NVIDIA Pulling Plug on GPP

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,852
That could never happen because AMD informed Kyle about Nvidias GPP. But now since Nvidia is no longer talking to Kyle there would be no one to rat out AMD if they started their own RedGPUsMatter secret campaign.;)
Clearly you haven't seen Kyle write about AMD in the past doing what he always does. Bringing us all some good journalism while everyone is busy kissing ass. Agian if AMD pulled something similar to GPP kyle would report it. I have no question about that.
 

Jim Kim

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
3,718
I highly doubt AMD was the sources kyle was talking about.
@2:20 mark Kyle says AMD did shop this story to us (my jesting is that if AMD went full RedZone and did a similar program there would be no one to tell Kyle since Nvidia has taken their toys and went home mad.)
 

IKV1476

Lurker
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
319
Next time we should just wait until Company XYZ goes all the way and is knee deep like Intel did, that we we can all feel the love and burn from the fall out. /S

I am grateful that Kyle published this article and that Nvidia pulled GPP down, now and not later, when they surely would have been sued and the cost of that lawsuit would have been passed onto the consumer.
As it is Nvidia got some bad PR, deservedly so, and now hopefully they just get back to making great products. Let the product decide market share, not back room shadiness.

Having said that AMD needs to market their cards better, if they can not compete at the top, they need to not even talk about it. Be the mid and low end, there are more people here then at the top.
 

Ieldra

I Promise to RTFM
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
3,543
Man I have no idea why you defend nvidia like you are their personal lawyer. May be you are.
And I have no idea why you think this, maybe it's because I'm not one for sensationalized stories and lofty diatribes about corporate ethics? Also, in my experience responses that start with " I have no idea why you defend X maybe you are their lawyer/lover/mother" are usually written by people who have no business engaging in meaningful conversation whatsoever.


It is anti competitive.
In the court of public opinion, perhaps.

If it wasn't nvidia wouldn't have shut it down. Period! There is more to the story. I do firmly believe when major OEMs like Dell and HP gave nvidia the middle finger and told them to F off. That might have been the end of it.
If it wasn't anti-competitive, nvidia wouldn't have shut it down. Okay. We shall entertain this claim and assume it to be true; why, then was it the project abandoned as a response to negative press and coverage? You think nvidia's lawyers need HardOCP, GN and the court of public opinion to turn against them in order to figure out what's legal and what isn't? I think it's legal, and how I FEEL about it is fucking irrelevant. I FEEL like buying products manufactured in certain countries is "unethical" or rather I am opposed to the notion that I am supporting said country(/ies) by purchasing certain products. That doesn't make it illegal, even if the actions of the host country are illegal and often criticized by human rights organizations and NGOs. Moreover it's patently absurd to think of "punishing" a company for making decisions that are in their (financial) interest while remaining within the confines of the law because that's just the nature of a corporate entity. It's not a person, it's a bank account. GPP is good for the bank account, and as far as I can glean also good for the legal department.


You don't see any problem here? Its not all about people's feeling. Nvidia wants OEMs and AIBs to align their gaming brand to only nvidia gpus. Meaning anything AMD in it can not be considered their gaming brand. That was what was wrong with Nvidia. That is definition of Anti competitive behavior. Gigabyte was already saying they are changing AMD branding becuase they don't consider them their gaming brand. So hey if you want something for gaming its Nvidia only if you got AMD we won't call it gaming.
No, that's how you're spinning it. "Nvidia wants OEMs and AIBs to align their gaming brand to only nvidia gpus" is not a fact, it's your interpretation and you refuse to recognize how frivolous your interpretation is. The concessions made to AIBs who sign the GPP are not rights, I really don't know what you want to call them, but basically my point is nobody is owed marketing money, nobody is owed a higher allotment of GPU supply, nobody is owed "early access" to GPUs to develop boards etc. I don't see how putting constraints on what basically amounts to preferential treatment by NV is illegal.

ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte probably didn't have enough pull and I think when Major OEMs gave nvidia the no, it went down from there. No this has nothing to do with gameworks, its not even remotely same. Just to make this about morality is purely taking sides. We need less fanboyism and more realism.
It sounds like you're trying to say that Asus, MSI and Gigabyte deemed it more profitable to create a separate AMD brand than to lose their premium brand's association with top of the line hardware. They were only forced to take this course of action insofar as the alternative was less profitable. You're more than welcome to debate this instead of speculating about the identity and nature of my employment.

This is just irrational as claiming gameworks exists purely to spite AMD, it is 100% analogous to gameworks in the context of what I wrote.

Nvidia pulled it before they had to go to court over it. Its as simple as that. Good move on their part. I think they were facing major opposition from big OEMs.
This is equivalent to claiming NV needed Kyle, Steve from GN and a bunch of people whining on the internet for their lawyers to discover the contracts they OK'd were illegal and evidence of anti-competitive practices.

You don't seem to have decided if you want to paint NV as some greedy malevolent behemoth or as a bunch of incompetent numbnuts who happened to chance upon several industry leading designs for several years in a row.

FACING OPPOSITION FROM OEMs IS FINE. Cancelling GPP because everyone and their mother hated it is fine. Cancelling GPP because SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE showed up at NV campus and literally flung shit at the HQ is fine.

GPP is the literal spawn of the devil. GPP is the moral equivalent of eating eight Ethiopian kids for breakfast. Just dandy. Doesn't affect it's legality.

It's a negotiation, and all of this PR shitstorm is part of this negotiation and AMD evidently doesn't have the clout to influence the conversation directly, and "leaking" GPP to Kyle was a good move on their behalf.
 
Last edited:

Ieldra

I Promise to RTFM
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
3,543
Next time we should just wait until Company XYZ goes all the way and is knee deep like Intel did, that we we can all feel the love and burn from the fall out. /S

I am grateful that Kyle published this article and that Nvidia pulled GPP down, now and not later, when they surely would have been sued and the cost of that lawsuit would have been passed onto the consumer.
As it is Nvidia got some bad PR, deservedly so, and now hopefully they just get back to making great products. Let the product decide market share, not back room shadiness.

Having said that AMD needs to market their cards better, if they can not compete at the top, they need to not even talk about it. Be the mid and low end, there are more people here then at the top.
AMD needs to make better GPUs because AIBs clearly don't deem theirs good enough to dedicate ROG/Gaming X/Whatever branding to them.
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,852
And I have no idea why you think this, maybe it's because I'm not one for sensationalized stories and lofty diatribes about corporate ethics? Also, in my experience responses that start with " I have no idea why you defend X maybe you are their lawyer/lover/mother" are usually written by people who have no business engaging in meaningful conversation whatsoever.




In the court of public opinion, perhaps.



If it wasn't anti-competitive, nvidia wouldn't have shut it down. Okay. We shall entertain this claim and assume it to be true; why, then was it the project abandoned as a response to negative press and coverage? You think nvidia's lawyers need HardOCP, GN and the court of public opinion to turn against them in order to figure out what's legal and what isn't? I think it's legal, and how I FEEL about it is fucking irrelevant. I FEEL like buying products manufactured in certain countries is "unethical" or rather I am opposed to the notion that I am supporting said country(/ies) by purchasing certain products. That doesn't make it illegal, even if the actions of the host country are illegal and often criticized by human rights organizations and NGOs. Moreover it's patently absurd to think of "punishing" a company for making decisions that are in their (financial) interest while remaining within the confines of the law because that's just the nature of a corporate entity. It's not a person, it's a bank account. GPP is good for the bank account, and as far as I can glean also good for the legal department.




No, that's how you're spinning it. "Nvidia wants OEMs and AIBs to align their gaming brand to only nvidia gpus" is not a fact, it's your interpretation and you refuse to recognize how frivolous your interpretation is. The concessions made to AIBs who sign the GPP are not rights, I really don't know what you want to call them, but basically my point is nobody is owed marketing money, nobody is owed a higher allotment of GPU supply, nobody is owed "early access" to GPUs to develop boards etc. I don't see how putting constraints on what basically amounts to preferential treatment by NV is illegal.



