GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

I know how these things work, I don't know the full details of these programs, go check my post to a moderator of this very forum about my background.

Public hearsay hurts a companies court case if there are grounds for such a case. No sane attorney will tell AMD go talk to the public about their problems if they are going to court!

Its like when a person is accused of murder, the attorney says shut up I'll do the talking for you, even in court lol.
I don't care what you think you know about "these things" or your background. It is irrelevant here. We can only go by the information Kyle has presented and can only weight it against the credibility we think he does or doesn't hold. While I have my thoughts about him and clash with him more often than not, I can't deny his past good record and lack of BS and drama queen antics when it comes to reporting on tech related issues like these.
 
I don't care what you think you know about "these things" or your background. It is irrelevant here. We can only go by the information Kyle has presented and can only weight it against the credibility we think he does or doesn't hold. While I have my thoughts about him and clash with him more often than not, I can't deny his past good record and lack of BS and drama queen antics when it comes to reporting on tech related issues like these.


He has credibility, I have stated this too, the program the way its outlined seems like it can be used for something more, but right now, its probably not, because AMD wouldn't have taken the route it did.

The problem here is people are calling foul, without understanding the reasons for why AMD pushed this to the public, AMD fears this program, for good reason, it will utterly decimate their gaming brand name. They have no recourse because their products can't match up against nV and its going to be worse in the coming months.
 
We don't know the terms of the program, nor does Kyle. AMD how ever does, they must know it, they know what is happening to their AIB partners, there is NO FUCKIN way around that, they wouldn't go out to try to get others to look into it if they didn't know what is in there.

Can you understand this, when a reaction to something happens, how is that reaction demonstrated shows us many things about what is going on in a persons head.

And when you know how things like this are done in court when things are illegal and what are not, you know when a person reacts to it by going to the public they have no FUCKIN grounds to stand up on. That is why they went to the public.
I have documents with the program terms and I discussed the one that was worthy of noting in the article. I appreciate the argument you are making, but it does not hold water with me, and I am the one person involved in this discussion that has read the documentation. From what I have read, I think there is certainly a lawsuit(s) pending and those will come to the public's attention very soon.

That said, we have read your opinion on this over and over now in this thread, we understand your argument, you do not need to keep reposting it since there are people that are giving differing opinions.
 
lol, so AMD is screwed either way and shame on them for not thinking of it first?

Business isn't a charity. AMD/RTG have always had difficulty being competitive and turning a profit. If AMD and the AIBs/OEMs think they've been presented with illegal terms, then let them sort it out in a court of law and see how far they get.
 
We don't know the terms of the program, nor does Kyle.
You are calling Kyle a liar again. It's ok if you are, I don't know if he reported the truth, but do state openly that you think the reported facts from the article are false so we know from which positions we're discussing here.
 
You you are applauding the deceptive party and blame the latter for not doing the same?

You call it deceptive because it's a label you choose to use. I see it as a good business move to preserve brand value and recognition, especially given their market penetration. I have no doubt in my mind that if the roles were reversed, AMD would do the same thing and try to get away with it.
 
You call it deceptive because it's a label you choose to use. I see it as a good business move to preserve brand value and recognition, especially given their market penetration. I have no doubt in my mind that if the roles were reversed, AMD would do the same thing and try to get away with it.

Then yes, exactly you applaud NVidia and demonize AMD for not being smart enough to do it themselves. OK, gotcha.
 
Kyle, just one question, why do you think AMD didn't get a preliminary injunction of that was the case? You understand that is the first step to starting a law suit correct? This is where both sides of the potential suit come together and present evidence from their sides, after which then the lawsuit happens. Lawsuits don't happen just like that.

There is another type of injunction, can't remember the name right now, but where nV doesn't even need to be there, AMD just needs to present the it and if a judge finds it favorable, the injunction happens and then nV is informed.
I have already answered that above, but you chose to ignore that, just as you will ignore any other argument against yours. As noted above, we read your thoughts on this, you do not need to post those again. Besides you have already stated above you do not even believe what I have written at this point, so why would I want to further invite your discussion.

If you keep posting the same thing over and over, your access to this sub will be removed.
 
And this is a clear 1st Amendment issue. AMD comes out with the RX 600 or whatever for gaming, creates a marketing package with demos, benchmarks, etc. about gaming. But AMD partners that are also GPP members can in no way use the materials from AMD to talk about the RX 600's gaming capabilities? Totally and complete unenforceable and a clear 1st Amendment problem that's beyond obvious. Unless those GPP partners signed an agreement that SPECIALLY said they can't use AMD marketing and then that gets more into anti-trust.

I'd really like to know why a company in Taiwan would give a fuck about United States citizens' First Amendment right to not have free speech infringed by the US government.
 
You are calling Kyle a liar again. It's ok if you are, I don't know if he reported the truth, but do state openly that you think the reported facts from the article are false so we know from which positions we're discussing here.

To be completely honest what "facts" were reported which show that this program is "anti-consumer" or in any way illegal?
NONE. Sources which do not go on record, unfounded allegations, and AMD peddling this story all make me very skeptical.
 
I'd really like to know why a company in Taiwan would give a fuck about United States citizens' First Amendment right to not have free speech infringed by the US government.


If they want to sell their products here they have to.
 
If they want to sell their products here they have to.

I still am not seeing infringement of free speech by the government over citizens, even with the term citizen expansively being used to include corporations. Unless you're somehow suggesting that the government would be committing a first amendment violation by trying to dictate to corporations how they are allowed to advertise.
 
