GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

notarat

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
2,389
All these are great info, but i want to focus at my previous question:
Legally, does AMD have any right to intervene into an agreement among 3rd companies such as NVidia and her AIBs ?
Just like you said before , "does Samsung has any right to guide the OEMs, just because it sells them some subparts for their products" ? Or just like i asked "Can AMD dictate to SONY or Microsoft what to do with their stuff, just because it sells them the GPU processors" ?
As i said, logically speaking, this hole GPProgram is down to AIBs to decide whether or not it's beneficial to them , and AMD doesn't have any right to intervene with agreements among 3rd companies.

Yes. AMD does have a legal right. Remember AMD vs Intel? AMD won that lawsuit in Japan, the US, and the EU. The courts found the agreements were made specifically to hurt AMD so AMD was able to legally argue the program was designed to be anti-competitive in nature. I don't see any difference here...

Party A and B are in competition.

Both use AIB's C D and E

Party A negotiates a deal with C D and E to specifically exclude Party B. That's anti-competitive behavior, according to the courts in the US, Japan, and the EU (Intel lost in all 3 countries)
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,669
GPP sounds like a launch will be around the corner for gaming PCs. Since branding seems to be oh so important. What 3-6 months now to work everything out?

I still think what hurt A M D more is themselves, delivering late and just not delivering the levels needed.

This could backfire big for NVidia. Intel and AMD could put gaming into their brands as part of the scew.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
18
I guess that would explain why no other site has digged in the story themselves, only quoting Kyle's article.

I mean it can't be that hard to get insider info from oem's right? I mean even lousy bloggers and youtubers claim to know people in the industry.

Where's Charlie when you need him? :D:D

It's not hard, at all. It is if you're a journalist poking around, trying to jump the gun. Sounds like [H] have absolutely no idea how this affects GPU rebranding. This is going to be forgotten before you can say "controversial AMD Chinese whispers".
 

SimianRob

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 28, 2013
Messages
66
It's interesting that instead of making a statement to the community to clear up any misconceptions about the GPP program NVIDIA is instead apparently contacting websites and trying to get them to dismiss or put a negative spin on the story. If it was all just a big misunderstanding and there was nothing to hide why have they been so quiet? Especially considering Kyle reached out to them for comment quite awhile ago.
 
Last edited:

notarat

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
2,389
It's interesting that instead of making a statement to the community to clear up any misconceptions about the GPP program NVIDIA is instead apparently contacting websites and trying to get them to to put dismiss or put a negative spin on the story. If it was all just a big misunderstanding and there was nothing to hide why have they been so quiet? Especially considering Kyle reached out to them for comment quite awhile ago.

Maybe NVidia is putting the (wood) screws to the other websites to stay quiet
 

MarkVI

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
215
Thanks again to Kyle for this. I was seriously considering pulling the trigger on a 1080 to replace my aging 290X. Now, I'll wait till this shit storm settles or until AMD puts something appealing on the market.
 

Anarchist4000

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 10, 2001
Messages
1,659
Yes. AMD does have a legal right. Remember AMD vs Intel? AMD won that lawsuit in Japan, the US, and the EU. The courts found the agreements were made specifically to hurt AMD so AMD was able to legally argue the program was designed to be anti-competitive in nature. I don't see any difference here...

Party A and B are in competition.

Both use AIB's C D and E

Party A negotiates a deal with C D and E to specifically exclude Party B. That's anti-competitive behavior, according to the courts in the US, Japan, and the EU (Intel lost in all 3 countries)
Keep in mind it's more than just AMD that would be affected. Intel currently would have KabyG that would ideally fall under the gaming brands. Then consider the time to actually litigate the case. If Intel had any desire to make a dGPU for gaming purposes, the ensuing case MIGHT be finished by the time they had a product ready. That's not allowing for one of the mobile companies, Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, etc releasing some sort of "gaming" hardware that may be applicable.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
52,496
It's not hard, at all. It is if you're a journalist poking around, trying to jump the gun. Sounds like [H] have absolutely no idea how this affects GPU rebranding. This is going to be forgotten before you can say "controversial AMD Chinese whispers".
Please explain. I would like to hear your insights on what you think we have missed. Many thanks.
 