It sounds like you're trying to say that Asus, MSI and Gigabyte deemed it more profitable to create a separate AMD brand than to lose their premium brand's association with top of the line hardware. They were only forced to take this course of action insofar as the alternative was less profitable. You're more than welcome to debate this instead of speculating about the identity and nature of my employment.

This is just irrational as claiming gameworks exists purely to spite AMD, it is 100% analogous to gameworks in the context of what I wrote.



This is equivalent to claiming NV needed Kyle, Steve from GN and a bunch of people whining on the internet for their lawyers to discover the contracts they OK'd were illegal and evidence of anti-competitive practices.
MEH. Talking to you is like hitting a brick wall where each wall has Nvidia fanboy written on it. You are comparing gameworks to GPP, you failed there already. GPP and Gameworks have nothing in common. Absolutely nothing! I guess AIBs who don't want to be named were bitching for no reason! Its either nvidia's way or the higway.

Yea can you please tell nvidia to restart GPP and make it trasparent what it says in the agreement with AIBs while you are at it? Oh wait, they wont! That is Nvidia backing off knowing it would never fly. They didn't want to make GPP details public, they would rather shut it down than continue. That says a lot about a transparent program.

Oh wait they wanted GPP so people knew exactly what GPU they were getting, like they were doing so bad in selling Pascal. Nvidia has dumb ass excuses why GPP was needed, that in itself is shady.


You are not spinning it? You are making it sound like AIBs wanted GPP because AMD didn't have good enough cards and they wanted to create a whole different brand lol. Common man!
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,852
@2:20 mark Kyle says AMD did shop this story to us (my jesting is that if AMD went full RedZone and did a similar program there would be no one to tell Kyle since Nvidia has taken their toys and went home mad.)
.

AMD shopped the story. But AMD wasnt the only source. You really think AMD has more info about GPP than partners involved?

Kyle has more sources in the industry than AMD. Kyle was being fully transparent unlike Nvidia.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,155
Oh wait they wanted GPP so people knew exactly what GPU they were getting, like they were doing so bad in selling Pascal. Nvidia has dumb ass excuses why GPP was needed, that in itself is shady.
Both AMD and nVidia sold out their GPUs this gen. But for gaming purposes this generation at the higher end nVidia won decisively at the higher end.
 

Ieldra

I Promise to RTFM
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
3,543
MEH. Talking to you is like hitting a brick wall where each wall has Nvidia fanboy written on it. You are comparing gameworks to GPP, you failed there already. GPP and Gameworks have nothing in common. Absolutely nothing! I guess AIBs who don't want to be named were bitching for no reason! Its either nvidia's way or the higway.
I am comparing the irrational backlash and unfounded speculation about it's LEGALITY to the unfounded claims and speculations about GAMEWORKS. I recognize that abstracting the underlying concept from two seemingly unrelated events is not the most easy thing to process, I would have told you I deem you to lack the mental acuity for it had I known you were going to begin both your replies to me with candid ad hominem arguments :D

Yea can you please tell nvidia to restart GPP and make it trasparent what it says in the agreement with AIBs while you are at it? Oh wait, they wont! That is Nvidia backing off knowing it would never fly. They didn't want to make GPP details public, they would rather shut it down than continue. That says a lot about a transparent program.
No, I don't care. They don't have to transparent about their agreements with AIBs. Why would NV release the full extent of the GPP agreement to the public after the negative press was already in full swing ? What exactly could they hope to salvage? I don't see what your point is. They'd rather shut it down than continue. Of course the part about it being a transparent program is bullshit , of course nobody believes the average buyer has trouble distinguishing NV from AMD cards. You seem to to be physically incapable of wrapping your mind around the possibility of me recognizing the typical corporate PR shitbaggery that is plainly evident in their cookie-cutter statements all the while maintaining my view that GPP is not illegal. I'm sorry my more nuanced view of the matter does not coincide with your hasty emotionally driven appeals to moral authority. Wanting to shut it down rather than continue is not illegal.

