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.'"

Comments

Do we have evidence that Intel coerced...

[mrhandstand]

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?

Re:Do we have evidence that Intel coerced...

[Azarael]

IANAL, but I would guess that that is one of the things that AMD is looking to find out with their Subpoena. I think either Intel or Skype would be hard pressed to provide a valid reason why the limit is put in place. Imagine if the publisher a game certified by nVidia decided to limit the maximum resolution possible on ATI cards.

Re:Do we have evidence that Intel coerced...

[Kookus]

Let's say you go down to your local store and buy a bag of Doritos.
Now let's say you go buy a 2 Liter of Coka Cola. Unbeknownst to you, the seasoning in the doritos reacts violently with Coke and produces sulfer, thus making you spew out the contents in your mouth due to the nasty taste.
Now you find out you should have bought Pepsi, since it does not contain any ingredients that would produce that circumstance in the first place!!! So now you are limited to only buying Pepsi...

Then you find out one day that the substance that is put on Doritos was put there intentionally and is unnecessary in preserving, colorizing, texturizing, or adding flavor to the Doritos, in fact if you took that chemical out, nothing would be different...

Still think it's cool?

Re:Do we have evidence that Intel coerced...

[afaik_ianal]

I guess that's probably why they're subpoenaing them (i.e. to answer that exact question). It's very hard to see what's in this for Skype though. It's hard to claim it is a "business partnership" if it is one-way, and AMD can't get in on the action. Disclaimer: just read the username.

You also need to look at what's best for the consumer here. Partership or not, if the consumer is losing out, then it's not good.

Re:Do we have evidence that Intel coerced...

[bigpat]

Skype into this relationship? Why is this not a perfectly acceptable competitive advantage offered to a partner?

You are right, Anti-competitive practices are perfectly acceptible in a free market. If, I want to bundle my stereo system with a certain type of car because that car company has paid me to do so or vice versa or has some other mutually beneficial deal, that is perfectly acceptible. But as companies approach having a dominant marketshare we have decided that it is not acceptible any longer because of the ability of one company to extend a monopoly into other areas via these anti-competitive business relationships. There is no question that this practice is anti-competitive in nature, the real question however is does Intel really have that great a market dominance anymore that they could harm the marketplace with this kind of deal.

For similar reasons competing companies are not allowed to engage in price fixing even though it is perfectly fine for them to determine their own prices. Even though it might help the companies involved it will have the effect of hurting the overall marketplace.

So, no it is not about coercion. It is about what kind of collusion between what are supposed to be independent companies we will allow in a free market. And what kind of bundling of services we will allow a dominant company to do when it will exclude competition arbitrarily.

Re:Do we have evidence that Intel coerced...

[shawnce]

Dear Kookus,

We at Pepsi Co. are looking to employ talented, capable, and visionary individuals like yourself. If you are interested in an exciting career with us please reply so we can setup a first round of interviews.

Sincerely,

The Man
Pepsi Co.

Re:Do we have evidence that Intel coerced...

[Grishnakh]

There's a big difference between Microsoft and Intel: there is no drop-in replacement for Microsoft software. While MS is clearly a monopoly with 90-95% of the OS market, the competitors (Linux, MacOS) aren't really drop-in replacements. MacOS only runs on Macs, and runs entirely different application software. Linux will run on the same hardware, but again doesn't run the same software (WINE sometimes works, but that's not very robust).

So when MS gets in a little trouble, there's still no big danger to them because there's no competitor out there selling drop-in replacements for their software with 100% compatibility.

Intel, OTOH, faces a significant threat from AMD. AMD's chips are better designed, and produce better performance while consuming less power. And with this, AMD's chips run all the same software that Intel's do, so there's nothing technical that locks you into one company over the other. The only big problem AMD has is that they don't have the fab capacity to match Intel's. Also, Intel's stock has been doing quite poorly for the past few years. While revenue has been at record levels, the stock price keeps stagnating. AMD's stock, OTOH, has been doing great.

As AMD grows and gains fab capacity, they're able to keep taking from Intel's dwindling marketshare. In the face of this threat, Intel is countering not by investing in engineering and improving their products, but by making a big new marketing campaign (notice their new logo?), and attempting more slimy, underhanded deals like this thing with Skype. All in all, it doesn't bode well for Intel.

Re:Do we have evidence that Intel coerced...

[jadavis]

I read that already, that was in one of the linked sources. I was wondering, did you actually see a rep from either company claim that AMD chips are incapable of hosting a conference call of 10 people? I believe you that it would be false if they did claim that. Also, I know the software makes that distinction. But what I don't see are the false claims. If Intel or Skype are making false claims when advertising, that makes this story much more serious.

