Thanks to everyone who commented on my anti-virus post. I enjoyed reading all of the comments and have proven to myself once again that controversy is good! So here I go again.
Earlier this month, Skype announced that its conferencing feature would be limited to 5 users on AMD chips, while people using Intel chips could have conferences with up to 10 users. This is, in my opinion, complete B.S., especially in light of some interesting testing that shows that the AMD processors are just as capable at Skype conferences as their Intel counterparts, after Skype was hacked to detect AMD chips as Intels. Did Skype not think that people would do this?
I was glad to see that AMD filed an anti-trust suit (more information here). I think this statement from AMD's lead attorney on the case pretty much summed it up: "All of the facts are not out on the table- (But) we have been told there is no earthly technological reason why Skype cannot function on AMD dual processors. Our product has been more highly rated than Intel's so it is assumed it should work even better (with Skype)."
I've said it before (though maybe not here): Intel makes overall good products and has been a major player in pushing technology forward over the past couple of decades. Nonetheless, I have consistently despised their marketing and business tactics. This is just another one to add to the pile. It's sleazy marketing to make up a competitive advantage, especially when your chips are generally losing the performance wars.
I'll admit I'm a little biased towards rooting for the underdog, but Intel just makes it so easy. How can you feel good about a company that [and I'm speculating here] uses its size and power to leverage phony exclusive features? Or, if you are Skype, wasn't the backlash easy to see a mile away? C'mon.
Is this tactic moral? Legal? These are questions that may need to be answered as technology plays an even bigger role in our everyday lives. Even if it is both legal and moral, it still seems just plain stupid to me.
I'm pragmatic about such things. I don't know if "Intel" collectively would stoop to such tactics. Unfortunately, Intel is not 1 person. Some of their tactics may be an overly-zealous schmuck in marketing that decided on his own to make rash decisions and statements. It's hard to punish one or 2 bad people in the corporation without collateral damage. You could end up punishing a lot of good honest people inside the corporation. If "BitWise" ever adopts mean and underhanded tactics, it's very clear who to beat up on. :D :D :D
Bottom line, unless I see proof that a corportaion is rotten to their core, I will use their products if they suit my needs at a fair price.
The corporation is an entity unto itself. Therefore any action coming out of it must be attributed to it.
This is dirty business, plain and simple. It's a story that needs to get out and it's a story that needs to tarnish Intel so that the situation may act as a deterrent in the future.