GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

amenx

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
334
I think Nvidia are very much aware of what happened to Intel and the huge penalty against them. Would be pretty dumb of them to do something so risky that could cost them dearly in the end. But you never know. Lets see how things shake out 6 months from now and if any legal proceedings are brought against them.
 

chithanh

Gawd
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
787
Maybe people just like giving the appearance about how anti-monopoly they are, but are they really?
I think this is where you understand the critics of the GPP wrong. There is no problem with an existing monopoly. If a company makes a better product, all sales to them. The bad part is the monopoly abuse. Because a monopoly abuser leverages their market position in order to prevent the competitors from competing on merit, reducing consumer choice in the process.
 

reaper12

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,321
Well that settles it. Kyle Bennett knows of a law that's been broken that nvidia lawyers don't know about yet. You would think those lawyers would be trained in law or something.
What a stupid statement. Companies do shady crap all the time and get caught out. Were the lawyers all asleep at the wheel for all those other lawsuits, anti competitive cases etc? Like Microsoft was fined back in 2008 by the EU for 1.8 billion, Google was fined 3.5 billion last year. And what about Intel when they were fined? Where were their lawyers? Or AMD when they lied about how good llano was doing to increase stock prices.

Companies take risks because sometimes they get away with it and sometimes it's worth it even if they get caught. Look at Intel for example. They got caught and fined 1.09 billion, but, AMD were effectively out of the market for 10 years. So it was money well spent for Intel.

And it doesn't reflect well on the intelligence of people who liked his post.
 

reaper12

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,321
I think this is where you understand the critics of the GPP wrong. There is no problem with an existing monopoly. If a company makes a better product, all sales to them. The bad part is the monopoly abuse. Because a monopoly abuser leverages their market position in order to prevent the competitors from competing on merit, reducing consumer choice in the process.
Great Post.
 

nEo717

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
343
The law of public opinion is not something every corp. law firm is well versed in. Its a dirty move on the part of Nvidia jwcalla, even a marketing win at the partner level is going to come with some loss for them, how much depends on public opinion from enthusiast crowd and gaming community - either way, the Nvidia move here does not benefit us the consumers... sadly I'm posting this on my main PC with Titan Xp in it, and before this all happened was going to get silly and have some fun with Titan V, Nvidia lost that sale over this for now.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
16,066
I think Nvidia are very much aware of what happened to Intel and the huge penalty against them. Would be pretty dumb of them to do something so risky that could cost them dearly in the end. But you never know. Lets see how things shake out 6 months from now and if any legal proceedings are brought against them.
Except that you don't understand what happened with Intel and what Intel got out of the deal. What Intel had to pay to AMD was pocket change compared to the revenue and profits Intel received from the stunts it pulled and it took many years before anything was done. I guarantee you that Intel execs were extremely happy about what ended up happening. Intel was able to force companies to not use AMD which kept Intel with a massive lead over AMD for year after year in addition to reduced revenue and profits for AMD. Intel used the dominant market position to harm a rival and make sure the rival remained no threat to Intel. Because of these practices by Intel everyone but Intel lost in the long run.

I'm not personally prepared to "wait and see how things are in six months" because by then it's too late. The best case scenario would be nVidia losing a court case about five years from now for a mere pittance of what they made. In the meantime, everyone but nVidia loses.
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,807
Except that you don't understand what happened with Intel and what Intel got out of the deal. What Intel had to pay to AMD was pocket change compared to the revenue and profits Intel received from the stunts it pulled and it took many years before anything was done. I guarantee you that Intel execs were extremely happy about what ended up happening. Intel was able to force companies to not use AMD which kept Intel with a massive lead over AMD for year after year in addition to reduced revenue and profits for AMD. Intel used the dominant market position to harm a rival and make sure the rival remained no threat to Intel. Because of these practices by Intel everyone but Intel lost in the long run.

I'm not personally prepared to "wait and see how things are in six months" because by then it's too late. The best case scenario would be nVidia losing a court case about five years from now for a mere pittance of what they made. In the meantime, everyone but nVidia loses.
Couldn’t have said it better.
 

jwcalla

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
3,629
What a stupid statement.
I was simply returning his "appeal to authority" argument right back to him, which should be obvious by the fact that I aped his very language. So I agree with you.

