GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

It comes down to simple math for the AIB. If you currently sell GPU's from both AMD and NVIDIA it's easy to figure out who to side with. More than likely, any company that sells both sells more NVIDIA GPUs than AMD GPUs. If the split is 70% / 30% for example, then the math is easy. If sanctions from NVIDIA would hurt NVIDIA GPU sales for a given AIB by more than 30%, then dropping AMD makes sense. While you lose those AMD sales, the GPP seems like it could make up some of those losses or at least stop you from bleeding those NVIDIA sales entirely.

Basically, the AIBs may not have much of a choice either.

The AIB's do have a choice they can all decide to refuse the program, sometimes collusion is a good thing.
 
The AIB's do have a choice they can all decide to refuse the program, sometimes collusion is a good thing.

Very true, but there will always be a company that sees greater profit by throwing everyone else to the wolves, even if it hurts them in the future.
 
The AIB's do have a choice they can all decide to refuse the program, sometimes collusion is a good thing.

Since most companies are ruled by the last quarter and current quarter, I have little faith in them making rational long term decisions like this one.

Hopefully with Kyle's article others will be emboldened to speak up.

Remember when Kyle was an nVidia shill according to AMD fans? :rolleyes:

when you call it like it is, people aren't always going to like you.
 
I think this is the key language here:

The program isn't exclusive. Partners continue to have the ability to sell and promote products from anyone. Partners choose to sign up for the program, and they can stop participating any time. There's no commitment to make any monetary payments or product discounts for being part of the program.

So according to this, GPP partners aren't restricted to selling only nVidia products but the brands partners use for nVidia based products must exclusive be if I'm interpreting this correct. If an OEM has a GameMaxx brand for their GPUs, all of those GPUs must be nVidia only parts.
 
I don't have a problem with Nvidia wanting their likeness and marketing to be consistent across brands. But that should not require participating vendors to give up their ability to sell other products, and possibly have limited access to NV cards if they don't participate.

If Nvidia wants this to work they are going to have to design the program that that is only offers benefits without restrictions. It's also rather weak of them to threaten this site for expressing a concern about a program. It's not like you are making an effort to publicly trash them.
 
Ive always come here for the {H}ard reviews and open and {H}onest reviews now i know where nvidia stands prolly without me soon it seems id rather sacrifice a few fps over nvidia now seems worth it.......thanks nvidia
 
It would've been smart for the AIBs to gather everyone in a meeting together and sign an agreement not to sign the GPP amidst anti-competitive legal concerns. However, it would have been difficult to convince any Nvidia-exclusive AIBs that this is in their best interest. It sounds like they could still sell AMD products, but they can't advertise them as being Gamer brand orientated; so consumers would have to choose between a product with plaine jane AMD Radeon listed on the back of the specs, or product with *rad explosion headset guy* Nvidia GTXFXRX 20 Gamer Graphics rated 10/10 Best of Gamers by PC Reviews, etc.
 
I think this is the key language here:



So according to this, GPP partners aren't restricted to selling only nVidia products but the brands partners use for nVidia based products must exclusive be if I'm interpreting this correct. If an OEM has a GameMaxx brand for their GPUs, all of those GPUs must be nVidia only parts.

That is from the Blog article, that just talks about the program. I am going to assume that the language in the actual program contract is significantly different then what they are trying to portray on their blog/marketing to consumers.
 
It sounds like they could still sell AMD products, but they can't advertise them as being Gamer brand orientated;

I don't think it's that general of a restriction. It's that whatever brands they use for their GPUs and other gaming oriented products have to have a brand specific to nVidia. And that's why I think this works legally for nVidia.
 
That is from the Blog article, that just talks about the program. I am going to assume that the language in the actual program contract is significantly different then what they are trying to portray on their blog/marketing to consumers.

Very true, I'm just guessing on pretty vague language. But from a legal standpoint if this is all about branding and cooperative marketing from nVidia then it doesn't draw anti-trust issues, at least to big ones. Not that it's cool, it forces OEMs to make up more brands and creates consumer confusion.
 
I keep hearing people talking in this thread like the problem with current video card prices/unavailability is a lack of GPUs to make them with. I didn't think that was actually much of an issue for either AMD or nVidia right now, I thought the big problem was price/availability of memory to make the cards.

I'm sure someone will scream at me if I'm wrong, but will availability of GPUs really be the limiting factor for the next 18 months or so in making video cards? Because I'm thinking it's much more of a memory issue.

The GPP is still crap, but it's perfectly in line with all of nVidia's past strategies...just taken to the next level.
 
