Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by FrgMstr, Aug 21, 2018.
Can we say "lawsuit for breaking a legally binding agreement"?
Ya know the whole "Nvidia can suck it" notion is a valid one however you have to consider reality. Shutting yourself off to the company that makes up 80% of the GPU market when none of the other reviewers and journalists are may not be the best business plan.
It's easy for us to sit here and say fuck Nvidia but this isn't our livelihood we're talking about.
Putting out reviews, especially of a product as anticipated as these cards are, several days or weeks after everybody has one out isn't necessarily a good thing.
So my yes vote has a selfish aspect to it...I like this place and want it to thrive and be around a long time. I also don't see anything too wrong with that.
There's a NDA on the NDA...believe it or not. So how can we prove something if NVIDIA prevents the public from seeing it.
Obviously they are trying to hide shit yet again. Quit being a shill.
Does anyone know when the actual benchmarks and reviews are set to come out? like the normal NDA lift?
At the end of the day, I'll read Toms Review, Anands Review, and my favorite [H] review. I don't care if it's a week behind. I want all possible takes on it. It's too bad we don't have data on how many people do this.
Nothing worse than a multi year generic NDA so no. Don't do it. Either way I'll be buying AMD next as long as NVIDIA is acting like this. I'll probably move my work purchases from Quadro to FirePro
I voted no. Ultimately it's up to you and I suggest you contact your lawyer and ask them if that contract is as heavy handed as it reads to me. I can tell you that I am more trusting of your reviews because I know you bought the cards and not got them for free with a possible NDA filter attached to the review. Whatever your decision is, I will still respect it for whatever that's worth.
Kyle I'm not going to vote out of principle in the poll, mainly because it's not my place to tell you how to run your business.
You're in the best position to see how this would really affect you (the numbers) and I'm not talking about passing by forum posters (remember for some, you're always shilling for either AMD or Intel or Nvidia or Via ).
A big ol fat NO.
Linus Torvalds said it best..... Fuck NVidia.
As much as I would hate to say this, I would sign the NDA. Not only would you be saving A LOT of money, you would also be getting a lot of same day review traffic because well...Everyone knows about you and Nvidia having issues! What better way to get more hits for the website than to have a same day reviews of the new RTX line of products. Everyone already thinks Nvidia hates you ya know?
I mean don't get me wrong I think that NDA is fucked up, But more traffic to the site is always a good thing right?
Link to patreon on the top of the page. You are more thank welcome to join us in helping this site out.
Right!??!! I mean, Let's only think about today when making decisions!
$4300 .... today. There will be a tomorrow. And does this $4,300 even include all the products they want to review, even if we were only going to think about today?
NO, to reiterate what some have stated.. We want in-depth analysis, not click bait.
We are with you either way. I voted no, but money is money, and bills need to be paid. I've been here for a long time, as my home page for many years. I am not concerned if the review is late.
Is this a non-negotiable NDA? All NDAs that I've worked with have had modifications, or at least discussions, regarding the duration and scope of the agreement.
I'm not that worried about the multi-year aspect. I've seen numerous large companies shift to them as they significantly reduce the amount of time wasted and resources utilized during their executions (legal review/revisions can take a while at times). Renewing NDAs every 1-2 years with multiple parties can become very tedious.
I voted yes, sign it. There is so much more to having a working relationship with the card manufacturers than just getting review samples early, vs paying for them. Communication is a two way street, and you can provide them feedback and have some (surely limited, but still valuable) input into what they do and how.
You should ask those that voted: who actually read the NDA? I did, and while I have no other experience in NDAs, I do in other contracts. The only line I would be concerned about is: "Recipient shall use Confidential Information solely for the benefit on NVIDIA". What does that mean? Have your lawyer provide some feedback on that.
Yes, the NDA may be onerous. But as long as you can clear up the above (and I would say that publishing honest video card reviews is for the benefit of NVIDIA), then I don't see anything that would jeopardize your journalistic integrity.
If what I'm reading correct is true, it seems they've really revised it to be almost a soldier for them promotion wise. I'd go back and fourth on this one for weeks if it was me. It's a big expense to incur but I'm not sure I could sign it. Then again, we don't run this site here, you do, and not only are the cards expensive but site maintenance as well. Very tough situation. But there is one thing I'm 100 on and that's that the reviews will be unbiased and fair regardless of the outcome.
If it’s going to hurt the site or your livelihood Sign it.
Does the NDA prohibit a fair and honest review? Sounds like it doesn't, so I vote Yes.
I suspect a good number of no votes are from angry AMDbros just trying to sabotage and drive a wedge. Something to consider.
This is your business and livelihood Kyle. Don't let fanboy bickering sway it.
Where does the NDA say it's multi-year? All I saw was the agreement would continue until terminated in writing by either party (although it doesn't specify conditions under which the agreement can be terminated). Sounds rather vague and permanent to me, especially considering it is so general and non-product specific.
I would have probably said "that NDA isn't so bad" and voted yes if nVidia weren't such shifty underhanded sons o' bitches. I can't help but be skeptical about it.
If you can still give us the honest reviews we're used to then I say sign it.
Sign it in blood with the numbers 666 not a signature and send them that.
I voted no. If you have a problem with the NDA you're the one who has to live with it not us. I think most everyone here agrees a few days won't make a difference. I didn't preorder because I don't buy things without researching them first.