You will notice that he didn't actually address my criticism about how fake this outrage is, but rather tried to shut down that point by saying I'm a nobody around here.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,341
I think this is where you understand the critics of the GPP wrong. There is no problem with an existing monopoly. If a company makes a better product, all sales to them. The bad part is the monopoly abuse. Because a monopoly abuser leverages their market position in order to prevent the competitors from competing on merit, reducing consumer choice in the process.
Personally I think monopolies are bad. Name one that hasn't abused it's power?
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
49,272
I was simply returning his "appeal to authority" argument right back to him, which should be obvious by the fact that I aped his very language. So I agree with you.

You will notice that he didn't actually address my criticism about how fake this outrage is, but rather tried to shut down that point by saying I'm a nobody around here.
Major AIBs and OEMs think that what NVIDIA is doing is illegal. Now whether they will challenge NVIDIA on this is another story. I am not sure what you want me to tell you that I have not already stated publicly. You are simply going to post again what you have already said. You are not looking for an honest debate, you are just looking for another opportunity to monologue.
 

reaper12

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,321
I was simply returning his "appeal to authority" argument right back to him, which should be obvious by the fact that I aped his very language. So I agree with you.

You will notice that he didn't actually address my criticism about how fake this outrage is, but rather tried to shut down that point by saying I'm a nobody around here.
Basically because your original criticism is nonsense. I mean do actually believe what you wrote?

Microsoft and Intel have both been fined for their anti competitive crap. There are countless posts on forums around the internet giving out about both companies.

And comparing directx to this situation with Nvidia? Talk about comparing apples to cars...
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
49,272
There will no longer be any AMD GPUs featured under the entire ROG branding. Confirmed.

AMD motherboards will still be under ROG banner. Confirmed.

If it was cheap, easy, and good for sales, why wouldn't ASUS move AMD mobos to Arez as well?
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,807
I was simply returning his "appeal to authority" argument right back to him, which should be obvious by the fact that I aped his very language. So I agree with you.

You will notice that he didn't actually address my criticism about how fake this outrage is, but rather tried to shut down that point by saying I'm a nobody around here.
Kyle has integrity! he is not going to come out and give up his sources just for the sake of proving himself further. if you read his article he makes it very clear that AIBs and OEMs don't agree with it. Imagine this, if you are AIB and you know its wrong but you know Nvidia clearly has a better product they have no choice but to stick with it for now. May be if there is too much cost associated with giving AMD separate branding and the work associated with it some AIBs might fight it. But I honestly doubt that. Nvidia has them in between rock and hard place. You could say oh if AMD had better graphics card AIBs could tell nvidia to F off but that doesn't make what nvidia is doing okay. Had AMD been in the same position and Nvidia had a fermi on their hands Kyle would call out AMD too, you can bet your ass on it!

I think AIBs should be able to pursue this matter to their liking. Not forced in anyway.
 

d8lock

Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
684
Kyle has integrity! he is not going to come out and give up his sources just for the sake of proving himself further. if you read his article he makes it very clear that AIBs and OEMs don't agree with it. Imagine this, if you are AIB and you know its wrong but you know Nvidia clearly has a better product they have no choice but to stick with it for now. May be if there is too much cost associated with giving AMD separate branding and the work associated with it some AIBs might fight it. But I honestly doubt that. Nvidia has them in between rock and hard place. You could say oh if AMD had better graphics card AIBs could tell nvidia to F off but that doesn't make what nvidia is doing okay. Had AMD been in the same position and Nvidia had a fermi on their hands Kyle would call out AMD too, you can bet your ass on it!

I think AIBs should be able to pursue this matter to their liking. Not forced in anyway.
It's a waste of time trying to explain this to a guy like that.
 

fingerbob69

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
110
....... May be nvidia is hoping that they end up dropping AMD due to added work and cost. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if AIBs see it as too much work and concentrate just on nvidia. That is ultimately what I am afraid of.
Unfortunately for nVidia, AMD is 30% of the gpu market. And no company willingly throws away 30% of their sales. That would be just as daft as allowing a third party supplier company to dictate what you can and can't do with your own branded products.
 