Bankie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
1,856
Yes. AMD does have a legal right. Remember AMD vs Intel? AMD won that lawsuit in Japan, the US, and the EU. The courts found the agreements were made specifically to hurt AMD so AMD was able to legally argue the program was designed to be anti-competitive in nature. I don't see any difference here...

Party A and B are in competition.

Both use AIB's C D and E

Party A negotiates a deal with C D and E to specifically exclude Party B. That's anti-competitive behavior, according to the courts in the US, Japan, and the EU (Intel lost in all 3 countries)

Intel - AMD were different; Intel was hit for blocking OEMs from selling AMD hardware. NV isn't stopping companies from selling AMD hardware; they specifically state that these companies can still sell AMD hardware. NV is trying to take control of the marketing.

There is already legal precedent for this. Look at storefronts that sell mobile services; If you're a Verizon only store you'll get extra help with marketing, support, and other bonuses but the minute you switch to selling another carrier in addition to Verizon all of those benefits go away.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,937
Problem with doing anti competitive things is invites the other side to do so as well. Could we see retaliation by detecting a non genuine AMD or Intel video system, thus providing a less then ideal path for Nvidia cards and hurting their performance. That is a possible outcome that would be bad for everyone.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,479
I think he was commenting sarcastically.

You may be right Never post on a forum before you have your morning coffee.

You're discounting the very real possibility that the documents you looked at might have been faked on a sound stage in the Arizona desert.

If that was sarcastic. (that seems quite likely) I apologize.
 

humbug

n00b
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
1
Why would NVidia do this?

Well,
It really is as simple as this, nVidia may want AMD to take them to court, why? so they can bury AMD in expensive legal fees they can i'll afford, basically the idea is do something to a weaker competitor that will kill them off from lack of sales or money, like really anti competitive and destructive actions, if AMD don't take legal action over it they sink, if AMD do take legal action over it nVidia will make sure its as expensive as possible and drags on for as long as it takes for them to run out of money, either way AMD sink and nVidia pick over the dead carcass.

Think that sounds too ridiculous? it happens all the time, so when people ask in confusion "why would nVidia do this, they already have 85% market share????" well that's why.
 

fingerbob69

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
110
Why would NVidia do this?

Well,
It really is as simple as this, nVidia may want AMD to take them to court, why? so they can bury AMD in expensive legal fees they can i'll afford, basically the idea is do something to a weaker competitor that will kill them off from lack of sales or money, like really anti competitive and destructive actions, if AMD don't take legal action over it they sink, if AMD do take legal action over it nVidia will make sure its as expensive as possible and drags on for as long as it takes for them to run out of money, either way AMD sink and nVidia pick over the dead carcass.

Think that sounds too ridiculous? it happens all the time, so when people ask in confusion "why would nVidia do this, they already have 85% market share????" well that's why.


You're argument might ....and I stress the might.... have had merit if you were talking about a pre Ryzen AMD. But you're not. Ryzen has given AMD both sales...More Money... and renewed confidence. Infact even the pre Ryzen AMD was not a company in financial difficulty. Their debt was managed and sustainable. They had, they thought a wining cpu in development and their gpu range though lacking a top tier winner has/does match nVidia from the 1070 down. And you're really never far away from the next gen, right?