Err the thing with these types of cases there is some overlap, its called commercial speech, but yeah its not very concrete at best. Its not governed by the 1st amendment directly. But it can fall into it depending on how its being used. Its weird like that, complicated.

http://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html
 
I'd really like to know why a company in Taiwan would give a fuck about United States citizens' First Amendment right to not have free speech infringed by the US government.

For the same reasons a Taiwanese company would care what an American company told them to do. At any rate, if the GPP is that egregious I'm guessing that AMD would bring suit against nVidia in the US court system. If AMD can't market its gaming GPUs as gaming GPUs under no circumstance with GPP partners, this is guaranteed to go to court in the US. It may even if GPP isn't even that draconian.
 
Last edited:
Err the thing with these types of cases there is some overlap, its called commercial speech, but yeah its not very concrete at best. Its not governed by the 1st amendment directly. But it can fall into it depending on how its being used. Its weird like that, complicated.

http://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html

I'm aware of it being complicated (I work for a very large publisher). What would be a fascinating case study would be how this would be a first amendment issue if it were, say, only between the international offices of AMD, ASUS, and nVidia (all having headquarters outside the US) and the marketing agreements thereof, and then based on those agreements being made outside of the US, selling inside the US. Interesting, no?
 
I'm aware of it being complicated (I work for a very large publisher). What would be a fascinating case study would be how this would be a first amendment issue if it were, say, only between the international offices of AMD, ASUS, and nVidia (all having headquarters outside the US) and the marketing agreements thereof, and then based on those agreements being made outside of the US, selling inside the US. Interesting, no?

I agree it would be nice to know more about this lol.

They have to abide by the rules and regulations of the country they are selling in. Doesn't matter where their headquarters are.

I don't know the logistics of international laws, cause that will also take part in something like this too. But here in the US, there has been 1st amendment cases with advertising, and in some cases it was found to fall under the 1st amendment. It gets all murky because the FTC is involved, supreme court has their laws. Messaging is more, ephemeral, so its hard to point to it and say where it actual falls.
 
Kyle, just one question, why do you think AMD didn't get a preliminary injunction of that if that was case? You understand that is the first step to starting a law suit correct? This is where both sides of the potential suit come together and present evidence from their sides, after which then the lawsuit happens. Lawsuits don't happen just like that.

There is another type of injunction, can't remember the name right now, but where nV doesn't even need to be there, AMD just needs to present it and if a judge finds it favorable, the injunction happens and then nV is informed.
Just because it was screaming in my brain the whole time I was reading your posts trying to catch up on this thread I wanted to mention that the way AMD found out about this might not be legal, or at least they might not be able to use it as evidence to get an injunction without incriminating some AIB/OEM partner who slipped them a copy of the document...the same reason I'm assuming Kyle isn't sharing it with us.

With this kind of information you gotta be REAL careful with your sources and not to burn them, someone who would have access to the agreement and willing to share it on the down low are a source that trusts you and you had damned well better return that trust!

Just thought I'd point it out since you seemed to have missed the obvious, but it's not really legal to make other people's private contracts public and there can be severe repercussions from that for a bunch of people involved. We're lucky enough that Kyle got a chance to look at it and is willing to even give us his opinion on it, or else we wouldn't know any of this.
 
evidence in this type of case, they don't need to mention where they got the evidence from, not to get an injunction. Fruit of the poisonous tree is pretty much what you are talking about and what i was getting at, by going out to the public the evidence becomes tainted, my understanding is that is for on evidence that they will be used in the lawsuit, not what predicates the lawsuit, the difference is the evidence collected after the injunction is what is need to fill the terms of the lawsuit.

Yeah that is true it can burn many people and that info shouldn't be divulged.

I pmed Kyle on the matter anyways so lets not discuss it here as its becoming a shit show about talking why people have views based on their credentials instead of actually talking about what the issues are.
 
Last edited:
Just because it was screaming in my brain the whole time I was reading your posts trying to catch up on this thread I wanted to mention that the way AMD found out about this might not be legal, or at least they might not be able to use it as evidence to get an injunction without incriminating some AIB/OEM partner who slipped them a copy of the document...the same reason I'm assuming Kyle isn't sharing it with us.

With this kind of information you gotta be REAL careful with your sources and not to burn them, someone who would have access to the agreement and willing to share it on the down low are a source that trusts you and you had damned well better return that trust!

Just thought I'd point it out since you seemed to have missed the obvious, but it's not really legal to make other people's private contracts public and there can be severe repercussions from that for a bunch of people involved. We're lucky enough that Kyle got a chance to look at it and is willing to even give us his opinion on it, or else we wouldn't know any of this.

Whistleblower protections...
 
The closest AMD has come to being competitive in mobile lately is their collaboration with Intel- and while important and useful in terms of performance/volume, it's not really competitive any other way.

Well... was about to pull the trigger on a Titan XP from nvidia.com directly... glad I didn't submit the order ~.~

You guys need to understand when a company does questionable things then you just don't buy their products. Even if Nvidia has the better product, doesn't mean you buy it when they do anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices. That means you don't buy Nvidia GPU's, not from NewEgg or Nvidia.com, and that means you avoid their GPU's on laptops. Gotta hurt their bottom line to make them understand.
 
You guys need to understand when a company does questionable things then you just don't buy their products. Even if Nvidia has the better product, doesn't mean you buy it when they do anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices. That means you don't buy Nvidia GPU's, not from NewEgg or Nvidia.com, and that means you avoid their GPU's on laptops. Gotta hurt their bottom line to make them understand.