Xuper

n00b
Joined
Apr 7, 2018
Messages
23
I think this GPP will hurt Nvidia , If RTG goes bankrupt , One giant company like Apple , Samsung , Qualcomm or even Intel will pick up them and this will reduce Nvidia's Sale by significant margin.Just look at secret in survival in Nature.
 

Bankie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
1,655
It still seems completely within the realm of legality and normal competition. Any company has the choice to not join GPP and still sell AMD and NV cards under the same brand albeit with less effort from NV; or they can cut out NV entirely and see what that does to their profits.

If I'm an apple farmer with the most highly regarded and best selling apples then I can't tell Kroger that I'll give priority to my other customers if they don't sell only my apples under their "Freshest Apples" brand? Kroger could reject me and only sell McCormick's Shit Apples instead if they wanted; it's not my problem if it hurts their bottom line because everyone else will still pay top dollar for my apples. Why should I have to share a brand and give assistance that also helps my competition?

The only problem I see is that very few people want AMD hardware and that, frankly, is entirely AMD's fault. AMD's not some hot start-up that's just getting into the market, they've been here for just as long as NV. NV worked hard and made shrewd business moves to get where they are today while AMD tried to compete on two fronts, had massive failures on each, and has had the absolute shittiest of marketing for ages. If they can't stand upon the their own products having their own brand, one that's not propped up by their competitor's products and additional financial assistance to the OEMs, then they should get used to their position as the distant #2 until they can figure out how to execute in the business world.
 

reaper12

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,321
It still seems completely within the realm of legality and normal competition. Any company has the choice to not join GPP and still sell AMD and NV cards under the same brand albeit with less effort from NV; or they can cut out NV entirely and see what that does to their profits.

If I'm an apple farmer with the most highly regarded and best selling apples then I can't tell Kroger that I'll give priority to my other customers if they don't sell only my apples under their "Freshest Apples" brand? Kroger could reject me and only sell McCormick's Shit Apples instead if they wanted; it's not my problem if it hurts their bottom line because everyone else will still pay top dollar for my apples. Why should I have to share a brand and give assistance that also helps my competition?

The only problem I see is that very few people want AMD hardware and that, frankly, is entirely AMD's fault. AMD's not some hot start-up that's just getting into the market, they've been here for just as long as NV. NV worked hard and made shrewd business moves to get where they are today while AMD tried to compete on two fronts, had massive failures on each, and has had the absolute shittiest of marketing for ages. If they can't stand upon the their own products having their own brand, one that's not propped up by their competitor's products and additional financial assistance to the OEMs, then they should get used to their position as the distant #2 until they can figure out how to execute in the business world.
ehhh, nope. Your first line shows that you don't understand. Suggest you read the OP again.
 

Bankie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
1,655
ehhh, nope. Your first line shows that you don't understand. Suggest you read the OP again.
I did. The AIB has 3 options: Join the GPP and adjust branding, Reject the GPP to keep branding and become a second tier provider of NV products, Or just outright reject NV and sell only AMD.
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,807
I did. The AIB has 3 options: Join the GPP and adjust branding, Reject the GPP to keep branding and become a second tier provider of NV products, Or just outright reject NV and sell only AMD. If NV (or AMD) wanted they could cease selling to Asus or anyone at their own whim.
You really fail to understand whats at play here? If you are the AIB and Nvidia knows they have upper hand in gaming, do you really have a choice now? Kill your profits or downgrade AMD for to satisfy the program! What do you do? Oh not only from gaming cards but from laptops and other devices too!

HP currently offers their Omen laptops with both options. If they did this they would have to say bye bye to the rx 580 laptop and give it a different branding. Yea not anti competitive at all.
 
D

Deleted member 222586

Guest
It still seems completely within the realm of legality and normal competition. Any company has the choice to not join GPP and still sell AMD and NV cards under the same brand albeit with less effort from NV; or they can cut out NV entirely and see what that does to their profits.

If I'm an apple farmer with the most highly regarded and best selling apples then I can't tell Kroger that I'll give priority to my other customers if they don't sell only my apples under their "Freshest Apples" brand? Kroger could reject me and only sell McCormick's Shit Apples instead if they wanted; it's not my problem if it hurts their bottom line because everyone else will still pay top dollar for my apples. Why should I have to share a brand and give assistance that also helps my competition?