Right now it looks like pretty basic product bundling or a partnership of some kind to make their products more "synergistic" or whatever (although the most minor kind of advantage I could possibly imagine...). That's very normal as long as nobody is making false claims. It's mildly annoying to the consumers, but if they are properly informed ahead of time, I see no real harm done. I can see how the anti-trust people would also get annoyed, seeing as Intel is the market leader, but I don't buy into that myself (that's another whole argument). But even for the anti-trust people, it's hard to imagine how Intel would corner the market with such a minor feature (slippery slope, I guess?).

That being said, it does annoy me that ANY software vendor would go out of their way to make their software less compatible. For that matter, anything that uses the CPU ID to influence high-level logic. It shouldn't be illegal, but it's like if MS Word had a (published) restriction that the spellchecker would only run if you had a Creative Labs(tm) SoundBlaster(tm) installed in the 3rd PCI slot, that would be really annoying.

That's a pretty flimsy excuse...

[Weaselmancer]

...only Intel's chips offer the performance necessary to host the 10-way call, according to Skype.

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.

Next Target?

[aftk2]

Apple, for failing to include AMD processors in their offerings, upon their switch to x86.

That took longer then I thought

[SmallFurryCreature]

Gee, artificially limiting your product to work best with a company under constant scrutiny for being an unfair monopoly. Doesn't skype have any lawyers?

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?

Re:That took longer then I thought

[cyranose]

Not to defend Skype or Intel (I agree with you on the generalities), but Skype does have a right to arbitrarily limit its service and offer an upgraded experience for more money as long as the terms are clear. Many companies do that, even offering free vs. premium service.

It would have even been possible for them to ask, say, "$5 for 5 callers, $10 for 10." Intel could have then said "We'll pay the extra $5 upgrade cost if you use an Intel processor!"

But that scenario gives people the option of paying for 10 users if they want (regardless of CPU) and makes clear this is a marketing/promotional arrangement between two companies, not a technological limit of AMD.

And in that case AMD could also offer the theoretical $5 deal to match... which is what makes this whole Intel/Skype thing anticompetitive and grossly unfair (not to mention stupid).

Re:Who didn't see this coming?

[mapmaker]

they are waving a red flag waving 'we are anti-competative'.

The other side of their flag says 'And we ar bad spellurs two!'

Re:Not being a programer myself,

[MBCook]

That's basically how VM Ware works on Windows. It runs the code, but traps privileged instructions and handles them it's self (I realize this is a rough description). Using the same methods I don't see why you couldn't trap a CPUID instruction.

That said, I think it would be much easier to just patch the executable to swap the instruction to get CPUID with a load register instruction or some such in it's place. The only question would be if the software checks it's checksum or has some other anti-tampering feature.

Re:Good

[bherman]

This is

Re:The other way round

[kannibal_klown]

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.

I'm sure Intel would respond in similalr fassion. But the geek-public public wouldn't mind as much, heck some would probably be cheering them on. If a school bully picks fights with kids on a daily basis by kicking them in the nuts, how would you feel if kid #147 kicks hit in the nuts first?

Intel has been throwing its weight around for years now to ensure its dominance. The Dell debacle comes to mind. This is just another example.

Personally I'm dissapointed with Skype more than I'm annoyed at Intel. Though if this was AMD then I'd have mixed feelings on the issue: dissapointed yet chuckling.

iChat can do 10-way audio using a G3

[cuijian]

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/

Re:iChat can do 10-way audio using a G3

[dr.badass]

iChat AV can support 10-way audio conferencing using the now ancient G3 processor.

Not quite. Someone using a G3 can participate in a 10-way conference, but the more intensive task of mixing those 10 audio streams requires (according to the very page you linked to) a 1GHz G4, dual 800 MHz G4, any G5 or Intel Core.

That Skype's requirements are so much higher is still a little curious, even with higher quality.

Re:Not being a programer myself,

[Warg! The Orcs!!]

Ok then then Ladies, first one to do it wins.....

Re:The other way round

[geekoid]

AS opposed to those angels* the run AMD.

Of course, I've been reading slashdot for so long, I remember when all the jokes were at AMD's expense.

*by angels, I mean lying bastards who have released chips knowing full well applications with a wide user base would have problems.

I've said this before

[m50d]

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.

And your point?

[nurb432]

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.

Ignore Skype, go Camfrog

[Khyber]

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*

Re:Ignore Skype, go Camfrog

[Khyber]

VMWare, hell even WINE will run camfrog under Linux or OSX. You may not see the speeds, yet, but it does indeed work. Go read on the forums on camfrog (if you can stand to read about useless complaints and find the decent topics)

Because it's pointless?

[BobPaul]

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.