Jump to content

Nvidia Accuses Qualcomm Of Mobile Chip Monopoly; Demands Compensation For Unfair Practices - 352 milion $

Mr_Troll
1 minute ago, Prysin said:

What Nvidia is doing?

Trying to save what little they can from their mobile division.

 

Seeing how much shit they have had with their SHIELD tablets, i can't imagine their Mobile division doing very well atm.

I guess that's right. But, can't they be charged big bucks if this falls through (which is a big possibility?)

 

1 minute ago, patrickjp93 said:

Monopoly does not require 100% market share. It just requires significant market dominance, and monopoly alone is not illegal. What Nvidia is accusing Qualcomm of is anti-competitive practices in selling chips below-cost and eating the losses to prevent competition with potentially better products from being able to survive long enough to gain traction. It's exactly this behavior that Standard Oil was dissolved over.

Where's their proof? 

I used to be quite active here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ivan134 said:

If there is anyone well versed in financial law, is selling your products below their actual worth illegal?

If you are selling these products in a market where you are the dominant player, yes. The reason Intel gets away with contra-revenue is because it is an underdog in tablets and phones, and contra-revenue has been significantly cut back and will be fully phased out by 2018 as it transitions into being a proper competitor. Qualcomm is not allowed to do this because it stifles less financially-equipped competition and pressures them to sell. And since they are so small, Qualcomm can merge without being blocked.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kobathor said:

I guess that's right. But, can't they be charged big bucks if this falls through (which is a big possibility?)

 

Where's their proof? 

Nvidia knows the cost structure of producing chips at TSMC. I sincerely doubt Nvidia would make this accusation without a lot of numbers on their side. Or an email may have leaked as what happened to Intel and Dell from the days Otellini bribed Dell to not sell AMD chips.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikat said:

why would it be illegal though xD

Okay, if Intel sold its CPUs for the $11.58 USD it requires to produce them, or less, it could eat the loss in employee wages and more R&D, while AMD would be driven out of business because of GloFo's prices and its inability to sell potentially better products (Zen) for a higher price. The same applies to Nvidia selling its flagship GPUs for $50 and driving AMD out despite AMD having the better products. It becomes a game of whose wallet is bigger instead of who makes the best product for the consumers. That's why it's called anti-trust law. Consumers have the right to be able to trust that products arrive by pure competition. This is what Nvidia claims to be a victim of from the abuse of Qualcomm. Now let's see if the evidence is there.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Nvidia knows the cost structure of producing chips at TSMC. I sincerely doubt Nvidia would make this accusation without a lot of numbers on their side. Or an email may have leaked as what happened to Intel and Dell from the days Otellini bribed Dell to not sell AMD chips.

But I doubt Qualcomm is taking big losses. If anything, they might just be crying because their mobile chips have been lacking recently. How about they just make a better chip, and phone producers might buy it? I don't think Qualcomm would be scared of nVidia's competition.

I used to be quite active here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kobathor said:

But I doubt Qualcomm is taking big losses. If anything, they might just be crying because their mobile chips have been lacking recently. How about they just make a better chip, and phone producers might buy it? I don't think Qualcomm would be scared of nVidia's competition.

The losses could be a penny a modem or chip, and it would still be an antitrust violation.

 

Nvidia did make a better chip. The Denver Tegras kicked everyone's butt, including the A8, and giving Apple a reason to make the 3-core A8X. It was priced out of competition by Qualcomm.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't totally disagree with the adage that Qualcomm is practicing some pretty interesting business practices specifically with this years flagship Snapdragon chip. Which is manufactured by Samsung. Though I don't know if Qualcomm forced Samsung to make their Exynos chip to not be compatible with CDMA if Samsung was to make the Snap 820.
It is sort of interesting how the Snap 820 has better Single threaded performance and the Exynos 8890 has better multi threaded performance.

 

Either way their argument could be flipped that Nvidia or Intel have a strong monopoly in their markets because AMD hasn't managed to capture a large enough market share in either market.

Though AMD does fair a little better in the GPU market.


 

 

a Moo Floof connoisseur and curator.

:x@handymanshandle x @pinksnowbirdie || Jake x Brendan :x
Youtube Audio Normalization
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

The losses could be a penny a modem or chip, and it would still be an antitrust violation.

 

Nvidia did make a better chip. The Denver Tegras kicked everyone's butt, including the A8, and giving Apple a reason to make the 3-core A8X. It was priced out of competition by Qualcomm.

Well.... that is speculation until proven.

 

I will say though that Nvidia faces another stigma with their products. The stigma of OEMs possibly not being comfortable with their products.