You know what, we'll all just stop gaming. That'll learn 'em!
 
You guys need to understand when a company does questionable things then you just don't buy their products. Even if Nvidia has the better product, doesn't mean you buy it when they do anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices. That means you don't buy Nvidia GPU's, not from NewEgg or Nvidia.com, and that means you avoid their GPU's on laptops. Gotta hurt their bottom line to make them understand.

No. What anti-consumer practice has Nvidia actually implemented at this point?
Proof please, not baseless accusations and manufactured outrage.
 
Kyle, just one question, why do you think AMD didn't get a preliminary injunction of that if that was case? You understand that is the first step to starting a law suit correct? This is where both sides of the potential suit come together and present evidence from their sides, after which then the lawsuit happens. Lawsuits don't happen just like that.

There is another type of injunction, can't remember the name right now, but where nV doesn't even need to be there, AMD just needs to present it and if a judge finds it favorable, the injunction happens and then nV is informed.

If it was so easy to simply file a law suit against a company BEFORE they did anything the courts would be even more bogged down with crap. ATI is likely shopping this story in the hopes NV will do the right thing and back off. Frankly this case would cost AMD a fortune... they are not in possession of the documents in any legal way. When 2 companies sign a contract they don't go an send a copy to their competition... or their other suppliers. If making someone like Kyle aware shakes loose documents that would be very good for AMD.

For AMD to gather the evidence needed to forward such a case it would have to be going on long enough for them to somehow legally obtain evidence of wrong doing... or have one of their partners come forward. (which I am sure NV would make no picnic 99% chances are any contracts NV has had or will have signed with their suppliers have clauses designed to punish any parties squealing)

AMD catching wind of such a move and trying to engage the tech press to shine a light on it before it gets out of hand is really there only play at this point. The courts are going to be a long drawn out process which is going to cost AMD a fortune to investigate and execute. From what I have heard of this so far from the one guy we have heard from that has read paper work... NV would very likely loose a few different potential cases, but by the time that shakes out if NV convinces 90% of the OEM world to play ball AMD could go without a "gaming" marketed card for years.
 
No. What anti-consumer practice has Nvidia actually implemented at this point?
Proof please, not baseless accusations and manufactured outrage.
They have 70% of sales, and are forcing card and laptop makers to sell Nvidia and only Nvidia products when they enter the GPP program. That's a great way to funnel consumers to buy Nvidia over competitors.

You know what, we'll all just stop gaming. That'll learn 'em!
They kinda did that already with crypto optimized drivers. But my point is you could buy AMD graphic cards, if it wasn't for the 100% increase in MSRP.
 
If it was so easy to simply file a law suit against a company BEFORE they did anything the courts would be even more bogged down with crap. ATI is likely shopping this story in the hopes NV will do the right thing and back off. Frankly this case would cost AMD a fortune... they are not in possession of the documents in any legal way. When 2 companies sign a contract they don't go an send a copy to their competition... or their other suppliers. If making someone like Kyle aware shakes loose documents that would be very good for AMD.

For AMD to gather the evidence needed to forward such a case it would have to be going on long enough for them to somehow legally obtain evidence of wrong doing... or have one of their partners come forward. (which I am sure NV would make no picnic 99% chances are any contracts NV has had or will have their suppliers sign have clauses designed to punish any parties squealing)

AMD catching wind of such a move and trying to engage the tech press to shine a light on it before it gets out of hand is really there only play at this point. The courts are going to be a long drawn out process which is going to cost AMD a fortune to investigate and execute.

The most high profile case of anti-competitive behavior in tech in the last generation was the US vs. Microsoft. And while Microsoft wasn't destroyed, they essentially lost and it reigned in their power and they drew scrutiny even to this day across the world. If this really is as bad as it could be there is no choice but to fight it in a similar fashion and I think AMD would have no problem finding allies with even deeper pockets than nVidia to help them. I'm guessing that Apple, Intel and Microsoft would be happy to chip in if this is really that bad.
 
You guys need to understand when a company does questionable things then you just don't buy their products. Even if Nvidia has the better product, doesn't mean you buy it when they do anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices. That means you don't buy Nvidia GPU's, not from NewEgg or Nvidia.com, and that means you avoid their GPU's on laptops. Gotta hurt their bottom line to make them understand.

Pretty much what I did there.... :)
 
The only way to "punish" a company is to simply not buy their products. That's why they covet monopolies. It allows them to get away with shadier and shadier things to make more money.

If the GPU market was better my GTX 970 would be replaced my a 580 (a bit of a sideways update though).
 
evidence in this type of case, they don't need to mention where they got the evidence from, not to get an injunction. Fruit of the poisonous tree is pretty much what you are talking about and what i was getting at, by going out to the public the evidence becomes tainted, my understanding is that is for on evidence that they will be used in the lawsuit, not what predicates the lawsuit, the difference is the evidence collected after the injunction is what is need to fill the terms of the lawsuit.

Yeah that is true it can burn many people and that info shouldn't be divulged.

I pmed Kyle on the matter anyways so lets not discuss it here as its becoming a shit show about talking why people have views based on their credentials instead of actually talking about what the issues are.
Yeah, we all need to shut up now that this is a shitshow....not that you had anything to do with that.
 