What's more this isn't just going to affect AMD. Intel are developing a dgpu and now of course have AMD graphics tech sitting along side their cpu's. Ever heard of the saying 'My enemy's enemy is my friend'? That works for both AMD and Intel right now.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
52,496
PCWorld Live Interview at 12:30p CDT. Live on HardOCP news page.
 

anon2020

n00b
Joined
Jul 28, 2017
Messages
14
Don't think your understanding the issue. If Asus signs on with the alleged wording of these contracts NO they can not. They can not have a gaming brand featuring anything other the NV parts.
That is what everyone here is saying, but then I read this from
https://pcgamesn.com/nvidia-geforce-partner-program-amd-impact

"Graphics card companies can then have as many brands as they like, so long as they are separated along green and red boundaries. That means Asus could have a Republic of Gamers Mars brand, which only sells Nvidia, but also a Republic of Gamers Ares brand that is exclusively AMD-based. GPP isn’t going to stop any company from selling AMD GPUs as specifically gaming graphics cards."

So which is correct?
 

anon2020

n00b
Joined
Jul 28, 2017
Messages
14
You maybe right Never post on a forum before you have your morning coffee.



If that was sarcastic. (that seems quite likely) I apologize.
777 said:
You're discounting the very real possibility that the documents you looked at might have been faked on a sound stage in the Arizona desert.

You didn't get the obvious fake moon landing reference there? ;)
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
5,479
777 said:
You're discounting the very real possibility that the documents you looked at might have been faked on a sound stage in the Arizona desert.

You didn't get the obvious fake moon landing reference there? ;)

Lack of coffee... hey perhaps, this whole issue was caused by NV legal team not having theirs. :) lol
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
5,834
Kyle, would like to ask you a question, you mention agreed upon brand in the live stream when reading the GPP. Is it possible that the 'agreed upon brand' could just be one line rather than all 'gaming' products?
 

pek

prairie dog
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
1,941
Articles like this are what distinguish [H] from every other gaming-oriented website I'm aware of.
And why the [H] is first on the list of web sites I read daily for PC-related news.

You go, Kyle.

Well this, and GenMay.
 

ecmaster76

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,150
Kyle, and most other journalists, are not lawyers so even having seen the document there is some debate about whether or not the program is legal or not.

The only way for sure would be for the actual contract to be leaked but I would suspect each NV partner has a unique version of the document that could be tracked back to them. This will probably have to be pulled in as evidence in a lawsuit and manage to stay unsealed before we see this (but trade secrets, etc usually get treated as sealed evidence...)

EDIT: Illegal or not its still pretty nasty and just adds to the list of reasons I usually buy red
 

oldmanbal

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
2,600
I think it's pretty obvious that sites don't want to get their sampling privileges taken away by directly producing copy that paints Nvidia in a bad light, however, linking to the Hardocp story, is the most many of them are willing to put their 'necks' out for this story so far. This may even be more of a reflection of how most of the hardware sites are just meta news agencies that post reviews, and meta collected news taken from actual content creators, instead of actually creating real content to add something to the industry. It's one thing to say you don't care for how a cooling solution is implemented on a videocard, but outright claiming illegal business practices is a different class in and of itself.

Great video interview for anyone else watching the pc world stream.
 

haste.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
1,651
Ah the Fonz. We all know you planned inferring that Nvidia is, you know, young gals ;).

(Edit - from the interview for those that didn't listen in)
 
Last edited:

xorbe

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
6,028
Chino at TPU said (wrt Turing mining card) "NVIDIA partners are now forbidden to promote activities related to cryptocurrency mining and to sell bulks of consumer graphics cards to cryptominers" is this also related to GPP? Or is Turing still rumor, heck if I know.

(btw it sucks text searching for turing, featuring and manufacturing ...)
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
52,496
  • Like
Reactions: xorbe
like this

SomeoneElse

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
1,940
Integrity is always one of the best qualities to have. Thanks, Kyle, for be upright and up front about it. Obviously you did you full research on this and this is why I've been reading and taking your reviews to heart.
This craziness is why you can't trust big companies.
 

AlphaQup

Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
577
Thanks, was hoping the full video would be posted, I only caught the fluff in the last 5 minutes when it was live.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
52,496
Thanks Kyle, was hoping the full video would be posted, only caught fluff in the last 5 minutes live.
They will cut an edit. Don't see a lot that was on topic being cut out however.
 
Top