Oh wait they wanted GPP so people knew exactly what GPU they were getting, like they were doing so bad in selling Pascal. Nvidia has dumb ass excuses why GPP was needed, that in itself is shady.
Again, more evidence of fundamentally flawed reasoning; why does NV simply capitalizing on their market dominance to renegotiate terms with AIBs constitute an anti-competitive practice? You seem obtusely reluctant to separate "NV is a profit-driven entity" from "NV is breaking laws". I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut if NV justified GPP by saying it was a direct response to brown streaks in Raja Koduri's underwear.

You are not spinning it? You are making it sound like AIBs wanted GPP because AMD didn't have good enough cards and they wanted to create a whole different brand lol. Common man!
This is a strawman argument, a logical fallacy typically used by people on the back-foot in arguments when they are faced the upsetting realization that their position is very weak.

I encourage you, nay, i DARE YOU to find a SINGLE LINE in ANY POST i have EVER AUTHORED in which I claim that AIBs WANTED GPP. Let alone wanted GPP because AMD sucks, just point me to the post in which I claim AIBs WANT GPP. GPP is not a favorable move for AIBs. Jesus christ, if I allow myself to my half as honest and just a quarter as candid as you were in the opening lines of this post I'd have my balls nailed to the homepage by the mods, but good god do you deserve a good lambasting for this weak shit.
 

IKV1476

Lurker
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
319
AMD needs to make better GPUs because AIBs clearly don't deem theirs good enough to dedicate ROG/Gaming X/Whatever branding to them.
But the AIB's do have AMD cards under those brands.
Nvidia was somehow thinking those brands belong to Nvidia. ROG belongs to ASUS. Gaming belongs to Gigabyte. ETC. The only brand Nvidia owns is GEFORCE.
It is not OK for Nvidia to tell ASUS or Gigabyte or anyone else to give up their branding to them (Nvidia).
If Nvidia had wanted their cards to be separate from AMD then Nvidia should have created a new brand for ASUS, Gigabyte, etc., not try and steal the existing brands from their respective owners.
 

Ieldra

I Promise to RTFM
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
3,543
But the AIB's do have AMD cards under those brands.
Nvidia was somehow thinking those brands belong to Nvidia. ROG belongs to ASUS. Gaming belongs to Gigabyte. ETC. The only brand Nvidia owns is GEFORCE.
It is not OK for Nvidia to tell ASUS or Gigabyte or anyone else to give up their branding to them (Nvidia).
If Nvidia had wanted their cards to be separate from AMD then Nvidia should have created a new brand for ASUS, Gigabyte, etc., not try and steal the existing brands from their respective owners.
Now you're making sense. I agree with everything you wrote except for your perception that NV imposed 'give ROG to nvidia', they didn't. The AIBs faced with the choice of creating new branding for NV vs for AMD chose the latter. No doubt nvidia calculated most would choose to do this, but it's just a question of their dominance in the market and at the high end where the brand image is established.
 

Jim Kim

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
3,718
Kyle has more sources in the industry than AMD. Kyle was being fully transparent unlike Nvidia.
Come on man, did you just say that Kyle has more sources in the industry than the number 2 manufacturer of GPU's, their engineers, sales force, marketing department and CEO's, Presidents, Vice Presidents, Midlevel managers and janitors know combined. And as for AMD knowing everything about GPP, you can bet the house they knew everything, but they let Kyle figure it out on his own.


Obviously I am not doing a very good job of explaining the point I was trying to make. I am not saying Kyle "Bad", Nvidia "Good" or AMD "hurr derr" so if you have any pre-conceived notions about what I said or meant to say or what you think I said, Put them aside for one moment.

I put a winky face on my original post for a reason, it was meant as humor, sarcasm, poe's law and nothing more.