The most high profile case of anti-competitive behavior in tech in the last generation was the US vs. Microsoft. And while Microsoft wasn't destroyed, they essentially lost and it reigned in their power and they drew scrutiny even to this day across the world. If this really is as bad as it could be there is no choice but to fight it in a similar fashion and I think AMD would have no problem finding allies with even deeper pockets than nVidia to help them. I'm guessing that Apple, Intel and Microsoft would be happy to chip in if this is really that bad.

Not sure anyone said this was on the level of MS Dbaggary.

No this is more on the level of Intel vs Cyrix/AMD back in the 90s when they tried to strong arm OEMs into either not selling other chips at all or relegating them to budget low ball hardware mostly intended for third rate markets.

NV has been long on this road... with Crap like "the way its meant to be played" which was always a handful of legal wording away from being illegal. NV tried to block competition when they bought physx and they have tried many times to pull a MS when it came to standards. Getting the gaming industry to use their standards, frameworks instead of open cross vendor options. When it comes to NV of course their goal is to ensure software using such frameworks runs best on their hardware. MS has used DX to try and lock gaming to their systems.... NV has attempted to use theirs to lock gaming to their hardware.

Its important as consumers that we continue to demand software developers use open frameworks, that are free and cross platform. (no this is not an anti windows post) Its important so that hardware companies can innovate and new players can jump in without having to licence closed source frameworks or worse be denied such a licence. Yes DirectX, Physx, Cuda, Gameworks and I'm sure a bunch of other proprietary closed source frameworks/apis I'm forgetting should all die in a fire somewhere.

Anyway not trying to slide into a completely different topic here. Just saying from what I'm hearing this doesn't sound like its on the level of what MS was doing back in the 90s at this point at least. However NV has been on that road imo for some times and it sounds like they are at least thinking about taking things down the same road that yes MS went down, strong arming and scaring their OEMs into line. Yes it didn't work out for MS... or did it. I guess you could argue MS got exactly what they set out to win with their illegal moves... and the judgements against them hardly penalized them hard enough considering they bought themselves 20+ years of PC dominance.

Hopefully NV backs off, before things get legal. (or before we all have to start buying AMD cards pitched to miners.... lol ok bad joke right now)
 
As a partner.. couldn't the Companies establish competing lines. The Asus ROG N+ line and the ASUS ROG A+ Line... would that not be enough differentiation or would that meet the terms and spirit of the GPP membership allowing them to continue to produce cards with both companies chipsets?
 
I know how these things work, I don't know the full details of these programs, go check my post to a moderator of this very forum about my background.

Public hearsay hurts a companies court case if there are grounds for such a case. No sane attorney will tell AMD go talk to the public about their problems if they are going to court!

Its like when a person is accused of murder, the attorney says shut up I'll do the talking for you, even in court lol.

Actually you dont know jack about it. Secondly it's a common thing to talk to the press when you think a competitor is using shady practices to hurt you. Your suppliers cant say much so they wont back you in a court of law cause they fear they will suffer repercussions from it. So if you can get the press to pick up on the story and throw some light on some dark corners of said program then you can often stop the competitor from launching said program cause now it looks bad and everyone is asking lots of uncomfortable questions. Once it's all over the news it's not uncommon for the government to start asking questions as well cause they dont want to look like they are not doing their jobs. Getting a injunction is very difficult, you have to prove it would damage your company beyond repair and judges really dont understand the tech world very well. This tactic is far more common then you know.
 
Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups, can't assume things. Does it look shady, yeah, but don't know yet.

The particulars of a business deal is never transparent to the consumer, the transparency that the GPP provides is not the business dealings........

If nV threatened Kyle, you don't think he wouldn't have stated that? At this point you need to ask him if he was threatened by nV, I doubt he was, because if he was, he would have stated it was nV, from what it read like it sounded like an AIB guy that he talked to stated that and that AIB guy wanted to be anonymous so he kept his name out of it.

You mean the implied future retaliation towards the founder/editor of this web site for reporting what he knew doesn't look shady enough yet?

The thought processes of some people in here makes my head hurt. They're not penalties; they're benefits! It's completely voluntary! (Can you hear AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner giggling in the background?) Nvidia is merely making an offer the AIBs and OEMs can't refuse!

It always seems to happen when some company (take your pick) does something which is anti-consumer, causing some people to complain, another group will let us know there's nothing to see here, or worse, try to paint it as some sort of innocent (sometimes noble) exercise of corporate rights and freedoms. Case in point: the wreck of a post (#580) before this one.

As if direct frontal attacks on end users are the only kind of move that can be anti-consumer! Subtle backroom stuff like this that tries to squeeze competitors in various ways isn't actually anti-consumer, it's pro-business! It's fair enough to say not all anti-consumer practices are illegal; some are merely distasteful, and there is a sliding scale from minor to severe, but anyone --short of people who work at or own parts of the perpetrating company-- who would applaud this sort of thing make themselves look pretty scuzzy.

Or how about the angle that they're just trying to prevent brand dilution! Really if Nvidia is that upset about Asus ROG or MSI Gaming being used with competitor products, I'm sure Foxconn would welcome an order for 10 million GTX 1060 cards which Nvidia could brand as they please if they're not happy with "ROG Geforce GTX" branding. But why shoulder the burden of setting up their own AIB business infrastructure when they can make a play for the extra control and future benefits by making Gigabyte an offer they can't refuse?

I felt more sad to hear stuff like this coming from someone who claims 23 years of experience in the industry (more than Kyle in case you didn't hear) than I would have been if that person had come out and said they were a teen scraping cash together for their first gaming PC because I could excuse being naive and blinkered on youth. 23 years of experience certainly hasn't translated into any street smarts.