Linus Tech Tips did a story the other day about how the "gamer" tagged hardware sells much better than non-gamer tagged hardware, even though it's virtually identical to non-gamer tagged. Nvidia is probably aware of this and wants to make sure anything with "Gamer" or something similar is a green card.
 
Let's hope the FTC, if it hasn't been de-fanged by the current administration and the EU are paying attention. Somehow I think the EU will respond more quickly and more strongly than the FTC.
 
Hey, another great editorial Kyle, hats down in front of you sir.

Actually I do not see this as such a big issue fellas. Now, from what I've read it seems that nV is aiming to get the branding names for their cards, so more ppl associate the "gaming" nVidia GPU's with certain brand. For smaller AIB's this will be an enormous issue. However, when you think of it, for example Asus have RoG right ? How about Strix? Could Asus get the GPP and use either brand (RoG) for nV GPU's and the other one (Strix) for AMD? This kinda seems logical to me. It may be unfair but let's be realists here, when you are ahead of the competition you always try to stay there. Basically nVidia want the branding names of the "gamers" so that they will be more recognized. Furthermore names like Aorus (for example) are not from long on the market (since Gigabyte started using that branding name again) so basically this has not a lot of power in. However, RoG is a totally different story.

Also I do not see how this will hurt EVGA which basically sell only nVidia GPU's and are one of the best AIB's for that one.

P.S. I doubt they will get sued, as the Intel shit was illegal as they used to give money under the table without offering a contract. Here you have the choice to either accept the contract or refuse it. Up 2 u.
 
I think this is the key language here:



So according to this, GPP partners aren't restricted to selling only nVidia products but the brands partners use for nVidia based products must exclusive be if I'm interpreting this correct. If an OEM has a GameMaxx brand for their GPUs, all of those GPUs must be nVidia only parts.

You're mixing up your terms. Companies with GPU brands would be AIBs. OEMs include companies like Dell, HP, Alienware, etc.

Based on that and what Kyle said in the article if it is limited to sub-brands it is still a problem. Those gaming sub-brands a big parts of these companies. A large portion of ASUS' cards for both sides are ROG cards, Gigabyte has been expanding their Aurous brand, MSI's Gaming brand is the vast majority of their GPUs. Beyond that, it hurts OEMs more. Imagine if Dell signs Alienware up or the program. That means Alienware could not sell AMD cards on any of its systems. Nvidia could probably get away with this if it was limited to AIBs, but including OEMs makes it a serious problem.
 
I'm not sure why people act all outraged when NVIDIA does stuff like this. It's not new behavior for them, but everyone keeps buying their hardware anyway. As long as everybody keeps giving them money, they have no incentive to quit.
 
Hey, another great editorial Kyle, hats down in front of you sir.

Actually I do not see this as such a big issue fellas. Now, from what I've read it seems that nV is aiming to get the branding names for their cards, so more ppl associate the "gaming" nVidia GPU's with certain brand. For smaller AIB's this will be an enormous issue. However, when you think of it, for example Asus have RoG right ? How about Strix? Could Asus get the GPP and use either brand (RoG) for nV GPU's and the other one (Strix) for AMD? This kinda seems logical to me. It may be unfair but let's be realists here, when you are ahead of the competition you always try to stay there. Basically nVidia want the branding names of the "gamers" so that they will be more recognized. Furthermore names like Aorus (for example) are not from long on the market (since Gigabyte started using that branding name again) so basically this has not a lot of power in. However, RoG is a totally different story.

Also I do not see how this will hurt EVGA which basically sell only nVidia GPU's and are one of the best AIB's for that one.

P.S. I doubt they will get sued, as the Intel shit was illegal as they used to give money under the table without offering a contract. Here you have the choice to either accept the contract or refuse it. Up 2 u.

Strix is part of ROG.

No, the Intel shit was illegal because they were forcing system builders to not use AMD parts and gave them incentives to do so. Intel gave more than cash. They gave product discounts, first access to product, and so on. Kyle even explained this in the article. "As you might recall, we have seen onerous terms such as those contained in GPP to have many similarities to Intel's once monopolistic business practices (versus AMD) in withholding MDF to partners. The results of that situation were huge multi-billion dollar fines for Intel. GPP has some striking similarities." It doesn't matter if its under the table or in a contract. Abusing a monopoly is illegal. That is what Intel did and that is what Nvidia is doing here.
 
So according to this, GPP partners aren't restricted to selling only nVidia products but the brands partners use for nVidia based products must exclusive be if I'm interpreting this correct. If an OEM has a GameMaxx brand for their GPUs, all of those GPUs must be nVidia only parts.
Perhaps not - but what does that look like in practice?

