From what I have read, it seems that Intel is going after the mobile market with these new SOC chips. Just like MS with Win 8. The desktop is playing 2nd fiddle.
Why not solder the RAM on the board as well? Since Intel makes all the chipests (and those become more and more part of the CPU anyway with memory controller, graphics etc. on CPU) There isn't so much real life difference between so many MB anyway. It is mostly marketing. The CPU and Southbridge are from Intel anyway, there isn't so much left nowadays for normal PCs.
I always built my own PC and in theory would have been able to upgrade the CPU, but never did because after 3-4 years when a new CPU would have boon good, everything else on the MB was outdated as well.
the problem will be stocking. but the large manufactures let the MB manufacture anyway, and online stores still will have enough choices. sure it will limit the number of boards/CPUs to chose from. But do I really need 35 different CPUs and 18 MB from just one manufacturer for that socket? when I buy a car I get 2-3 motors to chose from for each type.
a budget board woudl be sold with celeron/Pentium/i3. Premium boards with i5/i7. In theory there are more options, but do people really need to combine a $200 MB with a $50 Celeron?
Intel can kiss my royal Canadian butt. I strictly use AMD, and always will. And no, contrary to rumours heard in some dark corners of the internet, AMD is not abandoning the x86 or x64 market. Indeed, they just released the fx-8350, which is a damn fine chip.
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express
While they may be able to control the prices of there own products, they won't control the price of AMD or other competitors that may come along.
No, they can not take over the entire PC industry. That is impossible with AMD in existence.While it doesn't seen that Intel wants to cut existing motherboard makers out of the equation just yet, sources I have spoken to seem to be worried that this could happen in the mid-to-long-term.
I won't get into the fact that this move offers ZERO advantage to the consumers who have supported Intel over the years.
This is about cooperate take over of the entire PC industry, they don't like people being able to build their own machines because that removes money from their till and I'm certain this has something to do with hurting sales of OEM machines, which to me is tough luck for company's like HP who sell nothing but cheap substandard Chinese made POS.
The OEM's can make their own choices of weather to carry Intel products or not. If I start a business building PC's, I can choose to only use AMD exclusively. Intel can not force me to sell their product.
Only so much as if AMD follows suit. This is why Microsoft has never been a monopoly either, even though many want to scream that from the roof tops, they are so wrong, it make 2+2=3 seem legit.This statement proves my point:
As far as the PC OEMs are concerned, killing off the PC upgrade market would be a good thing because it would push people to buy new PCs rather than upgrade their existing hardware. The PC industry is currently stagnant, partly because consumers and enterprise are making existing hardware last longer.
I'm sure they hope that this move will kill the PC home building industry, what they don't realize is that it will end up hurting sales from many thousands of home PC builders and this market is bigger than some people think.
The casualties of this move will be upgraders and PC 'modders', the huge market that exists around them. While not many people bother to upgrade their PCs, instead choosing to buy a new one, the market is large enough to support countless manufacturers and vendors. This move by Intel would be the final nail in the coffin for this industry, taking down a number of players. This, unfortunately, would have a corresponding knock-on effect on jobs.
Of course there will still be enthusiast boards with high end CPU's already installed and other high end hardware but having Intel control all that is where the anti trust laws will be broken.
[muh-nop-uh-lee] noun, plural mo·nop·o·lies.
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
You can argue Duopoly and Oligopoly.....
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
Such as Ma Bell
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
Which neither Intel or AMD control
opposing or intended to restrain trusts, monopolies, or other large combinations of business and capital, especially with a view to maintaining and promoting competition.
Something that Intel is not trying to do here. Which Microsoft, I believe was guilty of in the 90's with the OEM's.
By preventing OEM's from installing or providing support for OS's like OS/2 and Linux, if I recall.
Now it is up to the OEM's iof they want to provide that support, they are not obligated to do so.
Let me also add this.... If a widget maker makes something that I can produce cheaper, they can not control the fact that I can sell my item for much cheaper than theirs. However, if I can produce it at about the same cost and I sell it at a loss, under cutting the competition to drive them out of business just so I can raise it again later, that is under cutting.
The difference between Fair Trade and Free Trade is....
Fair Trade means I can produce a better product, but can not sell it for more than the competition
Free Trade means I can build a better product and ask the price that I believe is fitting and still be able to sell it.
Fair Trade = Govt control of pricing......
Free Trade = Consumer control of pricing....
and On a final note,,, at the end of the day,, Intel can do what they want... If people decide to stop giving them their money they go out of business. The dollar you don't give to a company has much more profound effect on any said company/industry than any regulations could ever hope to. That goes for any industry.
You just have to be willing to live without their products. ... If you can't,, don't bitch about it.
One last note.... Free Trade and Healthy Competition will always,, Always produce better products and a more prosperous society.
Given that AMD has said that they are finished competing with intel and concentrating on lower end CPUs for cheap hardware and mobile devices, they have pretty much handed Intel an environment for monopoly and created a situation where Intel could very well manipulate prices. This move is a possible example of them manipulating choice and dictating an environment that benefits them more than their customers now that AMD is on it's way out as a choice for desktop machines. (Could be gone entirely by 2015, we'll see what Intel is like then)