Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The issue I see is Asus diluting the Nvidia brand by putting it under the same gaming brand as AMD which is inferior. Why should Nvidia accept this under GPP? Of course Asus could opt out as could every other AIB and OEM. So why are they signing up?
You are correct, and those folks need to get on topic, and stop with the perceived legal arguments. Should they wish to discuss those in-depth, I would suggest their own thread. I do not care to deal with that minutiae in this thread.Bunch of boiler room barristers here.
Who does 'ROG' belong to? And who therefore gets to decide what tech goes into it? Hint: it is not ...or rather.... it should not be nVidia.
Because most sub-brands are visually and tonally in line with each other, bad publicity or a colossal failure in even a smaller venture can have disastrous consequences. We've seen this play out with well-known brands like Samsung with its Galaxy Note 7 and even Apple --even the most diehard Apple fans will abandon the brand across the board if one product doesn't meet their expectations.
If ASUS, puts nV's brand with AMD's brand in the same ROG brand, yeah then all three have say on what goes in the ROG brand. But ASUS better be fully aware if the product owners are not happen about the ROG brand, the better change it their liking otherwise..... The ROG brand means nothing without those products being there. Right now, nV's brand is stronger so......
What the hell are you saying exactly ??? I'm not trying to sound to strong here but your logic is seriously flawed here.
ROG doesn't belong to Nvidia. No OEM card makers brands belong to NV or AMD or any other part supplier. Perhaps Samsung should demand control over those brands cause they are using Samsung memory on the cards. Perhaps Samsung should tell all the OEMs they are cut off unless they only put samsungs best of the best most expensive offerings in their game lines. Your line of reasoning is seriously flawed. NV / AMD are part suppliers in the relationship nothing more.
AMD and NV have ZERO say in what Asus puts in any brand that belongs to Asus. Putting X or Y GPU in that card doesn't make it NV or AMD or Intel property.
NV is using their current market position to block their competition long term. We get it you yourself love NV and don't see the issue with your favorite company hijacking PC card manufacturers brands. Regardless of how you feel about NV in general... this move is both unethical and illegal. Outrage may kill it in the cradle, if not yes no doubt Kyle will have law suits to report on for years to come.
Nvidia is going to fuck everyone over and you are perfectly fine with it, we get it.editing the post, keep going, yeah they do they have a lot of thing to say about branding of their products. Without nV or AMD, ROG, ASUS, has no graphics card sales division, no graphics cards period.
If nV or AMD doesn't like a branding of a particular AIB, they can just say sorry we aren't selling to you. Its their choice to make that happen. You think ASUS could stop that?
Look its like Intel vs nV with the IP of chip sets for motherboards. Intel didn't need nV anymore, they said screw you, you can't make them anymore, no more IP for you. Same thing here, we don't like your brand and sub brands, screw you, we won't sell to you.
Nvidia is going to fuck everyone over and you are perfectly fine with it, we get it.
Nvidia is basically strong arming AIB and OEMs into this under the threat of losing chips, developmental access to new architectures, and support, there is no decision to be had by AIB's and OEM's, it's either volunteer or get fucked over for not doing what they say.
It's really not hard to understand, the only company that wins with this shit is Nvidia, which will fuck everyone over, particularly AMD and customers.
I'm not saying its ok, I'm saying they can do it if they want to and they are trying to do it with GPP. Take me out of the picture please. This isn't about me, this is about what nV thinks they want to do with THEIR BRAND.
As a consumer, we have no choice about it man. If nV doesn't want to sell to us, they don't need to either! Its their damn product dude. Its their products that made ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, major players in the graphics card market.
NV doesn't sell to consumers.
I think that is where your disconnect with what is happening here may be.
NV does not sell to end users.
NV has a small handful of customers and they are companies like yes Asus as it was Kyles example.
The large OEMS produced graphics boards long before NV was a company. NV is a parts supplier >.< They can aspire to be more if they wish but until they decide to go out and build their own fabs, manufacturing facilities, and build their own sales pipelines. That is ALL they are.
Delco doesn't get to tell GM how to market cars built with their product. This situation is no different. Of course Asus and the like wanna NV to be happy they design the chips in their cards... but they don't build the cards they don't sell the cards, and marketing created by the companies that do belongs to them and no one part supplier has the legal right to tell them how to go about that. (unless they sign those rights away.. which is the point) This is NV using their current market position to ensure they get to be the sole part supplier for "gaming" targeted cards. Which no matter what you wanna believe quite illegal... and unethical as hell.