On launch day for their next GPU, the GPP partners all have cards ready-to-go for consumer resale, since they've gotten the exclusive benefits of the GPP program.
Meanwhile on launch day, the NON-GPP partners get a cardboard box containing 100 next-gen GPU cores and a printed hard copy of an Engineering Assembly Manual/Requirements document.
 
Linus Tech Tips did a story the other day about how the "gamer" tagged hardware sells much better than non-gamer tagged hardware, even though it's virtually identical to non-gamer tagged. Nvidia is probably aware of this and wants to make sure anything with "Gamer" or something similar is a green card.

I hate to agree with him, but he's actually right. Why do you think MSI rebranded everything "gaming", made it all red and black, and started throwing dragons on all their products a few years back? ASUS and GIGABYTE spun up Gaming brands while MSI went all in on their entire product line. The desktop market is a niche market where the only things that exist anymore are gaming and workstation systems. There are a handful of HTPC type builds but I'm fairly certain that smart TV's cut into those sales reducing them by large amounts.
 
Perhaps not - but what does that look like in practice?

On launch day for their next GPU, the GPP partners all have cards ready-to-go for consumer resale, since they've gotten the exclusive benefits of the GPP program.
Meanwhile on launch day, the NON-GPP partners get a cardboard box containing 100 next-gen GPU cores and a printed hard copy of an Engineering Assembly Manual/Requirements document.

So it's just like what AMD does now with Sapphire and XFX......

This is how any industry works. The companies that support the vendor the most gets the most benefits.
 
It comes down to simple math for the AIB. If you currently sell GPU's from both AMD and NVIDIA it's easy to figure out who to side with. More than likely, any company that sells both sells more NVIDIA GPUs than AMD GPUs. If the split is 70% / 30% for example, then the math is easy. If sanctions from NVIDIA would hurt NVIDIA GPU sales for a given AIB by more than 30%, then dropping AMD makes sense. While you lose those AMD sales, the GPP seems like it could make up some of those losses or at least stop you from bleeding those NVIDIA sales entirely.

Basically, the AIBs may not have much of a choice either.


Problem is with AMD doing so well most laptops will probably be Ryzen based and not to mention the new intel AMD APUs will probably be well received by OEMs, and them the Ryzen APUs also probably tempting. So they may have just declared war on 2 CPU providers that could turn around and say You can't use our CPUs with Nvidia GPUs
 
There is a difference. If you have a contractual agreement with someone, it is absolutely legal to do it. Because they are giving them a choice not like what Intel did. Furthermore, they are not requesting like Intel did that the AIB partners do not use products of other company. They request for the part of discounts, bundles and etc. (basically money) the branding of the "gamers" division. Basically they want to purchase that one so it will do it in their advantage. Which is understandable, it could be wrong on many levels but it seems ok to me. If they're gonna give money to someone, let that someone give something back isn't business supposed to work like this? And in regards to the Asus situation, Strix could be under the RoG branding. However, they can be easily separated into 2 different divisions. For example they keep RoG for nV and Strix for AMD so what?
 
It all depends on the definition of "gaming brand".

It'd be pretty funny to see an AIB sell "gaming" nVidia cards and "mining" AMD cards.
 
I have bought Asus ROG cards since they started the ROG brand both AMD and NVidia as I have two systems

if this stands and asus signs up for it I will stop buying NVidia even if I have to buy a console

Because Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo don't force exclusivity agreements or do even more underhanded stuff.
 
Problem is with AMD doing so well most laptops will probably be Ryzen based and not to mention the new intel AMD APUs will probably be well received by OEMs, and them the Ryzen APUs also probably tempting. So they may have just declared war on 2 CPU providers that could turn around and say You can't use our CPUs with Nvidia GPUs

NVIDIA doesn't care about pissing off Intel. Not only has NVIDIA strong armed Intel customers in the past, but it also suffered when it mouthed off to Intel the last time. Intel responded by slitting the throat of NVIDIA's chipset business and defecated on the corpse. A decision that ultimately forced NVIDIA to exit the chipset business entirely.
 
There is a difference. If you have a contractual agreement with someone, it is absolutely legal to do it. Because they are giving them a choice not like what Intel did. Furthermore, they are not requesting like Intel did that the AIB partners do not use products of other company. They request for the part of discounts, bundles and etc. (basically money) the branding of the "gamers" division. Basically they want to purchase that one so it will do it in their advantage. Which is understandable, it could be wrong on many levels but it seems ok to me. If they're gonna give money to someone, let that someone give something back isn't business supposed to work like this? And in regards to the Asus situation, Strix could be under the RoG branding. However, they can be easily separated into 2 different divisions. For example they keep RoG for nV and Strix for AMD so what?

