NVIDIA Pulling Plug on GPP

ManofGod said:
So, when was the last time you say a Hyundai i3 or a BMW Elantra? Also, when was the last time Nvidia produced motherboards themselves?
Click to expand...

Those are brands created by the companies and therefore subject to Trademark policies. This is more like Patagonia telling Ford that they need to be the only brand featured in the "Explorer Pretentious Edition" and that if they're working with LL Bean they need to use it on a different model. Guess what? This happens all of the time in every single market.
 
Bankie said:
That is exactly what happens and is perfectly legal. You've never noticed all of the "Exclusive partner of the NFL" tags?
Click to expand...

Coke and pepsi advertise on the same night all the time, they share one just get the exclusive supporter of the NFL tag. Totally different then saying you cant advertise.
 
Bankie said:
It's amazing to me how many people in the PC Hardware and Gaming community have suddenly become highly-experienced professional business analysts and Top-tier corporate lawyers since the GPP story was broken.




It's not "misconstruing and misrepresenting the facts". I never said they owned them or started them; I said that they pay more for marketing them than AMD does and that that marketing directly benefits AMD.




Do you have proof of this? If that were the case then you'd not be able to buy Powercolor, XFX (bought my XFX RX470 at Best Buy because of the price; not the branding), or Sapphire cards anywhere; as long as people want the products they will have the shelf space regardless of branding. If you do not understand and accept that this is a capitalistic enterprise and that companies have to show up to make a profit then I don't know what to tell you.




There was never any proof shown that the AIBs would have had to create new brands for AMD. For all we know ASUS created AREZ for AMD because they sell more NV products on ROG and felt that ROG would be less successful without NV on it. By your "lesser known brand" comment you'd think that AMD would never be able to compete since coming out with this "unknown" Ryzen brand instead of one of their own established brands. It IS on NV for who they give money to. They tried to change it because they see that their own marketing dollars are furthering their competitors products. Do you think BMW would want to funnel massive marketing dollars to a dealership that also wants to sell Hyundai without securing certain branding or marketing promises?
Click to expand...

The only proof that really matters at this point is they canceled the program.

If it such a above board great for everyone program why cancel it?

You haven’t shown anything Kyle reported to be false. Think on that a bit.
 
Bankie said:
Those are brands created by the companies and therefore subject to Trademark policies. This is more like Patagonia telling Ford that they need to be the only brand featured in the "Explorer Pretentious Edition" and that if they're working with LL Bean they need to use it on a different model. Guess what? This happens all of the time in every single market.
Click to expand...

ROG is created by ASUS and is an ASUS trademark only! Now you are getting it!
 
Bankie said:
NV has been paying shit tons of money to AIBs to market their gaming branded cards while AMD rides on the coattails of that brand. Do you think AMD gives as much support (marketing dollars, amount of product, and eventual consumer sales) to the ROG brand as NV does? Is the point of running a business to prop up your competitors products through marketing with your own money? It could be argued that NV should have requested new brands but then people here would still be throwing a stink about it for forcing the AIBs to create "unneeded new brands" and about how it's still somehow anti-competitive to AMD. Basically all that shutting down the GPP has done is proven that RTG's survivability would be even more in question without NV paying corporate welfare to their suppliers.
Click to expand...

hahaha corporate welfare. Co-Marketing funds are an advertising industry standard, that goes well beyond the tech world. As you seem to understand the AIBs take marketing funds from everyone. (Including AMD and Intel)

Forget about AMD for a second. WITHOUT a doubt Intel has likely given Asus 2-3x the marketing funds NV has.... so by your logic Intel would be within their rights to demand Asus stop putting Nvidia anything into ROG products. I mean intel outbid them didn't they ? lol

Marketing funds are not a payment plan for brand ownership.
 
Bankie said:
It's amazing to me how many people in the PC Hardware and Gaming community have suddenly become highly-experienced professional business analysts and Top-tier corporate lawyers since the GPP story was broken.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be a practicing lawyer to understand the law. Lawyers like to make things seem more complicated then needed.... it protects their jobs.
Seriously when I attended law school the more complicated the English was you employed, the happier the profs. You never got bonus points for using plain English. lol The truth using unspecific language is always the best legal option as it leaves things open to interpretation. The shadier the contract the murkier the language.

You can read this and understand how Nvidia was going down the same road... it really isn't that hard to understand. In international jurisdictions the laws are often much stricter.
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/091216intelcmpt.pdf
Nvidia is guilty of much more then just trying to illegally contract AIBs.

PS. The irony isn't lost on me that Intel got slapped some years ago for their attempts to use the same practices to kill Nvidia off in the cradle. lol
 
Last edited:
Bankie said:
How was it "disadvantaging both consumers and competitors"? Consumers and competitors could still buy AMD products. When AMD does something cruddy there's hardly any talk about it; see the RX450 (or was it the 460?) debacle, constant rebranding, "appropriating" competitors numbering conventions (X370, X470 anyone), etc. I saw people in the GPP thread stating things like, "Intel/AMD should lock NV out of any new PCI specs" as if that would be a good thing and not MUCH more anti-competitive than a simple marketing agreement.