Tegra is rather "young", there isnt a lot of products out there, and OEMs rarely move to a new product unless the reputation of the company selling the product matches their  prices.

Nvidia is known for great desktop solutions, not mobile. So skeptisism from the decision makers, however unwarranted, is natural.

 

Then there is the fact that Nvidia has been targeting a sort of "high power" market. Which is the tablet market. Which is dieing a surprisingly fast death....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikat said:

why would it be illegal though xD

Taking a short term loss by selling products below what it costs to produce (making it impossible to compete against) for a long term gain (having driven competition out) can be considered an unfair method and therefore illegal, at least in the United States.

 

NVIDIA's claims may be legitimate, but I'm too lazy to bother reading more into it.

if you have to insist you think for yourself, i'm not going to believe you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Well.... that is speculation until proven.

 

I will say though that Nvidia faces another stigma with their products. The stigma of OEMs possibly not being comfortable with their products.

Tegra is rather "young", there isnt a lot of products out there, and OEMs rarely move to a new product unless the reputation of the company selling the product matches their  prices.

Nvidia is known for great desktop solutions, not mobile. So skeptisism from the decision makers, however unwarranted, is natural.

 

Then there is the fact that Nvidia has been targeting a sort of "high power" market. Which is the tablet market. Which is dieing a surprisingly fast death....

Their tablet and laptop solutions for the past 6 years mean nothing? Okay... Nvidia stands to lose way too much to throw this accusation lightly. I await the evidence to start rolling out.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Okay, if Intel sold its CPUs for the $11.58 USD it requires to produce them, or less, it could eat the loss in employee wages and more R&D, while AMD would be driven out of business because of GloFo's prices and its inability to sell potentially better products (Zen) for a higher price. The same applies to Nvidia selling its flagship GPUs for $50 and driving AMD out despite AMD having the better products. It becomes a game of whose wallet is bigger instead of who makes the best product for the consumers. That's why it's called anti-trust law. Consumers have the right to be able to trust that products arrive by pure competition. This is what Nvidia claims to be a victim of from the abuse of Qualcomm. Now let's see if the evidence is there.

Pretty sure you've got the wrong law with the anti-trust laws.

 

However, I agree with the rest.

 

G3258 V 860k (Spoiler: G3258 wins)

 

 

Spoiler

i7-4790K | MSI R9 390x | Cryorig H5 | MSI Z97 Gaming 7 Motherboard | G.Skill Sniper 8gbx2 1600mhz DDR3 | Corsair 300R | WD Green 2TB 2.5" 5400RPM drive | <p>Corsair RM750 | Logitech G602 | Corsair K95 RGB | Logitech Z313

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ivan134 said:

If there is anyone well versed in financial law, is selling your products below their actual worth illegal?

If there is sufficient evidence suggesting that the intention behind selling your products below actual worth was to drive smaller competitors out of the market, then yes, it is illegal. That falls into what it known as 'predatory pricing', which I believe was outlawed by the Sherman Anti-trust Act. This was the first time I've used any of that info since I was in Jr. High, I wonder if my social studies teacher would be proud that I remembered any of it xD

Quote

Ignis (Primary rig)
CPU
 i7-4770K                               Displays Dell U2312HM + 2x Asus VH236H
MB ASRock Z87M Extreme4      Keyboard Rosewill K85 RGB BR
RAM G.Skill Ripjaws X 16GB      Mouse Razer DeathAdder
GPU XFX RX 5700XT                    Headset V-Moda Crossfade LP2
PSU Lepa G1600
Case Corsair 350D
Cooling Corsair H90             
Storage PNY CS900 120GB (OS) + WD Blue 1TB

Quote

Server 01Alpha                                       Server 01Beta                            Chaos Box (Loaner Rig)                Router (pfSense)
CPU
 Xeon X5650                                      CPU 2x Xeon E5520                    CPU Xeon E3-1240V2                     CPU Xeon E3-1246V3
MB Asus P6T WS Pro                               MB EVGA SR-2                             MB ASRock H61MV-ITX                 MB ASRock H81 Pro BTC
RAM Kingston unbuffered ECC 24GB  RAM G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB         RAM Random Ebay RAM 12GB    RAM G.Skill Ripjaws 8GB
GPU XFX R5 220                                       GPU EVGA GTX 580 SC               GPU Gigabyte R9 295x2                GPU integrated
PSU Corsair CX430M                               PSU Corsair AX1200                   PSU Corsair GS700                         PSU Antec EA-380D
Case Norco RPC-450B 4U                      Case Rosewill  RSV-L4000C        Case Modified Bitfenix Prodigy   Case Norco RPC-250 2U
Cooling Noctua NH-U9S                        Cooling 2x CM Hyper 212 Evo  Cooling EVGA CLC 120mm           Cooling stock
Storage PNY CS900 120GB (OS)           Storage null                                 Storage PNY CS900 120GB (OS)  Storage Fujitsu 150GB HDD
               8x WD Red 1TB in Raid 6                                                                                WD Black 1TB    
               WD Green 2TB

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, FruitBasketSilex said:

Pretty sure you've got the wrong law with the anti-trust laws.