THIS is MY extremely simplified version of what happened.
Kyle did not know anything about GPP until AMD told him.
AMD left it up to Kyle to do actual investigative journalism.
Kyle asked Nvidia about it and they said blah blah blah "If you publish, we will have nothing to do with you".
AND that brings us to where we are today in this forum and my SILLY premise that if AMD today did something similar to GPP there would be no one to tell Kyle about it because Nvidia is no longer talking to him. Unlike originally when AMD brought up GPP to Kyle.

I can't make it any simpler than that.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,155
Again, more evidence of fundamentally flawed reasoning; why does NV simply capitalizing on their market dominance to renegotiate terms with AIBs constitute an anti-competitive practice?
Using market dominance to dictate terms to partners has gone very badly legal systems across the globe in developed economies. Just ask Microsoft.
 

IKV1476

Lurker
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
319
Now you're making sense. I agree with everything you wrote except for your perception that NV imposed 'give ROG to nvidia', they didn't. The AIBs faced with the choice of creating new branding for NV vs for AMD chose the latter. No doubt nvidia calculated most would choose to do this, but it's just a question of their dominance in the market and at the high end where the brand image is established.
From the article:
"The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP comes down to a single requirement in order to be part of GPP. In order to have access to the GPP program, its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." I have read documents with this requirement spelled out on it."
"What would it mean to have your "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce?" The example that will likely resonate best with HardOCP readers is the ASUS Republic of Gamers brand. I have no knowledge if ASUS is a GPP partner, I am simply using the ROG brand hypothetically. If ASUS is an NVIDIA GPP partner, and it wants to continue to use NVIDIA GPUs in its ROG branded video cards, computers, and laptops, it can no longer sell any other company's GPUs in ROG products. So if ASUS want to keep building NVIDIA-based ROG video cards, it can no longer sell AMD-based ROG video cards, and be a GPP partner."

IF Nvidia really wanted GPP to work properly they would have asked the AIB's to create a new brand exclusive to Nvidia based products, instead they said give me your existing brands or no bueno for you.
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,852
Come on man, did you just say that Kyle has more sources in the industry than the number 2 manufacturer of GPU's, their engineers, sales force, marketing department and CEO's, Presidents, Vice Presidents, Midlevel managers and janitors know combined. And as for AMD knowing everything about GPP, you can bet the house they knew everything, but they let Kyle figure it out on his own.


Obviously I am not doing a very good job of explaining the point I was trying to make. I am not saying Kyle "Bad", Nvidia "Good" or AMD "hurr derr" so if you have any pre-conceived notions about what I said or meant to say or what you think I said, Put them aside for one moment.

I put a winky face on my original post for a reason, it was meant as humor, sarcasm, poe's law and nothing more.

THIS is MY extremely simplified version of what happened.
Kyle did not know anything about GPP until AMD told him.
AMD left it up to Kyle to do actual investigative journalism.
Kyle asked Nvidia about it and they said blah blah blah "If you publish, we will have nothing to do with you".
AND that brings us to where we are today in this forum and my SILLY premise that if AMD today did something similar to GPP there would be no one to tell Kyle about it because Nvidia is no longer talking to him. Unlike originally when AMD brought up GPP to Kyle.

I can't make it any simpler than that.
Dude I am saying KYLE has more sources than just amd. AMD is not his only source is what I meant. You just wrote a whole essay about something I didn’t even say.

Wait if AMD does something like that you think only Nvidia would know about it? You think AIBs won’t know or can’t leak info?

I have no idea why you are making it seem like if AMD and Nvidia stop giving KYLE info somehow KYLE would have no sources left.

KYLE could very well have people inside Nvidia and AMD that can pass info regardless of what Nvidia top dogs or AMD top dogs say. AMD and Nvidia are just names with thousands of employees. You know!

You are being very short minded when you assume KYLE can’t get any info on AMD since Nvidia isn’t talking to him. Common man, you think when KYLE broke Polaris news and raja news because it was only Nvidia feeding him info? That’s just silly.
 

Jim Kim

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
3,718
Dude I am saying KYLE has more sources than just amd. AMD is not his only source is what I meant. You just wrote a whole essay about something I didn’t even say.