This is a tough one. If you were a simple reviewer then of course you could sign it with no problems. But if I understood you correctly, it may throw a wrench into the gears when you are doing journalistic work and you ARE a journalist first and foremost. It probably won't affect you reporting information you get from 3rd parties but it will prevent you from reporting shenanigans Nvidia themselves reveal ahead of time.
Personally if your journalistic integrity is the most important thing here then do not sign it. But if it is your livelihood and future of HardOCP that is at stake then I guess you have to sign it, as sad as it is. ;(
I cannot really vote because I am so between the answers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Nvidia have a history of launch/review drivers that don't match what you should expect a month or two after launch? If that is a possibility, given their history, I think the choice is easy. Say no to drugs and Nvidia.
However, on the flip side, if you review the new cards after a driver update comes out and it corrects some "performance irregularities", thus giving lower measurable FPS than the launch/reviews drivers, every fanboy and their mother will cry that [H] is on the take with AMD.
Honestly, this is your business, do what youre comfortable with.
But do I really need to see reviews on day one? Nope. I can go eleswhere, I generally look at Guru3D and HardOCP anyway and compare results.
Realistically, there won't be a GPU to be had for weeks if not months anyway, so I can wait until MSI or ASUS samples you to see what's what. I usually buy from the brands that
sample you here anyway; that's how I repay their loyalty to you. I buy their stuff.
If you here think it's a bad idea to accept nvidia's terms, then don't, I can wait.
Just sign it. More specifically to save you money.
Also, don't forget "Recipient shall use Confidential Information solely for the benefit of Nvidia"
I voted Yes, but only because I dont see anything wrong with the NDA. Longer term NDAs are more common in my industry now. But I dont think this should be a poll, this should be up to your lawyer if the risk are out weighed by the reward.
Signing it could have some benefits obviously, but considering the past relationship between this website and Nvidia it's entirely possible that the moment they get the signed NDA returned to them they could simply have a really good laugh about it and never ever actually invite Kyle to participate in anything at all.
I voted No because I think Nvidia is prone to doing just such underhanded bullshit and I don't think it's worth the risk to be locked into an NDA for 10 years if they decide to do such a thing. I don't actually see any positives at this point to signing considering the amount of time and the rather extraordinary lengths to which the NDA goes.
But that's just me.
Based on what we know about Nvidia's business practices, I vote NO.
I would rather have a retail sample reviewed, without restrictions or limitation, over a "review sample" that has in the past, been known to be not representative of the released technology. ie. Overclocked RAM or Overclocked GPU, Overclocked Both, or even different PCB rev., Golden Samples, etc.
I value real world, what an end user experiences, reviews.
Thank you for fostering such a strong computer hardware site through these many years! I don't care what "they" say, I care what [H] says.
If you can only report the positive crap nvidia promotes via their press releases without being under threat of suit for an NDA violation, even if you're able to beat that in court that doesn't mean you'll get the money back used for legal defense and it's not exactly a secret that large companies will drag out cases against "the little guy" just to win via attrition over legal fees. Being unable to remain unbiased over a legal agreement means you would no longer be doing journalism, you would be doing marketing and that applies to any company pulling this kind of thing. An NDA for a product for testing in advance with an embargo date, or being able to report on something having seen it in person while keeping specific technical details under wraps is one thing but this is complete bullshit. Even if nvidia did ditch the GPP, if they pull that crap again it needs reported on. Frankly I didn't even particularly care myself over the name of the gaming brand associated with a product, but it still needs to be reported on, period.
And as someone else replied above while I was typing this, nothing would stop nvidia from screwing hardocp in the long term even if they did sign it, by still not giving them information and/or samples and could threaten legal action over the NDA.
Definitely not worth it.
Buy your own review samples.
Set up a GPU give away when your done with your testing. Make it a raffle where every $x amount of money donated Via Patreon gets you one entry. (ok first check what the rules are on such things where your company is located so you don't run into any potential issues there). I have no doubt your costs would be covered or close to covered anyway. Worse case if there are rules in Texas regarding the running of raffles or something... just sell your cards on the used market for 80% of their value. Paying 20-30% of the cost to pick up testing samples doesn't seem that crazy to me.
Having said that if you choose to sign, I think everyone still respects your opinion. Hey man its your lively hood. Choice is yours.
Take the NDA, make it look as identical as possible only change a few words around to make it read as being on your side.
Don't say anything, sign your modified NDA and send that in.
The only advice you need Kyle, is to do the right thing. I don't know what the NDA says but if it restricts honest journalism and prevents you writing what you want to about competitors products, then it is not worth it.
I voted no.
I also agree with previous posters, if signing this would impact the ability for you to give an honest review of said products, then I wouldn't sign it.
But I also do not know how much of an impact this would have on your revenue and how well [H] is doing financially, but sometimes feeding family comes first even if it's not the most popular choice.
So if you signed it, you would not be able to pull a GPP? Honest review? It seems to broad of wording.
If this GPU sucked major ass I would want the usual [H] review and say that it sucked ass.
If it's the same NDA you showed us earlier, then no. It would still prevent you from talking to leaks from inside the company, and reporting on those.
I'd rather keep paying you over Patron than have you lose that power.
It wouldn't affect review results. There's an exception for that in the NDA already for original content (review of product). The NDA just restricts reporting of proprietary information without permission (i.e. internal company leaks)