybe there should be two sets of tracks and trains. Lets argue fairly. GETCPUID is the problem. That single instruction allows the developer to check for enhancements. What kind of video card do you have? ATI? NVIDIA? You see the problem? Its up to the developer to decide how to code the software. If there is truly an enhancement that they can use and still ensure product stability they SHOULD use it. If Skype wants to right its wrong they could simply allow a user to set the setting and display a popup stating that the users AMD processor may not perform well with this setting. Bedammit!
AMD has filed anti-trust charges against Intel. If Intel colluded with Skype to exclude AMD, that helps make AMD's case.
Skype is free to do this on their own. The market will punish them for pulling a dumb stunt like this, which shows that Skype isn't a monopoly. Different story if Intel paid, in some form, Skype to articially cripple AMD performance.
What the court will be looking at is whether the market CAN punish Intel for this stunt, or is Intel largely immune from market effects. Now that the word is out, Skype can expect to lose some customers over the degraded performance on AMD systems. It only makes sense if Intel is paying Skype to do this, in some way, that more than makes up the loses that Skype will feel. But will Intel lose customers? If you do things that are contrary to your customers' interests and lose customers because of it, then you aren't a monopoly. If you can do things that are bad for your customers and it has little or no effect on sales, than you ARE a monopoly.
making sure good posts from unregistered users were marked as trolls. It's amazing the hatred some people have for those of us that haven't registered. Why is it such a big deal?
Proud AC since Oct 98
Skype isn't the only show in town. AMD should check out Gizmo. Eventually we'll have a bunch of incompatible competing VOIP like the way we have instant messaging (Yahoo! AIM, etc). I can hardly wait!
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
When I can I vote with my (and others) pocketbook. Siill saying FU Intel!
IBM did similar by requiring an upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows XP for it's desktop control of ViaVoice even though the same accessibility library used on XP was made available for Win2k.
:-(
IBM doesn't check for your computer's _ability_ to run the software -- they just hard code the behavior based on what OS version you are running.
The software owners have the right to restrict / cripple their software however they choose.
As someone else pointed out -- if Skype had to come up with a reason (and I don't see any reason why they would), they could simply say they only tested on Intel and only wanted to support their tested configuration.
-l
AES256 encyption can be done at speeds of 48+ MB/s. http://www.eskimo.com/~weidai/benchmarks.html This is on a Opteron 1.6 GHz, and it's a stock library. When I last looked, a Skype stream takes 5 kB/s, so 10 of those is 50 kB/s...
-- Sig down
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. A million class-action lawsuits? Isn't the point of a Class-action to have one lawsuit for a million people?
I can't wait to have 10-way conference call on my genuine intel-inside leap-ahead 80286...
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that Niklas Zennström is a shady character. Niklas is a guy who would sell his mother on eBay if the price was right. After all, he's the same guy who took the decision to bundle spyware into Kazaa. I'm well aware that Skype is owned by eBay, but Niklas is still running the business. Striking a shady deal with Intel is just business as usual for Niklas. Does he care... not a chance... he and his shady companions got 1.3 billion reasons not to.
What if it was the other way around? What if you took your thumb out of your @ss and put it in your mouth..
First off, Skype sucks, so does intel. So it's kind of like the two fat kids in school hooking up because they couldn't get anyone else to date them...
Secondly you suck.
All your calls are belong to Intel!
Yup, that CPU ID was certainly a good idea. It wasn't really about asset management or privacy at all... it was about screwing the competition when they least expected it!! Whoo-ya!
IMHO
Under this definition, Intel isn't even close to a monopoly. I thought this would be obvious to everyone but apparently it isn't.
To list a few reasons why: I can buy x86 chips from Intel, AMD, or Transmeta. I can buy servers and desktops from Gateway with AMD chips, I can buy servers from SUN with Sparc chips, I can buy servers from IBM with PowerPC chips. I can buy laptops with Transmeta chips. I can buy desktops and laptops from Apple with PowerPC chips. There are about a billion Taiwanese motherboard manufacturers.
Currently I own 2 laptops and 3 desktop machines, and only 1 of these has an Intel chip inside.
So no, Intel isn't even close to a monopoly.
From the article:
A Skype executive declined to comment earlier this month when asked whether the company had tested the performance of its software on both Intel's and AMD's dual-core chips. 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. He also said that Skype's software is using a function called "GetCPUID" to permit 10-way conference calls only when that function detects an Intel dual-core processor on start-up.
I, personally, can not think of any reason why Skype would do this OTHER than Intel gave them money. I'm not sure it constitutes anti-trust or anything else illegal, but I find the effort patently rediculous.
At least Skype could say something like "we wrote optimized assembly code for the Intel Core Duo. Due to design differences between the Intel and AMD architecture, it's more difficult to manage the stack and keep track of shared registers on Intel's duo core processor. As a result, this code does not/will not work on AMD's processor without fine tuning." But they didn't say that. All we have is a note from a guy from intel that says basically says they're doing it arbitrarily.
CPUMSR can edit Vendor name string, after the edit your own name string is reported back by the cpu to all other programs :) but I doubth that Skype is/would use Vendor string.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
{
...
