Competition between Intel and AMD
Competition between Intel and AMD has been litigated since Intel has been considered involving in unfair competition. Although in the 1970s, Intel and AMD have made joint agreements. Admittedly, these technological advancements have made the two tech giants to be different hence giving consumers a choice of the brand to suit their needs. For instance, the Intel chips are not compatible with AMD firmware, while the AMD chipsets are not compatible with Intel firmware. Importantly, Intel and AMD have oligopolies the market, while as small firms attempt to emerge in the market, they do not last for long due to immense competition from the two-tech giants.
AMD has sued Intel due to the unfair competition it is facing from them. In my own opinion, I would agree that Intel is using unethical means to dominate the market. Manipulating the prices of the chipsets is a good competition practice, but Intel produces chipsets that have minor differences between them. Undoubtedly, this aspect brings about competition between itself hence affecting the global market.
On the other hand, Intel has also unethically used vertical integration to win the global market. Intel has unethically controlled the supply chain of its products hence controlling the market in a way that makes it forcefully dominate the market. Apart from this, Intel has also offered rebates to Japanese processor manufacturers who agreed to eliminate or reduce the purchase of AMD microprocessor (Goettler & Gordon, 2011). Based on the above argument, it is clear that Intel has been unethically competing against AMD. I agree with the fact that the methods used to win the market were very detrimental to the growth of AMD in market dominance. The fact that Intel paid AMD 1.25$ billion dollars to AMD to settle the dispute is a good move. The Intel mal-practices should be done away with to give room to other growing giants in the industry.
Monopoly is where a single seller is the one trusted to sell a particular product in the market. With the rise of industries in various segments of the multiple spheres such as manufacturing and processing, it takes a lot of trusts to offer monopoly to a particular industry. Monopoly is profitable to the specific industry that gives it but detrimental to the particular small industries offering the same product. Because one industry has the decision over the price of the product, it can set a price that is not affordable to the consumer. The price factor can lead to the production of low-quality products. Low-quality products are produced since the consumers from the economically unproductive regions cannot afford the price set by the monopoly industry.
Inflation can set in when the prices are set too high. Monopoly industries have been on the foreground in the rise of inflation. If Intel could be allowed to be the only micro-processor in the globe, they could control all prices since they will not be facing any competition. Competition is healthy such that the consumer will be able to benefit more. A monopoly should be given to industries that are trusted in such a way they will not jeopardize their state to bring the problem of inflation and the emergence of low-quality products.
Even though Intel and AMD consisted of what is called an oligopoly, Intel’s unfair competition means it will take advantage of a monopoly state where it remains as the only industry manufacturing the micro-processor. I will be in support of a duopoly state of the two sectors since this will be fair to all the parties involved in a market i.e., the consumer, the two industries, and the economic state of the nations. Customer companies should always be keen in their dealings with the two-oligopoly industries so as not to promote unfair competition for their gain.
\