worshiprelaxedElectronics - Devices

Nov 2, 2013 (3 years and 5 months ago)



Over the past few years, the number and variety of computing devices have expanded rapidly,
creating a connected computing landscape that extends from the largest supercomputers and data
centers to the smallest mobile and embedded devices. There are freque
nt product introductions,
and these products are becoming increasingly capable. The competitive environment in the
computing industry is in a constant state of flux, as customers and collaborators in one part of
our business can quickly become competitors
in another. New market segments can emerge
rapidly. We are focused on our strategy to expand into market segments beyond our traditional
PC and server businesses

including consumer electronics devices, embedded applications,
smartphones, and tablets

we face several incumbent suppliers.

One of our important competitive advantages is the combination of our network of
manufacturing and assembly and test facilities with our global architecture design teams. This
network enables us to have more direct con
trol over our processes, quality control, product cost,
production timing, performance, and other factors. Most of our competitors rely on third
foundries and subcontractors such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. or
Inc. for their manufacturing and assembly and test needs.

Our process technology leadership allows us to shrink the size of our transistors, optimizing
power and performance characteristics and improving our ability to add more transistors and
features. T
his leads to more powerful, energy
efficient microprocessors. We believe that as the
need for computing power in smartphones and tablets grows, our ability to add transistors will
become an important competitive advantage for our offerings in those market

Our platforms primarily compete based on performance, energy efficiency, innovative design
and features, price, quality and reliability, brand recognition, and availability. Other important
competitive factors include development of the software

ecosystem, security, connectivity, and
compatibility with other devices in the computing continuum. The ability of our architecture to
support multiple operating systems, including legacy environments based on x86, is an
advantage in offering OEM customer
s operating system choices. We believe that our platform
strategy to integrate multiple hardware and software technologies gives us a significant
competitive advantage.

For many years, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) has been our primary competitor in
market segments for platforms used in notebooks and desktops. AMD also competes with us in
the server market segment along with International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) and
Oracle Corporation. Companies offering ARM Limited (ARM) based designs

are also attempting
to expand into the notebook, desktop, and server market segments. In addition, our platforms
with integrated graphics and chipsets compete with NVIDIA Corporation's graphics processors;
NVIDIA has shifted some of the workload tradition
ally performed by the microprocessor to its
graphics processor.

Companies using ARM or MIPS Technologies, Inc. (MIPS) based designs are our primary
competitors in the consumer electronics devices and embedded applications market segments. In
smartphones a
nd tablets, we face established competitors such as QUALCOMM Incorporated,
NVIDIA, and Texas Instruments Incorporated, which deliver SoC solutions based on the ARM
architecture and complementary wireless technologies, as well as companies that incorporate
SoC solutions that they manufacture. The primary competitor for McAfee's family of security
products and services is Symantec Corporation.


During the 1980s, Intel was among the top ten worldwide

sales leaders (tenth in
1987), dominated by Japanese chip makers
. In 1991, Intel achieved the number one ranking and
has held it ever since. Other top semiconductor companies include AMD, Samsung, Texas

and STMicroelectr

Competitors in PC chipsets include VIA Technologies, SiS, ATI, and Nvidia. Intel's competitors
in networking include Freescale, Infineon, Broadcom, Marvell Technology Group and AMCC,
and its competitors in flash memory include Spansion, Samsung, Qim
STMicroelectronics, and Hynix.

The only major competitor to Intel on the x86 processor market is Advanced Micro Devices
(AMD), with which Intel has had full
licensing agreements since 1976: each partner can
use the other's patented technological innovations without charge after a certain time.

However, the cross
licensing agreement is canceled in the event of an AMD bankruptcy or

Some smaller competitor
s such as VIA and Transmeta produce low
processors for small form factor computers and portable equipment.


trust lawsuits and investigations

Intel's dominance in the x86 microprocessor market led to numerous charges of antitrust
olations over the years, including FTC investigations in both the late 1980s and in 1999, and
civil actions such as the 1997 suit by Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) and a patent suit by
Intergraph. Intel's market dominance (at one time it controlled ov
er 85 percent of the market for
bit PC microprocessors) combined with Intel's own aggressive legal tactics (such as its
infamous 338 patent suit against PC manufacturers)

made it an attractive target for litigation,
though few of the lawsuits ever amounted to anything.

AMD, Intel’s largest competitor, has filed a number of antitrust lawsuits and initiated official
investigations into Intel’s anti

practices by regulatory bodies in Japan, the European
Union, South Korea and the United States. AMD alleges that beginning in 2003, Intel gave
preferential prices to computer makers who purchased most or all of their microprocessors from
Intel, paid compu
ter makers to delay or cancel the launch of products using AMD chips, and
provided chips at prices below cost to governments and educational institutions.

Intel has
responded by defending its marketing practices and attributing AMD’s failure to gain market
share to incompetent management and poor business decisions including underinvestment in
essential manufacturing capacity and over
e on contracting out chip foundries.


2005 the Japanese Fair Trade Commission concluded that Intel had violated the

Antimonopoly Act and ordered Intel to eliminate discounts that discriminated against its
etitor Advanced Micro Devices. To avoid a trial, Intel agreed to comply with the

In July 2007, the
European Commission

formally accused Intel of anti
competitive practices,
mostly against AMD.

In February 2008, Intel reported that it was cooperating with European
Union investigators who had seized documents from Intel's office in Munich.

In June 2008 the
EU filed new competition charges against Intel.

If found guilty of stifling competition, Intel
could be fined up to 10 percent of its annual revenue.

In June 2008, South Korea's Fai
r Trade Commission fined Intel US$25.5 million for taking
advantage of its dominant position to offer incentives to major Korean PC manufacturers who
agreed not to buy products from rival AMD.

In the United States, the state of
New York

started an investigation of Intel in January 2008 on
whether the company violated antitrust laws in pricing and sales of its microprocessors.

June 2008, t
he Federal Trade Commission opened a formal antitrust investigation for this case.