Wait if AMD does something like that you think only Nvidia would know about it? You think AIBs won’t know or can’t leak info?

I have no idea why you are making it seem like if AMD and Nvidia stop giving KYLE info somehow KYLE would have no sources left.

KYLE could very well have people inside Nvidia and AMD that can pass info regardless of what Nvidia top dogs or AMD top dogs say. AMD and Nvidia are just names with thousands of employees. You know!

You are being very short minded when you assume KYLE can’t get any info on AMD since Nvidia isn’t talking to him. Common man, you think when KYLE broke Polaris news and raja news because it was only Nvidia feeding him info? That’s just silly.
I was making a joke. Sorry it went over your head.
 

Ieldra

I Promise to RTFM
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
3,543
From the article:
"The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP comes down to a single requirement in order to be part of GPP. In order to have access to the GPP program, its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." I have read documents with this requirement spelled out on it."
"What would it mean to have your "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce?" The example that will likely resonate best with HardOCP readers is the ASUS Republic of Gamers brand. I have no knowledge if ASUS is a GPP partner, I am simply using the ROG brand hypothetically. If ASUS is an NVIDIA GPP partner, and it wants to continue to use NVIDIA GPUs in its ROG branded video cards, computers, and laptops, it can no longer sell any other company's GPUs in ROG products. So if ASUS want to keep building NVIDIA-based ROG video cards, it can no longer sell AMD-based ROG video cards, and be a GPP partner."

IF Nvidia really wanted GPP to work properly they would have asked the AIB's to create a new brand exclusive to Nvidia based products, instead they said give me your existing brands or no bueno for you.
If Asus chose to make a new exclusively nvidia aligned brand they would still meet the requirements of GPP. My point is they *chose* not to because the allure of that "premium" ROG branding would be lost in the absence of top tier cards. They would have to focus their marketing efforts on promoting the new brand to compete with other AIBs who may have chosen to realign their top brands to nvidia only, or even AIBs who chose not to sign GPP and continue selling AMD/NV products under the same brand.

At the end of the day I see this as no different than tieing down those amd/NV exclusive AIBs( Evga, old xfx, sapphire etc) with exclusivity clauses in favor of what basically amounts to preferential treatment.

Nvidia believes its products have a premium appeal, a bit like Apple products i guess, and they want to control the marketing because they feel they are in a position where they can. It's business.

There's no ambiguity in gpu purchases unless you're totally clueless, but for laptops I can see it making some sense. Either way, I don't think how believable their stated reasoning for it is even relevant. They are motivated by pure unadulterated greed for the purposes of the discussion. So what?
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,155
They are motivated by pure unadulterated greed for the purposes of the discussion. So what?
Legally, for hundred years now, doing something like GPP for pure profit motive while disadvantaging both consumers and competitors tends to end badly.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
49,848
I think kyle looked in to it. I highly doubt AMD was the sources kyle was talking about. They were likely AIB partners. When kyle broke out Raja/Intel, Intel using AMD GPUs onboard. Also how polaris was a mess, I highly doubt it was Nvidia feeding the. So I dont think Kyle needs Nvidia to feed him anything about AMD. He has enough sources within AMD I think lol.
NVIDIA had nothing to do with that story. If AMD were to do the same thing, I would hear about it through other channels assuredly.
 

Qthulu

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
103
I seem to have read from a few sources that the EU and FTC were asking Nvidia for details of the GPP. I would cite this as the dominate factor in the elimination of the program in my opinion.
 

BoogerBomb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 10, 2003
Messages
6,470
GPP may have been killed, but it will just be replaced by another program that will be kept even more quiet that the exact details of GPP itself.
 

Jim Kim

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
3,718
I seem to have read from a few sources that the EU and FTC were asking Nvidia for details of the GPP. I would cite this as the dominate factor in the elimination of the program in my opinion.
Excellent. Feel free to post those sources here.
 