For the people nitpicking at the edges to discredit Kyle's report (Kyle got the information from AMD! Kyle is misinterpreting things! Kyle doesn't have perfect information! Kyle only has anonymous sources! Kyle doesn't have a smoking gun because he hasn't done any paternity tests yet!) you may as well take a stand and come out and say that you believe the AIB people Kyle interviewed were mistaken about this or that you think Kyle is wrong about this. I'd still think you're a fool but others might respect you more for going all in instead of flinging this passive-aggressive nonsense.

Not saying that he can't be wrong but after his previous (negative) reporting on AMD and breaking the news on the Intel/AMD deal I would have thought you people would have learned by now. I trust the reporting. But what do I know? I didn't think the story as written had that much wiggle room for interpretation but many others seem to have found a lot of creative possibilities while others don't appear to have actually read the story in its entirety at all.
 
Last edited:
1) Since 10 people were asking him similar things, then he is forced to give 10 similar answers!! It's not his fault if gets asked the same things over and over again!! If you wanted to be fair you should warn him, as long as all the others who are asking the same questions towards him !!
2) My opinion is exactly the same with razor1 's : when you have a strong legal leverage, you go to courts, you don't spread these info into the public, since -just like razor1 mentioned-, the public isn't aware of legal terms, so your only goal (*the company i mean) is to create hype & impressions.
(*but this shouldn't surprise me, since all AMD has been doing for years , prior to FuryX 's release and afterwards, is just creating hype & impressions, which, afterwards, their released products completely fail to justify !! I've seen this tactic too many times from AMD, it gets really boring nowadays :yuck: )
3) From what i understood, NVidia herself approached you, -a tech journalist-, asking for your opinion on the matter. They would have to be idiots if they shared their program with a journalist and think that these info will remain private!!! So this proves that it wasn't NV's intention to keep this program secret.
4) And finally, a general comment:
From logical point of view, i can't understand the fault about this program:
In short, NV is willing to give special benefits to any AIB that will work with them in this program, is that right ? Where exactly is the fault in that ? Do they say anywhere that they will force anyone to participate unwilingly ?? Apparently, No !!! So IF the AIBs feel that this agreement can lead them to benefits, then where exactly is the problem ???
The only problem -from what i understand- is that AMD is complaining that they will be pressed even harder at the marketshare. well :
4a)
That's AMD's problem,just like their recent laptop-agreement with Intel is against NVidia's interests, what's the difference ? companies make or break deals all the time if it's beneficial to them !! &
4b)
The argument expressed by the "power community" is that the consumers will be "hurt" if the market is shifted even more towards NVidia. BUT... If this statement is correct, then it should apply for the OS systems as well, where Microsoft dominates the gaming market with their OS for decades, but ironicaly in this case no "power-user" is saying that this "hurts" the consumer's interests, no "power-user" is saying let's stop bying their products because this is damaging our interests from consumer-perspective (*which is their exact argument towards NVidia !! that if AMD looses ground this won't be beneficial to consumers in longterm!! So why wouldn't this argument apply for the OS area as well ?? and why the "power-community" doesn't say the same arguments for the windows OS as well?? )
Thanks for you input.
 
1) Since 10 people were asking him similar things, then he is forced to give 10 similar answers!! It's not his fault if gets asked the same things over and over again!! If you wanted to be fair you should warn him, as long as all the others who are asking the same questions towards him !!
2) My opinion is exactly the same with razor1 's : when you have a strong legal leverage, you go to courts, you don't spread these info into the public, since -just like razor1 mentioned-, the public isn't aware of legal terms, so your only goal (*the company i mean) is to create hype & impressions.
(*but this shouldn't surprise me, since all AMD has been doing for years , prior to FuryX 's release and afterwards, is just creating hype & impressions, which, afterwards, their released products completely fail to justify !! I've seen this tactic too many times from AMD, it gets really boring nowadays :yuck: )
3) From what i understood, NVidia herself approached you, -a tech journalist-, asking for your opinion on the matter. They would have to be idiots if they shared their program with a journalist and think that these info will remain private!!! So this proves that it wasn't NV's intention to keep this program secret.
4) And finally, a general comment:
From logical point of view, i can't understand the fault about this program:
In short, NV is willing to give special benefits to any AIB that will work with them in this program, is that right ? Where exactly is the fault in that ? Do they say anywhere that they will force anyone to participate unwilingly ?? Apparently, No !!! So IF the AIBs feel that this agreement can lead them to benefits, then where exactly is the problem ???
The only problem -from what i understand- is that AMD is complaining that they will be pressed even harder at the marketshare. well :
4a)
That's AMD's problem,just like their recent laptop-agreement with Intel is against NVidia's interests, what's the difference ? companies make or break deals all the time if it's beneficial to them !! &
4b)
The argument expressed by the "power community" is that the consumers will be "hurt" if the market is shifted even more towards NVidia. BUT... If this statement is correct, then it should apply for the OS systems as well, where Microsoft dominates the gaming market with their OS for decades, but ironicaly in this case no "power-user" is saying that this "hurts" the consumer's interests, no "power-user" is saying let's stop bying their products because this is damaging our interests from consumer-perspective (*which is their exact argument towards NVidia !! that if AMD looses ground this won't be beneficial to consumers in longterm!! So why wouldn't this argument apply for the OS area as well ?? and why the "power-community" doesn't say the same arguments for the windows OS as well?? )

