During AMD's latest earnings call that covers the fourth quarter and full year of 2025, AMD chair and CEO Lisa Su gave a small update on Valve's Steam Machine.
To be honest, I expected RAM prices would push back the release date. But AMD would know more about than I would.
It is definitely incredibly common, yes. Like I said, the laws are generally not effectively enforced, and they’re also intentionally limited. For some reason, we have decided it is totally acceptable to do that when you don’t have a recognized monopoly position, which Sony doesn’t in that market. It’s very particular, it’s very specific, and it’s very subjective, which is probably a huge part of why they aren’t effectively enforced. Also, companies know all the ways to get around the ways the laws are written if they really want to.
We still don’t really follow them even when the laws probably do apply though, it’s just vestigial at this point. We’re supposed to believe the antitrust laws were only meant for those old, bad monopolies like Standard Oil and Ma Bell. We don’t really have monopolies like that anymore, all our monopolies are the good kind of monopolies that don’t harm society, or they’re not monopolies at all, they’re coordinating oligopolies that constantly partner with and all own chunks of each other, which means they’re also perfectly fine and not any kind of bad monopoly at all.
I didn’t write the laws, there are lots of things about them that I think could be vastly improved. But I do agree with their intent, and we shouldn’t forget what their intent is, just because our current financial and political environment is not interested in them.
I’m not a lawyer either, but I think you’re missing some aspect of intent that would be required to make it against the law.
Rivian for example was (is?) selling their cars at a negative gross margin because they couldn’t sell them for a profit for years. If you can’t sell something at a loss, so many businesses would be breaking the law when they start out, maybe legitimately almost every single business. (edit: your stance would make Rivian be forced to sell cars for prices no one would pay)
If the intent was to destroy another company by doing it, then that could fall under anti-competitive laws. In this case, the intent isn’t to destroy other hardware, it would be to help stabalize the ridiculous increase in prices knowing they could make it up in game sales.
It is definitely incredibly common, yes. Like I said, the laws are generally not effectively enforced, and they’re also intentionally limited. For some reason, we have decided it is totally acceptable to do that when you don’t have a recognized monopoly position, which Sony doesn’t in that market. It’s very particular, it’s very specific, and it’s very subjective, which is probably a huge part of why they aren’t effectively enforced. Also, companies know all the ways to get around the ways the laws are written if they really want to.
We still don’t really follow them even when the laws probably do apply though, it’s just vestigial at this point. We’re supposed to believe the antitrust laws were only meant for those old, bad monopolies like Standard Oil and Ma Bell. We don’t really have monopolies like that anymore, all our monopolies are the good kind of monopolies that don’t harm society, or they’re not monopolies at all, they’re coordinating oligopolies that constantly partner with and all own chunks of each other, which means they’re also perfectly fine and not any kind of bad monopoly at all.
I didn’t write the laws, there are lots of things about them that I think could be vastly improved. But I do agree with their intent, and we shouldn’t forget what their intent is, just because our current financial and political environment is not interested in them.
I’m not a lawyer either, but I think you’re missing some aspect of intent that would be required to make it against the law.
Rivian for example was (is?) selling their cars at a negative gross margin because they couldn’t sell them for a profit for years. If you can’t sell something at a loss, so many businesses would be breaking the law when they start out, maybe legitimately almost every single business. (edit: your stance would make Rivian be forced to sell cars for prices no one would pay)
If the intent was to destroy another company by doing it, then that could fall under anti-competitive laws. In this case, the intent isn’t to destroy other hardware, it would be to help stabalize the ridiculous increase in prices knowing they could make it up in game sales.