...
if (plaintiff<-filedSuit(other))
{
cout << plaintiff->getName() << " is smart" << endl;
}
return 0;
}
int main(void)
{
company AMD, Intel;
Lawsuit::antiTrust(AMD, Intel);
cout << "Thank you for playing!" << endl;
return 0;
}
eBay owns Skype now and plans to integrate it with its services. So if you want to orchestrate a sizable eBay auction using Skype, you'll be forced to use Intel hardware.
Is eBay run by imbeciles now?
I used to work with a company that made sound synthesis and performance software, Intel provided money because they were constantly looking for apps that required heavy duty processors. You just don't need a 3 GHz processor for Microsoft Office! -- Unless something sneaky like intentional bloating, etc. is going on. Intel knew this probably would't fly, but they undoubtedly gave Skype a pile of money to do it anyway. Intel has in return gotten fabulous PR, that their CPUs are much more powerful than Skypes. Everyone on /. knows it! Intel monopolistic? Not so important to many people, nor so newsworthy. Skype likewise probably thought it had a good chance of being able to get by without a lawsuit against themselves directly, and probably Intel will pay for any legal fees they incur. In the end Intel is feeling the pressure, but good! And this is proof that they have now got to stoop so low as to hire software companies to cripple their software in order to make Intel look good.
Would this be possible to do without having to code up other P4-specific instructions?
It would make for an 'easy' proof if thats the case.
Yes, it is required for standard C++.
Forget AMD vs Intel, the real question is who the hell needs 10 way conference calling?
Of course, any reports like this are instanly suspect, because I've had near 60% CPU usage from Skype with no conversations running. Which makes sense, considering Skype is a peer-to-peer node routing encrypted traffic. Skype is built on a hierarchy of peer nodes... peer nodes like you! And you! And look at your connection, definitely you too!
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
It's ridiculous how much of the perceived performance of a system is simply bound to how fast its hard drive is. But if you know nothing about computer architecture, it makes sense. With a decent broadband connection, hard drive delays are pretty much second only to printer delays (the latter of which are obvious in their nature, unlike the spooky insides of a computer). I can't tell you how many times my parents have described something "on the internet" as being really slow, only to find out it was simply disk access time in firing up Java or something.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
The legal issue is not whether Intel is a pure monopoly, but whether they have market power and are using it in anticompetitive ways. Now, "anticompetitive use of market power" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, so many people use "monopoly" as shorthand for it. Technically incorrect, but the type of behaviour that is illegal is often practiced by monopolies, so it's an understandable shorthand.
For that matter, monopolies are not illegal. Certain behaviour associated with monopolies is illegal, and not just by pure monopolies as you have described, but by any company with significant market power. It is the behaviour that is illegal, and only when coupled with market power. Without market power, the court will stay out, permitting the market to provide its own punishment.
Intel is not a pure monopoly, and that has absolutely no relevance to the matter. Intel may have sufficient market power power to be an effective monopoly, and that does matter to the law. A judge will make that decision, after looking at the evidence. Standard Oil was found to be a monopoly, in legal terms rather than your terms, even when 30% of the market went to other companies. AT&T was found to be a monopoly even though GTE had exclusive control over a portion of the market.
I could define a monopoly as any company with large profits, and it would mean just as much as your definition: nothing. What matters is the law. Did Intel engage in anticompetitive practices as defined by the law? Did they have market power when they did so? If both are true, then they violated antitrust law.
For the most part anyway. I've been a full time Mac user for 3-4 years now and at no point have I ever given a rats ass that my G4 wasn't an x86 box. I just wanted it to perform well enough to do what I needed it to do. Which for the most part it does.
The Intel move is a good thing for me because I sometimes deal with bits of kit that have specialist Windows/x86 apps for managing them. When I run into this I have to fire up VPC and frankly its dog slow and painful to use. Now that the Qemu Accelerator executes x86 code natively on an Intel Mac, its just a matter of time before I make the switch. Frankly I'm only holding out for Apple to start offering the new 160GB SATA drives for the MacBook Pro ( I really do need the space ) plus a couple of Apps I use to get their Universal binary versions.
Now if I had a choice between getting a MacBook Pro with an Intel chip or an AMD chip, that would be a different kettle of fish. Providing they both offered similar performance per watt I would have the luxury of being able to look at the ethical arguments and factor that into my purchasing decision. Its a moot point though because I don't have that choice. Not if I want to use OSX and enjoy the Apple apps and integration experience anyway, and that's the big issue for me. I love using OSX, end of story!
So why does Skype, on my AMD 64 x2 machine, tell me that I can add 9 people to a current conference call?
This isn't the first time CPUID has been used to AMD's disadvantage. This would not have been a problem if the processors didn't identify themselves based on brand/manufacturer and only provided the important information like what features they supported.
SHAKE your dwindling marketshare, baby!
Defining Statistics and Social Research
To correct such braindead "features", I frequently use GDB (on *nix) or OllyDbg (on NT); it commonly doesn't take more than the modification of a JNZ (or JGE, etc.) instruction into an unconditional JMP instruction to override most kinds of limiting features, even including NT group policies and many "copy protection" mechanisms...
is when something may support a side in court.
"He's a real midnight golfer"
Someone made a patch to allow skype to run 10 way calls on AMD cpus.
http://maxxuss.com/home/skype.html
Stanelie