1) I am guilty sometimes of not reading ahead before responding. I just don't do in threads Kyle cares about. Kidden seriously we should likely all read a head a bit and mass quote if its called for.
2) No one is talking about hype or marketing speak or anything else. This is about one company forcing OEMs to not use specific key words when describing products they haven't touched. Unless you believe NV could patent the words "game(ing)" in relation to GPUs. They are end rounding that by offering OEMs continued high levels of support. Make no mistake the things they are offering to stop doing if OEMS don't sign are things they where already doing. They are not adding value here they are subtracting if the protection marketing isn't paid.
3) OF COURSE it was not their intention to keep it secret. This is a "Nvidia Inside" program. It only works if tech sites are all on board with glowing reviews of "Nvidia Inside" gaming approved branded cards. The idea is every review site, every OEM... the entire industry is supposed to fawn over NV and NV alone, and AMD/INTEL/PowerVR(I can dream) cards are to be marketed as lesser then OR ELSE.
4) This sounds a lot like the rebate programs Intel ran at one point. Dell for instance in one quarter recieved payments from Intel = to 75% of their operating income for that quarter to keep AMD out of Dell computers. Now what NV is doing with this program is the exact same thing, they are offering tangible cash value services and it sounds like actual marketing dollars to keep AMD out of manufacturers "gaming" line products. To a court this will read exactly the same and be equally illegal.
4a) AMDs laptop deal with Intel does not stop say HP from selling laptops using NV product. Frankly that deal is a different thing all together and is 100% NV fault for over charging Intel for licencing. I think its pretty safe to say Intel would MUCH rather have had NV licence them the GPU patents needed to continue selling the Intel/Intel Product and not get into bed with one of their largest direct compedititors.
4b) pay attention a lot of us have been complaining about MS and their toxic relationship with gaming for a long time. lol Go hit the Linux forum on this very site... and poke around the net a bit. Check out projects like Vulcan... yes MS has held/set PC gaming back. None of us should have ever purchased on Game whose developers had used DirectX. Outside of ID very few developers have stuck to open APIs as a general rule.
 
1) Since 10 people were asking him similar things, then he is forced to give 10 similar answers!! It's not his fault if gets asked the same things over and over again!! If you wanted to be fair you should warn him, as long as all the others who are asking the same questions towards him !!
You mean, 10 people stated their opinion and he had to state his 10 times.

2) My opinion is exactly the same with razor1 's : when you have a strong legal leverage, you go to courts, you don't spread these info into the public, since -just like razor1 mentioned-, the public isn't aware of legal terms, so your only goal (*the company i mean) is to create hype & impressions.
(*but this shouldn't surprise me, since all AMD has been doing for years , prior to FuryX 's release and afterwards, is just creating hype & impressions, which, afterwards, their released products completely fail to justify !! I've seen this tactic too many times from AMD, it gets really boring nowadays :yuck: )
Aaaand we're back to AMD being the bad guy in this story. It's not like it's completely unimportant who pointed to there possibly being an issue or that we have a guy with a good track record in the industry giving us the results and thoughts from his own investigation and contacts with all the involved parties. Nah, AMD tattled and they're just shady and lying and nothing else matters here.

3) From what i understood, NVidia herself approached you, -a tech journalist-, asking for your opinion on the matter. They would have to be idiots if they shared their program with a journalist and think that these info will remain private!!! So this proves that it wasn't NV's intention to keep this program secret.

A tech journo asked them about potentially shady shit they're doing, revealing to them he already has info there is something going on, and they didn't try to hide it? What a shocker! It's not like they would look like morons if they had tried to deny it then. Yes, they asked him what his issues with it were and went radio silent after that.

4) And finally, a general comment:
From logical point of view, i can't understand the fault about this program:
In short, NV is willing to give special benefits to any AIB that will work with them in this program, is that right ? Where exactly is the fault in that ? Do they say anywhere that they will force anyone to participate unwilingly ?? Apparently, No !!! So IF the AIBs feel that this agreement can lead them to benefits, then where exactly is the problem ???
The only problem -from what i understand- is that AMD is complaining that they will be pressed even harder at the marketshare. well :
4a)
That's AMD's problem,just like their recent laptop-agreement with Intel is against NVidia's interests, what's the difference ? companies make or break deals all the time if it's beneficial to them !! &

Two men enter into the "Luigi's bar".
Men: "Hi, there, we are the ones supplying your bar with 70% of booze and we would like to give you an offer you can't refuse."
Men: "We want you to only sell our booze as "drinks" and the other guy's booze as "liquid substance".
Bar owner: "Nah, we're good, 30% of our customers like to order the other stuff as drinks too."
Men: "But we will offer you help, we will provide money and support for marketing of your bar, you'll get special deals on 70% of you booze, special training how to make it and store it and all sorts of goodies. We will take you into our family and we will even protect you from any harsh consequences you might get by isolating yourself from our generosity. Oh, and did we mention there is a country wide shortage of booze currently? It would be a shame if you would turn us down and anything would happen to your fam...ability to sell 70% of your inventory the best you could."