Being in a contract does not automatically make something legal. The "options" OEMs and AIBs are given is to either bend over backwards to Nvidia's demands or get fucked when it comes to product launches and marketing.
 
Being in a contract does not automatically make something legal. The "options" OEMs and AIBs are given is to either bend over backwards to Nvidia's demands or get fucked when it comes to product launches and marketing.

Exactly. You can't contractually agree to something that's illegal and have it remain binding in court. Unfortunately, I think the legality of the GPP aren't all that clear to anyone who isn't an actual lawyer who works in this area.
 
Being in a contract does not automatically make something legal. The "options" OEMs and AIBs are given is to either bend over backwards to Nvidia's demands or get fucked when it comes to product launches and marketing.

It does not automatically make it legal, however, you have the options is that correct? Correct. Now it is up to you if you want to be in the first and get money or just to sell their GPU's. Perfectly legal, nVidia pay for the branding end of story. At the end of the day it's nVidia's money on the marketing part, but should it be all them? Just think of it like nVidia is your company, and that is it. Also I highly doubt that nVidia lawyers would allow something that will fuck'em up big time with getting sued their pants of off them.
 
Perhaps not - but what does that look like in practice?

On launch day for their next GPU, the GPP partners all have cards ready-to-go for consumer resale, since they've gotten the exclusive benefits of the GPP program.
Meanwhile on launch day, the NON-GPP partners get a cardboard box containing 100 next-gen GPU cores and a printed hard copy of an Engineering Assembly Manual/Requirements document.

And this is obviously where the trouble could be. Even from what nVidia said in its own blog it's going to give preferential treatment of GPP partners in the form of free marketing which is actually a standard type of arrangement in these kinds of deals. However if that preferential treatment does extend to chip supply then that's a clear anti-trust issue and I don't is written into a contract but no doubt OEMs probably think they will get the short end if they don't sign up.
 
It does not automatically make it legal, however, you have the options is that correct? Correct. Now it is up to you if you want to be in the first and get money or just to sell their GPU's. Perfectly legal, nVidia pay for the branding end of story. At the end of the day it's nVidia's money on the marketing part, but should it be all them? Just think of it like nVidia is your company, and that is it. Also I highly doubt that nVidia lawyers would allow something that will fuck'em up big time with getting sued their pants of off them.

Intel's lawyers allowed them to do shit that got them sued for billions of dollars. I don't know where people get this idea that having a legal team automatically means the company won't take illegal actions. Did lawyers stop Eron? How about AT&T? Microsoft?
 
In a more commodity level product like NAND you might be able to get away with this if company A had a quantifiably better product than B, C, D, etc.

In this field where you only have one competitor and you actually trade blows among most price points it's not being done to upsell your product quality, it's definitely to knock them out of the arena.

I think NVidia would like AMD gone so they can focus on machine learning and their budding server market. Having to actually keep innovating in the gaming space isn't cheap and for lesser margins.
 
It does not automatically make it legal, however, you have the options is that correct? Correct. Now it is up to you if you want to be in the first and get money or just to sell their GPU's. Perfectly legal, nVidia pay for the branding end of story. At the end of the day it's nVidia's money on the marketing part, but should it be all them? Just think of it like nVidia is your company, and that is it. Also I highly doubt that nVidia lawyers would allow something that will fuck'em up big time with getting sued their pants of off them.

Using this program to withhold supply against partners that don't sign up, that's heading into anti-trust territory.
 
I think that this is a stupid move on nVidias part, but don’t forget that there are investors behind the scene who want the bottom line to continue increasing so that they can rake in returns on their investments. This could be an underhanded way to try and increase the bottom line to satisfy investors. If nVidia is doing this like some iron fisted dictator wanting a stranglehold on the market then this is disgraceful and I refuse to knowingly support such business practices.
 
Intel's lawyers allowed them to do shit that got them sued for billions of dollars. I don't know where people get this idea that having a legal team automatically means the company won't take illegal actions. Did lawyers stop Eron? How about AT&T? Microsoft?

Companies always do a cost / risk analysis and determine what the best business strategy is. If they can make billions of dollars doing something illegal and pay out 10% of their profits when they are reaping 60% or more net profit, it makes sense to just take the hit from the illegal action that makes them tons of money. It's just like automakers deciding to just pay out for lawsuits rather than recall vehicles for defects that are deemed dangerous. It's only when the amount of lawsuits would cost them more than the cost of the recall that a recall notice is issued.
 
Back
Top