NV has been paying shit tons of money to AIBs to market their gaming branded cards while AMD rides on the coattails of that brand. Do you think AMD gives as much support (marketing dollars, amount of product, and eventual consumer sales) to the ROG brand as NV does? Is the point of running a business to prop up your competitors products through marketing with your own money? It could be argued that NV should have requested new brands but then people here would still be throwing a stink about it for forcing the AIBs to create "unneeded new brands" and about how it's still somehow anti-competitive to AMD. Basically all that shutting down the GPP has done is proven that RTG's survivability would be even more in question without NV paying corporate welfare to their suppliers.
Click to expand...

LOL this post has to be the second funniest BS that I have read here in a long time!! Nearly as funny as Jen's BS response to the whole thing. Made my weekend so far. Please continue with your drivel, it's so entertaining.
 
Hehe Kyle, the champion for honesty and guardian against misinformation and unsavory practice !! Go Kyle :cool::cool:
 
Bankie said:
It's amazing to me how many people in the PC Hardware and Gaming community have suddenly become highly-experienced professional business analysts and Top-tier corporate lawyers since the GPP story was broken.




It's not "misconstruing and misrepresenting the facts". I never said they owned them or started them; I said that they pay more for marketing them than AMD does and that that marketing directly benefits AMD.




Do you have proof of this? If that were the case then you'd not be able to buy Powercolor, XFX (bought my XFX RX470 at Best Buy because of the price; not the branding), or Sapphire cards anywhere; as long as people want the products they will have the shelf space regardless of branding. If you do not understand and accept that this is a capitalistic enterprise and that companies have to show up to make a profit then I don't know what to tell you.




There was never any proof shown that the AIBs would have had to create new brands for AMD. For all we know ASUS created AREZ for AMD because they sell more NV products on ROG and felt that ROG would be less successful without NV on it. By your "lesser known brand" comment you'd think that AMD would never be able to compete since coming out with this "unknown" Ryzen brand instead of one of their own established brands. It IS on NV for who they give money to. They tried to change it because they see that their own marketing dollars are furthering their competitors products. Do you think BMW would want to funnel massive marketing dollars to a dealership that also wants to sell Hyundai without securing certain branding or marketing promises?
Click to expand...

Your whole argument just went to crap with Asus dropping the Arez brand after gpp was shut down.

https://hardforum.com/threads/asus-arez-no-more.1960970/
 
Bankie said:
How was it "disadvantaging both consumers and competitors"? Consumers and competitors could still buy AMD products. When AMD does something cruddy there's hardly any talk about it; see the RX450 (or was it the 460?) debacle, constant rebranding, "appropriating" competitors numbering conventions (X370, X470 anyone), etc. I saw people in the GPP thread stating things like, "Intel/AMD should lock NV out of any new PCI specs" as if that would be a good thing and not MUCH more anti-competitive than a simple marketing agreement.

NV has been paying shit tons of money to AIBs to market their gaming branded cards while AMD rides on the coattails of that brand. Do you think AMD gives as much support (marketing dollars, amount of product, and eventual consumer sales) to the ROG brand as NV does? Is the point of running a business to prop up your competitors products through marketing with your own money? It could be argued that NV should have requested new brands but then people here would still be throwing a stink about it for forcing the AIBs to create "unneeded new brands" and about how it's still somehow anti-competitive to AMD. Basically all that shutting down the GPP has done is proven that RTG's survivability would be even more in question without NV paying corporate welfare to their suppliers.
Click to expand...

LOL I can literally count the people that support nvidia on this. Not many here that support it, not many on the internet that support it. You are in the very small group of people that are actually justifying this is some how okay lol!

There is a reason nvidia said they were pulling the plug on it. Public opinion wasn't as rosy as the picture nvidia was painting. You really believe Nvidia when they say they were doing this so people could tell what gpu was inside the box? Really? ROFL! People are that dumb they don't know its nvidia inside when it says nvidia on the box? market share is proof of that, nvidia seriously came up with dumb as excuses for this program. That just shows they didn't have one good justification for it. Just dumb ass shit.
 
This has been my stance on AREZ for weeks now as posted in other threads on our forum.

I will say this here, and I have already posted this on our forums, but needs to be said again. This is my opinion on the matter. I THINK that ASUS will stick with the AREZ branding. It will likely be moved under the ROG branding however in the future, as the ARES branding had in the past. AREZ will be super high end AMD and MARS will be super high end NVIDIA products. So this will all end up being pretty much a return to how ASUS did its branding in the past. Given the resources and exposure that have already gone into AREZ, I do not see it abandoning those costs and promoting more confusion in the market place. Again, that is what I THINK will happen. No one at ASUS that I have contact with knows what is going to happen as these decisions are coming from pretty high up and have not filtered down through the company hierarchy yet, and I have no executive level contacts at ASUS.
 
5150Joker said:
That sounds reasonable enough, there's no point in abandoning a brand they've spent money on establishing. They can toss everything under the ROG umbrella and NVIDIA will stop bitching because AMD will be under a different secondary brand. This is what NVIDIA really should have pushed for from the beginning with GPP - have these brands establish something else for AMD while keeping it under their main recognized one (e.g Aorus as the main performance brand with a sub brand for other higher/lower tiers which applies to NVIDIA/AMD both).
Click to expand...
Only downside is it gets a bit long-winded: ASUS ROG AREZ AMD RX 580 OMGz Super OC Edition. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top