4b)
The argument expressed by the "power community" is that the consumers will be "hurt" if the market is shifted even more towards NVidia. BUT... If this statement is correct, then it should apply for the OS systems as well, where Microsoft dominates the gaming market with their OS for decades, but ironicaly in this case no "power-user" is saying that this "hurts" the consumer's interests, no "power-user" is saying let's stop bying their products because this is damaging our interests from consumer-perspective (*which is their exact argument towards NVidia !! that if AMD looses ground this won't be beneficial to consumers in longterm!! So why wouldn't this argument apply for the OS area as well ?? and why the "power-community" doesn't say the same arguments for the windows OS as well?? )
If Microsoft came to a company selling PCs and told them they are offering them special deals on Windows machines and imply they might not be a priority when it comes to shipping Windows OS copies to them if they refuse to take the deal, but they can only sell those machines as "for business" line and can only sell Linux machines as "for something other than business use", yeah, it would be a problem.
 
Last edited:
1) I am guilty sometimes of not reading ahead before responding. I just don't do in threads Kyle cares about. Kidden seriously we should likely all read a head a bit and mass quote if its called for.
2) No one is talking about hype or marketing speak or anything else. This is about one company forcing OEMs to not use specific key words when describing products they haven't touched. Unless you believe NV could patent the words "game(ing)" in relation to GPUs. They are end rounding that by offering OEMs continued high levels of support. Make no mistake the things they are offering to stop doing if OEMS don't sign are things they where already doing. They are not adding value here they are subtracting if the protection marketing isn't paid.
3) OF COURSE it was not their intention to keep it secret. This is a "Nvidia Inside" program. It only works if tech sites are all on board with glowing reviews of "Nvidia Inside" gaming approved branded cards. The idea is every review site, every OEM... the entire industry is supposed to fawn over NV and NV alone, and AMD/INTEL/PowerVR(I can dream) cards are to be marketed as lesser then OR ELSE.
4) This sounds a lot like the rebate programs Intel ran at one point. Dell for instance in one quarter recieved payments from Intel = to 75% of their operating income for that quarter to keep AMD out of Dell computers. Now what NV is doing with this program is the exact same thing, they are offering tangible cash value services and it sounds like actual marketing dollars to keep AMD out of manufacturers "gaming" line products. To a court this will read exactly the same and be equally illegal.
4a) AMDs laptop deal with Intel does not stop say HP from selling laptops using NV product. Frankly that deal is a different thing all together and is 100% NV fault for over charging Intel for licencing. I think its pretty safe to say Intel would MUCH rather have had NV licence them the GPU patents needed to continue selling the Intel/Intel Product and not get into bed with one of their largest direct compedititors.
4b) pay attention a lot of us have been complaining about MS and their toxic relationship with gaming for a long time. lol Go hit the Linux forum on this very site... and poke around the net a bit. Check out projects like Vulcan... yes MS has held/set PC gaming back. None of us should have ever purchased on Game whose developers had used DirectX. Outside of ID very few developers have stuck to open APIs as a general rule.

-Generall comment: I haven't read the exact terms of the program, so my comments are based on logical arguments (*not legal ones, since a) i'm not aware of US law system, & b) i haven't read the program's exact terms)
1) no comment here...
2) You begin with a mistake in my opinion: can it be proved that NV is forcing OEMs ? I don't believe so, since, IF the OEM accepts to be part of the program he signs that he agrees with the terms of the program. Apparently he signs willingly, so noone forces him to do anything. (*just like an employee who signs a contract with a company, and the contract contains terms such as never say any info about this company to outsiders. Yes, this forces the employee, BUT he signed the contract willingly nevertheless, didn't he ?)
-P.S. As for the patent at word "gaming" that you mentioned, this isn't a global patent!!, it applies only to those that will agree willingly to participate at the program. NV hasn't copyrighted the "game" brand in general, every other company which isn't part of the program, won't have any limitation, so again we go down to the point : will they sign the terms willingly or not?
3) So you are telling me that untill now, all the sites are independent from the companies influence, and with this program everything is going to change? come on mate!! there is always influence.
4) I said it again, i'm not aware of US legal system. About the Intel incident that you mentioned, what was the result? was Intel fined for their tacticts? Perhaps NV's legal team judges that the benefits outweight a possible fine, i can't comment on legal issues.
4a) Nor NVidia stops the OEMs from selling AMD products from what i understood, the only point of interest is the brand-name that is going to be used right? Again, this is up to the OEM to judge if it's beneficial to them to change their brand-name, as a result for their possible participation at GPProgram. If it's not beneficial they can reject the project. Where is the problem?
4b) Not according to Steam Survey, where 98% of the OS are windows-based !!. We are talking about complete control of the gaming-market, so.... if it is claimed that there will be in the future a negative effect at the consumer market, as a result of NVidia's acts , then with the same logic , there is already a negative effect at the consumer market because of Microsoft's dominance as well, right ?
 