We are going to give you a break from this thread for a while. We all need a rest from your monopolization of the topic. We understand your point of view. As noted, we got it the first 50 times you said it.how is Delco relevant in this, it was a subsidiary of GM wasn't it? GM OWNED Delco. Of course Delco couldn't tell GM how to market GM cars lol.
The problem is nV designs the cards too, they give the specs to the AIB's to make their cards so the boards worth their GPU's. AIB's can't make their own GPU's.
That is not illegal man.
Take you for example, if you made the next pair of high price jeans and make a killing. You let another company put their own pockets on it. And sell them as Brand Y with your brand Z on them. You tell them don't modify my shit cause you don't like their look and don't put your brand name next to my brand name. Do they own your name that makes them money?
First off they had to get permission from you to do the modifications, just like AIB's need to stick with specs for the GPU's to function properly. They need to buy your product to sell it under their name. They are not entitled anything from you other then what they paid for, and if you don't like what they are doing with your brand you are entitled not to sell to them.
AIB's and OEM's aren't entailed because they sell others products. Its like going to Walmart and seeing Walmart brand or what ever retail name products, its not theirs, they are allowed to sell them under their name by the company that owns the products, if the company that owns those products doesn't like what Walmart is doing, they can pull their products. There is nothing Walmart can do about it, they have to go to another company that is it. With GPU's kinda hard to do that right now, but nothing illegal there.
This is a straw man. Sure, the AIBs have every right to choose the branding of their parts. If you had read Kyle's article, you would understand that NVIDIA is potentially taking away that choice by not allowing the AIBs to choose to market both AMD and NVIDIA under the same branding. Let's not even get to number two because your first point doesn't make even the tiniest bit of sense.
and it answers exactly what i've been wondering!! so ,based on your arguments, we come down that the GPP it's only AIB's issue and AMD has no right to intervene, right?ROG doesn't belong to Nvidia. No OEM card makers brands belong to NV or AMD or any other part supplier. Perhaps Samsung should demand control over those brands cause they are using Samsung memory on the cards. Perhaps Samsung should tell all the OEMs they are cut off unless they only put samsungs best of the best most expensive offerings in their game lines, or tell them putting any other companies memory in their gaming line will result in loss of Gold member status. Your line of reasoning is seriously flawed. NV / AMD are part suppliers in the relationship nothing more.
What i can't understand is how this is AMD's issue and not an AIB's issue.
Does AMD have any legal rights to the products that the AIBs sell, and they contain AMD processors inside ? i assume that the AIBs have bought-out from AMD the rights to sell her products and that's it.
For example : AMD sells processors to SONY as well as Microsoft for their consoles. AFTER these parts are sold, does AMD still has any legal leverage on what SONY or Microsoft will do with the stuff they bought from AMD ?
-If yes, then in our case with GPP, AMD could indeed claim that her interests are being damaged BUT If it's an AIB issue, then it's totally up to them to decide if their possible participation at GPP benefits them or not, so they can simply sign or not sign.
EDIT: ChadD Just noticed your post #634,
and it answers exactly what i've been wondering!! so ,based on your arguments, we come down that the GPP it's only AIB's issue and AMD has no right to intervene, right?
Legally all this type of stuff is messy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
I'm not expert in competition law I will admit. I know this sounds like it falls into anti monopoly statues. So what I understand of US law there could be potential AMD vs and US Gov Vs type cases here. Exclusionary practices would be the term that would get used in court documents. Laws in the EU tend to be a lot more strict in this area and tend to end in fines. Where is in the US things tend to end up in Civil cases. So if we look at Intel vs AMD they settled in the US with AMD and where fined in the EU. Both north of a billion. In this case if this hasn't gotten underway at this point clearly that type of case isn't going to happen anytime soon. In the case of AMD vs Intel things went on for a long time... heck Dell almost went out of business when the Intel rebate program ended they got so used to the big fat Intel checks. Dell used that bump to sell at a price that grew their company fast.
In some ways this is also a bit similer to some of the smaller cases MS lost on smaller things like Windows Media player. The EU courts proved MS was in a dominate position and that inclusion, made it harder for third party media player companies to compete. If NV where to be proven to be in a dominate position (which I think they could argue against if the court looks at overall market share and not just a narrow segement like gaming) then according to say the EU courts NV would have, "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market." Based on what we have heard from Kyle I would say that for sure this program would be illegal in the EU (and they love dragging tech companies into court) NV defense in such a case I'm sure would be to claim they where not in fact dominate and point to AMD and Intel overall market share and hope the courts don't only look at gaming market share.
Who does 'ROG' belong to? And who therefore gets to decide what tech goes into it? Hint: it is not ...or rather.... it should not be nVidia.
