Slashdot Log In
AMD Subpoenas Skype
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Mar 01, 2006 05:29 PM
from the who-didn't-see-this-coming dept.
from the who-didn't-see-this-coming dept.
I_am_Rambi writes "AMD has issued a subpoena to Skype in the battle of the anti-trust case against Intel. From the article: 'AMD is now focusing on a feature in Skype 2.0 that enables the ability to make 10-person conference calls only with Intel dual-core processors. Users with AMD dual-core chips or single-core chips are restricted to hosting five-person conference calls because only Intel's chips offer the performance necessary to host the 10-way call, according to Skype. [...] Skype's software is using a function called "GetCPUID" to permit 10-way conference calls only when that function detects an Intel dual-core processor on start-up.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Intel and Skype Exclude AMD 492 comments
Raenex writes "CNET is reporting that Intel and Skype have signed an exclusive deal that would cap the number of conference call members on all but Intel architecture. Skype will only offer 10-way conference calls on specific Intel chips while other chips, including all AMD chips, will only offer 5-way conference calls. From the article: 'Though few would argue that a niche feature like that is going to be a deal breaker for most PC buyers, the importance of the Skype-Intel alliance goes well beyond VoIP conferencing. Indeed, it's the latest, and certainly most prominent, example of Intel's new take on marketing: Lock in software partners as well as the PC makers.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Do we have evidence that Intel coerced... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not trolling...whats the skinny on this issue?
Re:Do we have evidence that Intel coerced... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Do we have evidence that Intel coerced... (Score:3, Informative)
You also need to look at what's best for the consumer here. Partership or not, if the consumer is losing out, then it's not good.
Re:Do we have evidence that Intel coerced... (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right, Anti-competitive practices are perfectly acceptible in a free market. If, I want to bundle my stereo system with a certain type of car because that car company has paid me to do so or vice versa or has some other mutually beneficial deal, that is perfectly acceptible. But as companies approach having a dominant marketshare we have decided that it is not acceptible any longer becau
Because it's pointless? (Score:3, Insightful)
A Skype executive declined to comment earlier this month when asked whether the company had tested the performance of its software on both Intel's and AMD's dual-core chips. An Intel representative confirmed that there are no instructions that specifically enhance the performance of voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) software like Skype's in Intel's dual-core chips. He also said that Skype's software is using a function called "GetCPUID" to permit 10-way conference calls only when that fun
Re:Do we have evidence that Intel coerced... (Score:4, Funny)
We at Pepsi Co. are looking to employ talented, capable, and visionary individuals like yourself. If you are interested in an exciting career with us please reply so we can setup a first round of interviews.
Sincerely,
The Man
Pepsi Co.
Parent
Re:Do we have evidence that Intel coerced... (Score:5, Insightful)
So when MS gets in a little trouble, there's still no big danger to them because there's no competitor out there selling drop-in replacements for their software with 100% compatibility.
Intel, OTOH, faces a significant threat from AMD. AMD's chips are better designed, and produce better performance while consuming less power. And with this, AMD's chips run all the same software that Intel's do, so there's nothing technical that locks you into one company over the other. The only big problem AMD has is that they don't have the fab capacity to match Intel's. Also, Intel's stock has been doing quite poorly for the past few years. While revenue has been at record levels, the stock price keeps stagnating. AMD's stock, OTOH, has been doing great.
As AMD grows and gains fab capacity, they're able to keep taking from Intel's dwindling marketshare. In the face of this threat, Intel is countering not by investing in engineering and improving their products, but by making a big new marketing campaign (notice their new logo?), and attempting more slimy, underhanded deals like this thing with Skype. All in all, it doesn't bode well for Intel.
Parent
Re:Do we have evidence that Intel coerced... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now it looks like pretty basic product bundling or
Who didn't see this coming? (Score:2)
Re:Who didn't see this coming? (Score:3, Funny)
The other side of their flag says 'And we ar bad spellurs two!'
Heh. (Score:2)
Not being a programer myself, (Score:2)
Re:Not being a programer myself, (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, I think it would be much easier to just patch the executable to swap the instruction to get CPUID with a load register instruction or some such in it's place. The only question would be if the software checks it's checksum or has some other anti-tampering
Yea, if Skype really cared. . . . (Score:2)
That's a pretty flimsy excuse... (Score:3, Insightful)
And every other piece of software on the shelf just has the requirements written on the box, and it's up to the user to make sure your system is up to spec. But for some reason, Skype, and only Skype, has to check your CPU's make. Not clockspeed, not memory, not cache or storage space but cpu manufacturer to run.
They're gonna get nailed on this one. Hard. And they deserve it.
Next Target? (Score:3, Funny)
That took longer then I thought (Score:3, Insightful)
Then again it says a lot about skype that they even put in a hard limit in their software. Since hardware is improving all the time this will make your software quickly fall behind. It is like those software installers that check the platform string and refuse to install if it doesn't match their list. So you have to hack the game to work install on w2k3 (MS greatest gaming platform ever, would want it in a server room but runs games perfectly).
Even if intel launches some 6hgz chip skype would still be limited to 10 callers. Even if you run it on a super computer, skype would still be limited by 10 callers.
Oh well, pretty much everyone here on slashdot predicted this would end up in court.
Limiting your online product to a segment of the market. Oh yeah, the bubble is back with a vengenance. Does their website insist you run IE as well?
The other way round (Score:2)
Re:The other way round (Score:3)
Of course, I've been reading slashdot for so long, I remember when all the jokes were at AMD's expense.
*by angels, I mean lying bastards who have released chips knowing full well applications with a wide user base would have problems.
iChat can do 10-way audio using a G3 (Score:5, Interesting)
I understand the real time encoding and decoding required for multiperson video is processor intensive but audio streams should be pretty light weight. iChat AV can support 10-way audio conferencing using the now ancient G3 processor. http://www.apple.com/ichat/ [apple.com]
Re:iChat can do 10-way audio using a G3 (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. Someone using a G3 can participate in a 10-way conference, but the more intensive task of mixing those 10 audio streams requires (according to the very page you linked to) a 1GHz G4, dual 800 MHz G4, any G5 or Intel Core.
That Skype's requirements are so much higher is still a little curious, even with higher quality.
I've said this before (Score:4, Funny)
Ignore Skype, go Camfrog (Score:3, Informative)
Processor usage in a camfrog chat room handling up to 100 camera streams (101 including your own video stream) and a dedicated audio stream (half-duplex) ~30%
Bear in mind that my Pentium 4 was one of the FIRST ever released, with a shameful 256KB of L2 cache (as opposed to the 512KB or 1 Meg in current-gen P4 processors.)
So, I call bullshit on Skype. They just don't have a clue about optimization and streamlined code. I see their program getting larger and larger with each update. Camfrog gets smaller. Camfrog used to be 4 megs, now it's 3.4 megs, and they're improving with each version as well. I paid my $50 for the ability to view 100 cameras at the same time (depending upon my internet pipeline, of course) and I'll testify that while Camfrog has no conference call features (AS OF YET,) it far pounds Skype into the dirt, video, audio, and general speed. Skype starts lagging after a while, Camfrog has yet to really do that unless I'm running many other programs at the same time, but it does manage to keep up.
*Uninstalls Skype from his computer*
Re:Ignore Skype, go Camfrog (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good (Score:3, Funny)