1) Since 10 people were asking him similar things, then he is forced to give 10 similar answers!! It's not his fault if gets asked the same things over and over again!! If you wanted to be fair you should warn him, as long as all the others who are asking the same questions towards him !!
2) My opinion is exactly the same with razor1 's : when you have a strong legal leverage, you go to courts, you don't spread these info into the public, since -just like razor1 mentioned-, the public isn't aware of legal terms, so your only goal (*the company i mean) is to create hype & impressions.
(*but this shouldn't surprise me, since all AMD has been doing for years , prior to FuryX 's release and afterwards, is just creating hype & impressions, which, afterwards, their released products completely fail to justify !! I've seen this tactic too many times from AMD, it gets really boring nowadays :yuck: )
3) From what i understood, NVidia herself approached you, -a tech journalist-, asking for your opinion on the matter. They would have to be idiots if they shared their program with a journalist and think that these info will remain private!!! So this proves that it wasn't NV's intention to keep this program secret.
4) And finally, a general comment:
From logical point of view, i can't understand the fault about this program:
In short, NV is willing to give special benefits to any AIB that will work with them in this program, is that right ? Where exactly is the fault in that ? Do they say anywhere that they will force anyone to participate unwilingly ?? Apparently, No !!! So IF the AIBs feel that this agreement can lead them to benefits, then where exactly is the problem ???
The only problem -from what i understand- is that AMD is complaining that they will be pressed even harder at the marketshare. well :
4a)
That's AMD's problem,just like their recent laptop-agreement with Intel is against NVidia's interests, what's the difference ? companies make or break deals all the time if it's beneficial to them !! &
4b)
The argument expressed by the "power community" is that the consumers will be "hurt" if the market is shifted even more towards NVidia. BUT... If this statement is correct, then it should apply for the OS systems as well, where Microsoft dominates the gaming market with their OS for decades, but ironicaly in this case no "power-user" is saying that this "hurts" the consumer's interests, no "power-user" is saying let's stop bying their products because this is damaging our interests from consumer-perspective (*which is their exact argument towards NVidia !! that if AMD looses ground this won't be beneficial to consumers in longterm!! So why wouldn't this argument apply for the OS area as well ?? and why the "power-community" doesn't say the same arguments for the windows OS as well?? )
If AMD went all legal - like they did with Intel -> that almost destroyed them. I think they learnt their lesson and take it to the marketplace so we can speak up for fast results while the endless legal battle can be pursued.

To force a partner gaming lineup to be a pimp lineup for Nvidia only, kinda like stealing the fruits of the companies labors with a hidden threat. I see it as typical Nvidia BS, I guess if you keep throwing shit at the wall it will eventually stick.

AMD not having a convincing alternatives does not help.

Now the terms and conditions for this program are posted at Nvidia and a previous post I linked it - not sure of the the above discussions about the terms and conditions - go read them, Nvidia is open here, I think those terms and conditions suck.
 
-Generall comment: I haven't read the exact terms of the program, so my comments are based on logical arguments (*not legal ones, since a) i'm not aware of US law system, & b) i haven't read the program's exact terms)
1) no comment here...
2) You begin with a mistake in my opinion: can it be proved that NV is forcing OEMs ? I don't believe so, since, IF the OEM accepts to be part of the program he signs that he agrees with the terms of the program. Apparently he signs willingly, so noone forces him to do anything. (*just like an employee who signs a contract with a company, and the contract contains terms such as never say any info about this company to outsiders. Yes, this forces the employee, BUT he signed the contract willingly nevertheless, didn't he ?)
-P.S. As for the patent at word "gaming" that you mentioned, this isn't a global patent!!, it applies only to those that will agree willingly to participate at the program. NV hasn't copyrighted the "game" brand in general, every other company which isn't part of the program, won't have any limitation, so again we go down to the point : will they sign the terms willingly or not?
3) So you are telling me that untill now, all the sites are independent from the companies influence, and with this program everything is going to change? come on mate!! there is always influence.
4) I said it again, i'm not aware of US legal system. About the Intel incident that you mentioned, what was the result? was Intel fined for their tacticts? Perhaps NV's legal team judges that the benefits outweight a possible fine, i can't comment on legal issues.
4a) Nor NVidia stops the OEMs from selling AMD products from what i understood, the only point of interest is the brand-name that is going to be used right? Again, this is up to the OEM to judge if it's beneficial to them to change their brand-name, as a result for their possible participation at GPProgram. If it's not beneficial they can reject the project. Where is the problem?
4b) Not according to Steam Survey, where 98% of the OS are windows-based !!. We are talking about complete control of the gaming-market, so.... if it is claimed that there will be in the future a negative effect at the consumer market, as a result of NVidia's acts , then with the same logic , there is already a negative effect at the consumer market because of Microsoft's dominance as well, right ?

Don't mean to go around in circles. In any protection racket the person running it can claim that the victim signed on willingly. That isn't a defense. If option one is continue getting product from the company supplying the majority of your GPUs, who you know is under a ton of supply strain due to massive demand... or become a second string customer who gets their orders filled second or third or 50th. There is no choice but to sign.

I used the patent idea to illustrate a point nothing more. NV is looking to basically hyjack their OEM partners established gaming brand names... claiming owner ship of the idea of a "gaming" line. Considering the clout they have at the moment with OEMS that can't afford to not be on NVs nice list... they are in essence trying to buy the term "Gaming GPU" for their sole use.

If you have read what I have said and others NV has long been a company that has used their influence to bend OEMs, and the software industry. Personally I don't like a lot of what they do as far as closed source frameworks that are a developer trap. That hasn't bordered on flat out illegal however.

As far as Intel Vs AMD goes... yes Intel settled with AMD for $1.25 billion, they where fined 1.45 billion by the EU, they also got handed a bunch of smaller judgments of 20-50 million a pop by a bunch of gov such as Korea. It was estimated that Intel spent somewhere around 150-200 million defending themselves globally. Considering how long they kept AMD out of the market as OEMs such as Dell, HP, Gateway, Acer, Fujitsu, Sony, Toshiba, and Hitachi where involved in the scheme they probably did get their monies worth if everyone is being honest.

As far as the MS / market stuff I'm not trying to go off topic here. We can agree to disagree. Clearly you think the windows monopoly is good for gaming... your entitled to think as you wish. I know I'm not going to change your mind there.
 
Back
Top