KedsDead

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 22, 2016
Messages
128
I do not think for one minute that Nvidia pull the plug on GPP. They can say all they want about not using the program any more. I for one do not believe them. This is just a tactic to get it out of the public eye.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
49,848
I do not think for one minute that Nvidia pull the plug on GPP. They can say all they want about not using the program any more. I for one do not believe them. This is just a tactic to get it out of the public eye.
I would suggest to you that is not the case.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
49,848
What about lasting effects? I have heard that the branding has already been changed for all the upcoming products. It could just remain that way indefinitely. And then nvidia would "win".
I would suggest that not even the AIBs are sure of that yet. Contracts were signed, and I have never read the legal document.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
49,848
Which AIBs have it first, and who has the most supply will dictate if GPP is still in the works behind closed doors.
Well, since "all" of the AIBs signed it so they would not lose "priority allocation," there likely will not be much impact there.
 

SPARTAN VI

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
7,523
"...the program was about making sure that gamers who buy graphics cards know exactly what GPU brand that's inside"

What about knowing exactly hardware is inside that "brand of GPU that's inside?" Nvidia demonstrated that they're only interested in creating confusion that benefits them... vis-à-vis:

 
Last edited:

Bankie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
1,667
Legally, for hundred years now, doing something like GPP for pure profit motive while disadvantaging both consumers and competitors tends to end badly.
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.
 
Last edited:

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,838
How is it a motive of pure profit and "disadvantaging both consumers and competitors"?

NV has been paying shit tons 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 shutting down the GPP has done is proven that AMD cannot survive without NV paying corporate welfare to their suppliers.
Those gaming brands have NEVER and will NEVER belong to Nvidia. They did not create those brands, they did not start those brands, they did not continue those brands. Please stop misconstruing and misrepresenting the facts.
 

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
10,849
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.
Really it’s not beneficial to consumers in that the agreement was done that doesn’t allow a company to use their brand as they see fit. If company a wants to market AMD cards as gaming they would need to create a new brand. They established brands would have effectively hijacked by Nvidia.

If AMD comes to market in the future and out does Nvidia they also are on a lesser known brand and not on a flagship name.

It’s a loss for all of us really. I just not sure how people can’t see this. Has the wool gotten that thick?

Whether Nvidia gives them money or not is on Nvidia. Effectively they are hijacking a brand that’s been created. Had they said you have to market Nvidia products on a new name not associated with AMD or others and build it... it would be different. But again they didn’t and what they did is just wrong. Legal? Who knows as it goes to the lawyers. But really sad they thought this was a good idea to start with.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,838
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?
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?
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,584
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?

So suddenly your the CFO of Nvidia and know how much they spend on marketing to a AIB? Also why in the hell would you want any company deciding for you what another company should make available to you. Imagine if you spent the same amount of money in advertising as a car company but GM made a deal where they said we dont want people confusing our product with the competitors so the other car manufactures are forced to advertise only on thursday night football and GM gets exclusive Monday night football advertising. Since the NFL does not want to loose out on money it relies on it agrees to the horrible terms. So the smaller companies get forced to share 1 night with the worst ratings while GM gets prime time advertising.. yeah sounds fair.
 

Bankie

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
1,667
So suddenly your the CFO of Nvidia and know how much they spend on marketing to a AIB? Also why in the hell would you want any company deciding for you what another company should make available to you. Imagine if you spent the same amount of money in advertising as a car company but GM made a deal where they said we dont want people confusing our product with the competitors so the other car manufactures are forced to advertise only on thursday night football and GM gets exclusive Monday night football advertising. Since the NFL does not want to loose out on money it relies on it agrees to the horrible terms. So the smaller companies get forced to share 1 night with the worst ratings while GM gets prime time advertising.. yeah sounds fair.
This is the way business works. If one of your suppliers makes you more money then you accept their terms or you work with another. ASUS would be perfectly in their right to tell NV to fuck off and going AMD only. If they can't survive without NV then they should have been better at diversifying their product portfolio.

And that is exactly what happens with the NFL and is perfectly legal.
 
Last edited:
Tags
nvidia gpp
Top