James (no.delete@this.thanks.invalid) on October 15, 2018 5:16 am wrote:
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on October 13, 2018 6:08 am wrote:
>
> > Do you have any reason to believe that Intel would ever give away server parts?
>
> Well, yes. They were fined billions for effectively giving parts away.
>
>

First, Intel gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition
> that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 CPUs from Intel. Intel also made direct payments
> to a major retailer on condition it stock only computers with Intel x86 CPUs.
>

-- The European Commission
>
> They paid to get Atom chips into tablets and phones:
>

Intel is, in essence, paying tablet makers to adopt its Bay Trail Atom chips because it needs to catch up.
>

-- CNET.
>
>

"It is not unusual for us to put programs in place to incentivize customers
> and accelerate the market for our products, and we've been clear about our desire
> to grow market share in tablets," Intel said in a statement to CNET.
>

-- ibid.
>
>
>
> (And even if these aren't literally giving them away, no-one's
> said Cloudflare's is actually getting them for zero dollars.)
>
> > I don't, it makes no
> > sense when they are capacity constrained.
>
> I suspect Intel doesn't care that much about losing i3 or lower sales to AMD. They can try to regain that
> market when they get 10nm capacity working; it's low-margin, AMD are well-established in the market, and getting
> AMD/Global Foundries/TSMC to cover the low-end market during a capacity crunch (by putting their own prices
> up a bit!) is probably cheaper than buying the fabs to ensure they won't have capacity crunches.
>
> They do care very much about their high-margin server business, and keeping competitors out.

But that high-margin server business ceases to exist once intel gives these to high-volume customers, no?