The only problem I see is that very few people want AMD hardware and that, frankly, is entirely AMD's fault. AMD's not some hot start-up that's just getting into the market, they've been here for just as long as NV. NV worked hard and made shrewd business moves to get where they are today while AMD tried to compete on two fronts, had massive failures on each, and has had the absolute shittiest of marketing for ages. If they can't stand upon the their own products having their own brand, one that's not propped up by their competitor's products and additional financial assistance to the OEMs, then they should get used to their position as the distant #2 until they can figure out how to execute in the business world.
No, this isn't how this works.

NVIDIA is creating some bullshit program that separates AIBs between Tier 1 and the rest. If you aren't Tier 1 you would better stop working with NVIDIA, as you are second inline for everything. Being a Tier 1 you have to stop using your gaming-related brand with the competition.

How is that legal and fair?

---

Imagine that we are talking about Mountain Bikes. You are Specialized, and you sell the "S-Works" range of bikes. You have some models with Shimano and some others with SRAM. OK, no biggie here. Now, imagine that the biggest of the two (lets stay that it is Shimano, though I don't know and I'm too lazy to check) comes in and say:

"Hi there, Mr. Specialized CEO,
I'd like to introduce you to our new program, Shimano partners forever.
With this new partnership all the subscribers will get preferential allotments and preferential access to the prototypes so that you can use our products before the competition; also, you will also be featured in our webside under the SPF tab and will appear on many comercials around the world.
You only have to stop using your most high-end range with non-Shimano products".

And then, S-Works stops using SRAM altogether and they created a new range of bikes just because of it.

Still think that it is fair?

Well, you are wrong, it isn't. You are manipulating consumer choice but dictating what OTHERS can do with their branding.


I did. The AIB has 3 options: Join the GPP and adjust branding, Reject the GPP to keep branding and become a second tier provider of NV products, Or just outright reject NV and sell only AMD.
No, the AIB only has one option if they want to remain in business. If you can choose between shooting yourself or not shooting yourself do you really have an option?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrXL
like this

Bankie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
1,655
No, this isn't how this works.

NVIDIA is creating some bullshit program that separates AIBs between Tier 1 and the rest. If you aren't Tier 1 you would better stop working with NVIDIA, as you are second inline for everything. Being a Tier 1 you have to stop using your gaming-related brand with the competition.

How is that legal and fair?
Because no company is entitled to NV's (or AMD's) products. If you don't want to play the game that's your choice. Tier 1 and Tier 2 benefits are thing in every single market. If you solely support a single producer they will in fact give you better benefits than another company that uses their competitor's products.


Imagine that we are talking about Mountain Bikes. You are Specialized, and you sell the "S-Works" range of bikes. You have some models with Shimano and some others with SRAM. OK, no biggie here. Now, imagine that the biggest of the two (lets stay that it is Shimano, though I don't know and I'm too lazy to check) comes in and say:

"Hi there, Mr. Specialized CEO,
I'd like to introduce you to our new program, Shimano partners forever.
With this new partnership all the subscribers will get preferential allotments and preferential access to the prototypes so that you can use our products before the competition; also, you will also be featured in our webside under the SPF tab and will appear on many comercials around the world.
You only have to stop using your most high-end range with non-Shimano products".

And then, S-Works stops using SRAM altogether and they created a new range of bikes just because of it.

Still think that it is fair?

Well, you are wrong, it isn't. You are manipulating consumer choice but dictating what OTHERS can do with their branding.
Then it is SRAM's duty to make a product and do the marketing and support to compete. Shimano did the work and made the correct choices; SRAM doesn't get a participation trophy and get to continue living because the people that don't do research fall for marketing.


No, the AIB only has one option if they want to remain in business. If you can choose between shooting yourself or not shooting yourself do you really have an option?
If they can't stay in business solely selling AMD hardware then AMD isn't doing their job. This is why NV is doing this; AMD can apparently only compete on the backs of the uninformed buying AMD products solely through brands that already get a lot of support and marketing assistance from NV.


I would support the APP if the roles were reversed. AMD dropped the ball with marketing AND production AND time to market with TWO generations of cards back to back (Fiji and Vega) because of their reliance on HBM. Once again they can't provide the AIBs with enough stock while NV mostly can. NV made the right calls; AMD did not. Sure you can get mad at NV for taking over the market but AMD doesn't get to dictate anything in a market where they're basically a no show.
 