 

However, I agree with the rest.

I have exactly the right law(s). That which applies to "Predatory Pricing" is what applies in this case. And that is a specific area of anti-trust law.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a huge surprise considering NVidia's bs lawsuits against Samsung and you guessed it: Qualcomm for "violating" NVidia's patents. Something NVidia tried to get money for by setting up a licensing deal a total of 0 companies were dumb enough to sign up for.

 

http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/10/itc-ruling-on-nvidia-vs-samsung-qualcomm/

 

Suck a FlacidWorks NVidia.

Watching Intel have competition is like watching a headless chicken trying to get out of a mine field

CPU: Intel I7 4790K@4.6 with NZXT X31 AIO; MOTHERBOARD: ASUS Z97 Maximus VII Ranger; RAM: 8 GB Kingston HyperX 1600 DDR3; GFX: ASUS R9 290 4GB; CASE: Lian Li v700wx; STORAGE: Corsair Force 3 120GB SSD; Samsung 850 500GB SSD; Various old Seagates; PSU: Corsair RM650; MONITOR: 2x 20" Dell IPS; KEYBOARD/MOUSE: Logitech K810/ MX Master; OS: Windows 10 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering other mobile chip manufacturers have made the same complaint or observation though, Nvidia could actually have a fair bit of support if they go against Qualcom, although they have less money from what I understand.

"We also blind small animals with cosmetics.
We do not sell cosmetics. We just blind animals."

 

"Please don't mistake us for Equifax. Those fuckers are evil"

 

This PSA brought to you by Equifacks.
PMSL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

The losses could be a penny a modem or chip, and it would still be an antitrust violation.

 

Nvidia did make a better chip. The Denver Tegras kicked everyone's butt, including the A8, and giving Apple a reason to make the 3-core A8X. It was priced out of competition by Qualcomm.

werent the xbox 360 and ps3 sold at a loss so did microsoft and sony get hit by antitrust laws

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ivan134 said:

If there is anyone well versed in financial law, is selling your products below their actual worth illegal?

In Belgium, I believe this is illegal except when in the sales periods (the beginning and end of which are defined by law).

 

Don't know if the US has a similar system.

Why is SpongeBob the main character when Patrick is the star?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, patrickjp93 said:

Nvidia did make a better chip. The Denver Tegras kicked everyone's butt, including the A8, and giving Apple a reason to make the 3-core A8X. It was priced out of competition by Qualcomm.

No, Nvidia did not make the better chip.

It was really hot

It was really power hungry

It was slow in instances where the code morphing failed to produce good code, or was skipped entirely (a great example of this is SunSpider).

The ISP was crap. Things like auto focus was much slower than competing chips for example.

It didn't have a modem, GPS, WiFi or bluetooth built in either so companies still needed to rely on Qualcomm, or Broadcom or some other company for that.

It did not have a DSP so everything had to be done on the CPU, and to make matters worse it did not have a LITTLE core either, so everything had to be done on the Denver cores (which were huge).

 

The K1 was shit. The only redeeming feature was the great GPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The accusation that Qualcomm is engaging in anti-competitive practices is straight out of Nvidia's mouth. So were the claims that Nvidia invented the GPU, and Qualcomm and Samsung were infringing their GPU patents, none of which stood in court. We'll have to wait and see what Nvidia is claiming is actually true or not.

 

What I think is that Nvidia is now acting like a crybaby, and instead of looking at how their incompetence with Tegra led to the demise of their mobile business, they are blaming Qualcomm for whatever they can. Oh well xD.

Quote

The problem is that this is an nVidia product and scoring any nVidia product a "zero" is also highly predictive of the number of nVidia products the reviewer will receive for review in the future.

On 2015-01-28 at 5:24 PM, Victorious Secret said:

Only yours, you don't shitpost on the same level that we can, mainly because this thread is finally dead and should be locked.

On 2016-06-07 at 11:25 PM, patrickjp93 said:

I wasn't wrong. It's extremely rare that I am. I provided sources as well. Different devs can disagree. Further, we now have confirmed discrepancy from Twitter about he use of the pre-release 1080 driver in AMD's demo despite the release 1080 driver having been out a week prior.

