Just as Intel has regained much of its lost momentum in dominance of the microprocessor market, the European Commission (EC) accused Intel of alleged monopolist acts of anticompetition. Meanwhile entirely by coincidence (I'm sure) as Intel is facing these new legal issues, AMD announced upcoming processor plans designed to create a more competitive market.

As Intel and AMD continue to fight over market share, the variation in processor prices will continue to affect computer makers and retailers. As the biggest computer sales season arrives with the back to school shopping season, manufacturers and retailers alike are in a frenzy to adjust to the right pricing formula.

The European Commission allegations suppose Intel's renewed momentum in the market against AMD was based on three monopolist tactics:

First, Intel had provided 'substantial rebates' to several OEMs under the condition that they buy their microprocessors exclusively from Intel. Secondly, Intel paid OEMs if they delayed or canceled the roll-out of products based on AMD CPUs. Thirdly, Intel has offered microprocessors to server OEMs under cost in order to block the competitor.
(read more)

After many complaints and lost sales due to the high price of Sony's PS3, the decision to drop the price by $100 has brought the PS3 to a price more consumers might be willing to pay.

While Nintendo believes it won't affect the sales of the Wii because the PS3 is still double the price, Microsoft's best Xbox 360 product is only $20 cheaper which creates a much bigger threat on that front to Microsoft.

The PS3 initially overshot market demand when Sony launched what is objectively the best quality graphic gaming console ever on the market. Although the product was attractive to consumers, a leveragable cluster of market demand was not willing to part with $599 for the experience of even radically incremental improvements in performance, however the $100 decrease in price have increased PS3 sales by 135 percent.

As competition increases in the game console market, understanding the market demand curve is key because Sony has just crossed it. Because consumers were happy with the slightly less impressive Xbox 360, at $20 below than the PS3; so Microsoft will have no other choice but to cut their prices, possibly creating a price war in an already speciously profitable business of gaming consoles in order to drive sales of the real profit engine, the games themselves.

The combination of Apple's casual marketing plan and high quality products have struck a target market that has been hard to reach for most major companies. The tech savvy Generation Y (aka Millennials) have been characterized as being brand apathetic, resenting obvious ad campaigns that target their psychological profile, who are now the Applephiles supporting everything Apple; they also happen to be 32% of the consuming population. Apple's advertisements lately have been mostly for the iPod/iTunes/iPhone line of products, but all that buzz has rubbed off on the less publicized Mac.

While recently Apple's Mac didn't have the most spectacular growth with 26% (compared to competitors, Acer saw an explosion of 164% and Tobisha saw a 54% growth) the story doesn't lie in any specific percentages, it's the fact that Apple understands its target market, which has allowed them to tie with Gateway for market share. But PC makers aren't the only ones that need to worry about Apple growth in their markets, the recent iPhone has demonstrated that any market in the technology sector could be threatened by Apple. The Millennials are a generation big enough to hurt a boomer brand simply by giving it the cold shoulder.

It is first noted in 1999 that Apple realized that targeting Gen Y could be extremely beneficial though they weren't exactly on target when Allen Olivo, Apple's previous senior director for worldwide marketing, said, 'For this generation, the computer is like a hot rod. Still, acknowledging Gen Y early on proved beneficial as some of history's biggest brands got started by bonding with boomers early and following them from youth into middle age.(read more)

Last week Google's CEO Eric Schmidt wrote to the Kevin Martin, Chairman of the FCC saying that they would bid a minimum of $4.6 billion if certain open platform conditions were included in the auction award.

But there are a couple of billion other reasons why Google prefers the 700 MHz spectrum.

The 700 MHz mobile network would be inexpensive to build compared to any other alternatives - GigaOM says:

"...The spectrum, currently owned by broadcasters, has been used for analog television. But it is set to be turned over to the government in 2009. Due to its broadcast-attractive physics (like its ability to penetrate walls), this spectrum is desirable for both broadband communications in general and public-safety uses in particular.

Also, a 700 MHz mobile network would be relatively inexpensive to build compared to the alternatives:

"...According to some estimates, the cost of building a nationwide wireless network over the 700 MHz spectrum is around $2 billion versus a nationwide 1900MHz PCS that costs approximately $4 Billion. The costs are lower in rural areas, due to less interference issues and wide-open spaces. That's because each tower broadcasting at 700MHz covers twice as many square miles. Some estimates say that a single 700 MHz tower can cover 20-miles. (#)(read more)