Last edited:

reaper12

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
2,321
Because no company is entitled to NV's (or AMD's) products. If you don't want to play the game that's your choice. Tier 1 and Tier 2 benefits are thing in every single market. If you solely support a single producer they will in fact give you better benefits than another company that uses their competitor's products.




Then it is SRAM's duty to make a product and do the marketing and support to compete. Shimano did the work and made the correct choices; SRAM doesn't get a participation trophy and get to continue living because the people that don't do research fall for marketing.




If they can't stay in business solely selling AMD hardware then AMD isn't doing their job. This is why NV is doing this; AMD can apparently only compete on the backs of the uninformed buying AMD products solely through brands that already get a lot of support and marketing assistance from NV.


I would support the APP if the roles were reversed. AMD dropped the ball with marketing AND production AND time to market with TWO generations of cards back to back (Fiji and Vega) because of their reliance on HBM. Once again they can't provide the AIBs with enough stock while NV mostly can. NV made the right calls; AMD did not. Sure you can get mad at NV for taking over the market but AMD doesn't get to dictate anything in a market where they're basically a no show.

A long post full of absolute waffle. Suggest you read the OP again, and maybe some of his other posts on this topic.
 
D

Deleted member 222586

Guest
Because no company is entitled to NV's (or AMD's) products. If you don't want to play the game that's your choice. Tier 1 and Tier 2 benefits are thing in every single market. If you solely support a single producer they will in fact give you better benefits than another company that uses their competitor's products.




Then it is SRAM's duty to make a product and do the marketing and support to compete. Shimano did the work and made the correct choices; SRAM doesn't get a participation trophy and get to continue living because the people that don't do research fall for marketing.




If they can't stay in business solely selling AMD hardware then AMD isn't doing their job. This is why NV is doing this; AMD can apparently only compete on the backs of the uninformed buying AMD products solely through brands that already get a lot of support and marketing assistance from NV.


I would support the APP if the roles were reversed. AMD dropped the ball with marketing AND production AND time to market with TWO generations of cards back to back (Fiji and Vega) because of their reliance on HBM. Once again they can't provide the AIBs with enough stock while NV mostly can. NV made the right calls; AMD did not. Sure you can get mad at NV for taking over the market but AMD doesn't get to dictate anything in a market where they're basically a no show.
OK I'm done.

You clearly believe and agree with anti-competitive, monopolistic practices.

More power to you ;)
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,562
Because no company is entitled to NV's (or AMD's) products. If you don't want to play the game that's your choice. Tier 1 and Tier 2 benefits are thing in every single market. If you solely support a single producer they will in fact give you better benefits than another company that uses their competitor's products.
I don't think you really understand NV and AMDs role. You are not buying NV or AMD cards you never where. You are buying Asus/MSI ect cards made with NV and AMD parts.

NV and AMD designed the processor on their cards. Sure it is the most important part but its one of multiple parts on the card.

Perhaps Samsung should send all these guys the same letter that says Our memory is faster then Hyniix Micron or whoever else you are buying from.... SO we want to ensure customers buying your top end parts are only getting the only true gamer quality ram from Samsung. So if you agree to align your gaming brand solely with Samsung we'll ensure your supply shipments actually make it there cause you know this is the best ram around we have a lot of obligations to meet.... oh and hey to make it sweeter we'll pay 20% of your advertising costs as long as your a samsung ram us club member.

Or if you wanna get really stupid... what if one of the large manufacturers of high end capacitors like say Rubycon did the same. Demanding to be the sole supplier of all gaming cards offering a deal where they provided them with deep discounts if you signed up... with the suggestion being if you don't sign up your competition will get the deal instead and get our high end Japanese caps at the same price as the cheepos. If a company like Rubycon attempted to extort their way into a dominate market position like that they would end up in court no doubt.
 

Bankie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
1,655
I don't think you really understand NV and AMDs role. You are not buying NV or AMD cards you never where. You are buying Asus/MSI ect cards made with NV and AMD parts.

NV and AMD designed the processor on their cards. Sure it is the most important part but its one of multiple parts on the card.