On 2016-09-10 at 4:32 PM, Hikaru12 said:

You apparently haven't seen his responses to questions on YouTube. He is very condescending and aggressive in his comments with which there is little justification. He acts totally different in his videos. I don't necessarily care for this content style and there is nothing really unique about him or his channel. His endless dick jokes and toilet humor are annoying as well.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No, Nvidia did not make the better chip.

It was really hot

It was really power hungry

It was slow in instances where the code morphing failed to produce good code, or was skipped entirely (a great example of this is SunSpider).

The ISP was crap. Things like auto focus was much slower than competing chips for example.

It didn't have a modem, GPS, WiFi or bluetooth built in either so companies still needed to rely on Qualcomm, or Broadcom or some other company for that.

It did not have a DSP so everything had to be done on the CPU, and to make matters worse it did not have a LITTLE core either, so everything had to be done on the Denver cores (which were huge).

 

The K1 was shit. The only redeeming feature was the great GPU.

Yup, I remember people complaining about heat, bad battery life and even physical damage to their devices because of heat with the Nexus 9. The K1 was not a great SOC.

 

There's a pretty good reason why Nvidia's SOCs have been all but abandoned. Since the Tegra 3, they've consistently missed a lot of their performance targets, not to mention them being hot and power hungry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prysin said:

Well.... that is speculation until proven.

 

I will say though that Nvidia faces another stigma with their products. The stigma of OEMs possibly not being comfortable with their products.

Tegra is rather "young", there isnt a lot of products out there, and OEMs rarely move to a new product unless the reputation of the company selling the product matches their prices.

Nvidia is known for great desktop solutions, not mobile. So skeptisism from the decision makers, however unwarranted, is natural.

 

Then there is the fact that Nvidia has been targeting a sort of "high power" market. Which is the tablet market. Which is dieing a surprisingly fast death....

Nvidia have been in the SoC game for quite some time now. The problem is that they were never that successful. Can't comment on the Tegra 1 or earlier because I got interested in phones around the Tegra 2 time.

 

When the Tegra 2 came out it was pretty good. It was the first dual core SoC and the memory bandwidth was really impressive... Then a little while later the Exynos 4210 came out and just blew it out of the water.

The only reason anyone might have been exposed to it was because Android 3.0 only worked on Tegra 2 for quite some time.

 

They were pretty successful with the Tegra 3. It was mostly in tablets because of things like the lack of a modem. It had some problems though, like the memory bandwidth being really low (caused issues in higher resolution displays like the Nexus 7). But then there was the problem that the dual core Krait chip from Qualcomm was just flat out better. Higher performance, lots of features (DSP, modem, WiFi, the list goes on). Hell the Snapdragon even had a better GPU if I recall correctly. I remember thinking that the HTC One S (Snapdragon) was a much better phone than the HTC One X (Tegra 3), despite being meant to be one tier lower.

 

With the Tegra 4 Nvidia abandoned the mobile segment since they went with a quad core A15 config. The only company crazy enough to even attempt to put a quad core A15 in a phone was Samsung, and it was terrible.

Then they tried to get into the phone market again with the Tegra 4i, which was really halfassed. They just took the Tegra 4, changed out the CPU cores for the old Tegra 3 cores, and slapped their Icera modem on it. It did not stand a chance to Snapdragon.

 

Then we have Tegra K1 which was crap, like I explained above.

 

Right now they got the Tegra X1, which got the same A57+A53 setup we find in the Snapdragon 810... and we all know how well that went.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait Nvidia, the company that basically has a monopoly in the gpu market, is suing another company for having a monopoly as well? Why would they do that?

 

Since if they win, then this case may be used against them if someone sues them for having a monopoly, and if they lose then they lose but at least nobody would be able to use this case against them. What the heck is Nvidia doing... maybe by losing horribly they may be able to make it harder for themselves to get sued for having a monopoly but otherwise I really fail to see how this can benefit them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

werent the xbox 360 and ps3 sold at a loss so did microsoft and sony get hit by antitrust laws

They both were sold at a loss to encourage people to buy, hoping they'd make the money back on games sales. And since they both did it, neither one has the standing to sue.

Software Engineer for Suncorp (Australia), Computer Tech Enthusiast, Miami University Graduate, Nerd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

They both were sold at a loss to encourage people to buy, hoping they'd make the money back on games sales. And since they both did it, neither one has the standing to sue.

what about nintendo or nvidia even with their shield android tv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×