Yes it belongs to Asus and they can keep it that way by not joining GPP. See how easy that is?
whoosh, this whole debate and it's implications went way over your head, didn't it?
how much i like statements which are using concrete & logical arguments!! You know, since you are mocking people who dare to express their opinion , at least, please do bother to explain us the reasons that you disagree with those you mock...
Yes it belongs to Asus and they can keep it that way by not joining GPP. See how easy that is?
1)Because there are a lot of people that keep coming back into the debate, 17 pages in, making the same arguments that entirely miss the point of Kyles article, causing these arguments to go in circles as we have to explain the basics of the entire issue to them.
2)And they can decide to stay away from GPP at their own peril. It shouldn't be that way, but if you read the article, which I'm sure you did, NVIDIA is withholding a bunch of benefits to board partners that will basically make these board partners completely noncompetitive, the GPU industry less competitive as a whole as well, which you know, was the whole point of the article. Ignoring the article and making the same weak argument is borderline trolling.
Yes it belongs to Asus and they can keep it that way by not joining GPP. See how easy that is?
And if Company X does not commit to its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce," a massive loss of current marketing perks will occur. NVIDIA will tell you that it is 100% up to its partner company to be part of GPP, and from the documents I have read, if it chooses not to be part of GPP, it will lose the benefits of GPP which include: high-effort engineering engagements -- early tech engagement -- launch partner status -- game bundling -- sales rebate programs -- social media and PR support -- marketing reports -- Marketing Development Funds (MDF). MDF is likely the standout in that list of lost benefits if the company is not a GPP partner.Oh yes and I do. But while it is surprising how many here don't.... not joining is not being presented as a creditable choice.
I've never seen so many people salivating at the potential for a market leader to become an outright monopoly. The amount of comments from people trying to spin this into another "good business move" from NVIDIA is pretty telling. I mean the AIB's have been able to market their products as they see fit for 20+ years but now apparently it's a serious problem, brand recognition is being diluted, something needs to be done!
From a legal standpoint I don't think it's ever black and white. I think AMD would have to try to prove damages and since the program is just ramping up it would probably be a few years of it being in place for there to be a significant enough effect on the market for AMD to be able to make that sort of claim. If you look at the AMD/Intel case it took years for them to receive compensation and one has to wonder whether it was enough considering the business they lost. I think the strategy here is to put pressure on NVIDIA to alter the program to give AIB's more control of their brand and if that doesn't work pursue a long costly legal avenue if that's the only option.
Hence the reason to go public with this information. Amazing how many so called legal experts we have in the [H]. I personally prefer AMD products for my builds and as a piece of hardware itself, I have no issues recommending Intel or Nvidia of others. That said, this GPP stuff is not built on having a stronger or better product for Nvidia but upon their manipulation of the market. Hopefully, this will give them a real slap in the face, multiple times.
No on the record comments from ASUS or MSI.That moves it passed the 'nod and a wink' phase and into the 'meet my lawyer' phase...right?
Any comment from Asus or MSI yet?
As I'm in the UK , can you confirm that this something nVidia want AIB/OEMs to do in all their world markets or is it limited to the US?
Wow that is fucked up. If I had Nvidia stock, I would be selling it all right now.
You rarely see a car dealership that sells more than one brand unless those brands are owned by the same company. You can't just open a car dealership in the middle of the network as there are rules against it. .
Top brands won't, but the mid brands will for the benefits. Think Zotac or PNY, who are Nvidia only. Then, the competing brands that do both will follow suit to compete, and it will spread from there.All the OEMs and AIBs have to do is not sign up for this program. If every one of them don't sign up, they'll have to cancel this program. If the GPP is this draconian, I don't know why ANY vendors will join cause they have to waste money on making a new brand just for nVidia stuff.
I was just informed through a solid source that ASUS and MSI have already signed on to do NVIDIA GPP. I have not been able to verify this information with ASUS or MSI yet, and I doubt I will be able to.All the OEMs and AIBs have to do is not sign up for this program. If every one of them don't sign up, they'll have to cancel this program. If the GPP is this draconian, I don't know why ANY vendors will join cause they have to waste money on making a new brand just for nVidia stuff.
All the OEMs and AIBs have to do is not sign up for this program. If every one of them don't sign up, they'll have to cancel this program. If the GPP is this draconian, I don't know why ANY vendors will join cause they have to waste money on making a new brand just for nVidia stuff.
I think sadly they will ALL sign. Big and small.
And what happens when/if NV is not the only "real option" down the road. It puts AMD at a credible disadvantage in the market when/if that happens.What is shitty, and it has been said (of course in 17 pages), is that nVidia is the only real option for high end gaming, especially if you want the best/halo product... ugh.