Perhaps Samsung should send all these guys the same letter that says Our memory is faster then Hyniix Micron or whoever else you are buying from.... SO we want to ensure customers buying your top end parts are only getting the only true gamer quality ram from Samsung. So if you agree to align your gaming brand solely with Samsung we'll ensure your supply shipments actually make it there cause you know this is the best ram around we have a lot of obligations to meet.... oh and hey to make it sweeter we'll pay 20% of your advertising costs as long as your a samsung ram us club member.

Or if you wanna get really stupid... what if one of the large manufacturers of high end capacitors like say Rubycon did the same. Demanding to be the sole supplier of all gaming cards offering a deal where they provided them with deep discounts if you signed up... with the suggestion being if you don't sign up your competition will get the deal instead and get our high end Japanese caps at the same price as the cheepos. If a company like Rubycon attempted to extort their way into a dominate market position like that they would end up in court no doubt.
I understand it completely. If their products are that much better then more power to them; I'm sure many of us would love for some branding that shows a new GPU uses Samsung memory.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,562
I understand it completely. If their products are that much better then more power to them; I'm sure many of us would love for some branding that shows a new GPU uses Samsung memory.
Well not to go on about Ethics... cause you know it is important companies be seen as ethical even if things are not illegal. The things I just described would be very much illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_dealing

Canadian Law;
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-34/page-22.html#h-33

When it comes to the US will not claim to be an expert having said that;
The Sherman Act sections 1 and 2 apply as does the third section of the Clayton Act.
All 3 have been used in the prosecution of both MS and Intel.
http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/ShermanClaytonFTC_Acts.pdf
 

FearTheCow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
4,926
I understand it completely. If their products are that much better then more power to them; I'm sure many of us would love for some branding that shows a new GPU uses Samsung memory.
GPP has nothing to do with Nvidia having a faster card, GPP has everything to do with Nvidia using their market share to what is for all intents and purposes, force other companies to put AMD at a disadvantage. Now guess what, that is called being anti-competitive and monopolistic.

How is it that every defender of GPP tries to justify it by saying Nvidia has faster cars so it's ok? This has absolutely fuck all to do with who has faster cards.
 

Bankie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
1,655
GPP has nothing to do with Nvidia having a faster card, GPP has everything to do with Nvidia using their market share to what is for all intents and purposes, force other companies to put AMD at a disadvantage. Now guess what, that is called being anti-competitive and monopolistic.

How is it that every defender of GPP tries to justify it by saying Nvidia has faster cars so it's ok? This has absolutely fuck all to do with who has faster cards.

I didn't say it was solely because of faster cards; that quoted comment was purely in regards to it being a good thing if GPUs were branded with Samsung memory so we could more easily avoid the less wanted manufacturers which is what the GPP does by separating NV and AMD GPUs into their own lines of branding. While there is certainly a problem with having too many brands under a label it would be great to know whether you were getting Samsung or Hynix on a card.

Asus now sells ROG NV cards and AREZ AMD cards; big whoop. If AMD can't compete with their own brands then they have no hope already. Hell it's possible that the new branding will help them (if they could procure a decent marketing team which doesn't seem possible for them judging by their past marketing efforts).

Do you think that Powercolor or XFX don't get priority support and first dibs on chips over other brands when they're always the first (or only) AIBs to release AMD's high-end GPUs. They basically have their own version of the GPP but just can't demand their own branding because they know that NV products being on the same brand helps them to be seen as more equal since their "street cred" is so low that it's basically only known to us enthusiasts. There's no reason that they couldn't offer the non-vendor specific AIBs similar benefits as NV.
 

Bankie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
1,655
Well not to go on about Ethics... cause you know it is important companies be seen as ethical even if things are not illegal. The things I just described would be very much illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_dealing

Canadian Law;
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-34/page-22.html#h-33

When it comes to the US will not claim to be an expert having said that;
The Sherman Act sections 1 and 2 apply as does the third section of the Clayton Act.
All 3 have been used in the prosecution of both MS and Intel.
http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/ShermanClaytonFTC_Acts.pdf
I looked through all three links.

Where is the problem with ethics in regards to buying a brand? That's essentially what the GPP is. It's not "Exclusive Dealing" as the AIBs can still sell AMD; this was specifically stated right in the info that Kyle posted.
 
Top