nVidia GeForce Partner Program: Well Intention Marketing or Anti-Competitive

[hobobobo]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

So if a wider variance in consistency relates to a smaller establishment size, then we agree the chances of encountering a willfully dodgy product or act increases as establishment size falls?  Otherwise all larger establishments would have to have a consistently observable rate of said dogdyness.

 

Nothing to disagree there, all im saying - in a low-tech market a truly superb product will not be made by a large company, same with a god-awfull one. In high tech its also more or less true but to way smaller extent, since qc becomes way harder as the size grows and making superb products is the best way to break into a market and built consumer goodwill.

1 hour ago, Razor01 said:

-snip-

Id argue vega56 is competative since it goes toe-to-toe with 1070ti, but amd botched launch and post-launch marketing.

I have no idea on the mining front except the common knowledge of gpu being sold by the dozen

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Deus Voltage said:

I believe there is a slight misunderstanding. Perhaps I should have worded things differently. What I meant was that with bigger reach comes bigger responsibility.

 

Not that the small hot dog stand nearby should be less responsible than say AMD/Intel/Nvidia, food poisoning can actually lead to deaths in some cases, unlike buying a computer component.

 

However, the person selling hotdogs doesn't have a marketing team behind him/ her generating more reach and influence. Furthermore, the person selling hotdogs doesn't really have "monopoly" over the market. If they get caught poisoning people, at best they'll pay a hefty fine, at worst they'll be in jail. 

 

Large corporations have entire teams of lawyers and marketers dedicated to bettering the image of their company, that's where you start to see certain obfuscations at play as well as "evasiveness" with regards to legal loopholes.   

So your saying a larger company has to be more responsible but a smaller company shouldn't be less responsible? 

 

7 hours ago, asus killer said:

if you don't mind me saying, i guess there are different things in the table. A gigantic company on a competitive market will use less dodgy stuff, say Macdonalds for example. A gigantic company on a monopoly or even a duopoly will tend to be more dodgy, and Nvidia is dodgy as is Intel. My 2 cents.

Exactly, food poisoning from one MacDonald's effects sales at all McDonald's,  so they have a stringently enforced  food handling policy that all stores must adhere to. Unlike the corner store that only has to worry about a random council inspection that might happen once every 4 years.

 

4 hours ago, hobobobo said:

Nothing to disagree there, all im saying - in a low-tech market a truly superb product will not be made by a large company, same with a god-awfull one. In high tech its also more or less true but to way smaller extent, since qc becomes way harder as the size grows and making superb products is the best way to break into a market and built consumer goodwill.

 

 

Then why are failure rates for good products only around 2% across the board?  It doesn't matter if you are buying a hard drive, snap-on wrench or locally hand crafted stool. Quality is the result of time and effort, production size does not change that. 

[hobobobo]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Then why are failure rates for good products only around 2% across the board?  It doesn't matter if you are buying a hard drive, snap-on wrench or locally hand crafted stool. Quality is the result of time and effort, production size does not change that. 

Failure rate is defined by not meeting certain standart, what im saying is at a smaller production line it is easier to meet higher standart then at a larger one. Nothing stops you from meeting the same standart at a larger one, albeit with alot more time and effort, as you put it. I dont see a point of contention here, its all about scale, and almost always large-scale production is more prone to some sort of defects and takes alot more time and money to iron it out. High-tech production is a bit of an exception to this, since the amount of capital (financial and intellecrual) needed to create even a small scale production is so obscene that its not feasable for small company.

[Deus Voltage]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So your saying a larger company has to be more responsible but a smaller company shouldn't be less responsible? 

1) A company should be scrutinized if at fault regardless of its size.

 

2) Larger companies have more financial and human resources to deal with the legalities than smaller companies.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

 its all about scale, and almost always large-scale production is more prone to some sort of defects and takes alot more time and money to iron it out.

Except that is not true.  failure rates across the industry do not change depending on size of production. Also I am not sure how the conversation moved from a company carrying out dodgy practices to producing dodgy products.

 

7 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

1) A company should be scrutinized if at fault regardless of its size.

 

2) Larger companies have more financial and human resources to deal with the legalities than smaller companies.

absolutely, but that doesn't answer my question.

 

are you saying a larger company has to be more responsible but a smaller company shouldn't be less responsible?  because that is what I got out of your post and it really doesn't make much sense to me.  I can see how market size means your product has further reach, but I fail to see how that changes the fact smaller companies can get away with dodgier practices.

[Deus Voltage]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

absolutely, but that doesn't answer my question.

 

are you saying a larger company has to be more responsible but a smaller company shouldn't be less responsible?  because that is what I got out of your post and it really doesn't make much sense to me.  I can see how market size means your product has further reach, but I fail to see how that changes the fact smaller companies can get away with dodgier practices.

My focus is on impact (hence reach). 

 

More market capital => more competitive edge (aggressive advertisement ect..) => more impact (reach)

[Razor01]

20 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

1) A company should be scrutinized if at fault regardless of its size.

 

2) Larger companies have more financial and human resources to deal with the legalities than smaller companies.

 

Both of these companies are multi billion dollar corporations, does nV have more money?  Yes, but really how much money does it take to brand yourself and make it effective when the products you have don't compete well?  That is the problem, don't need to put money into branding when the products can't stand on their own merits.  If this was an industry or products that a consumer doesn't understand well, then marketing works wonders. But most people buying graphics cards knida know the tech at least a little bit.

 

3 minutes ago, Deus Voltage said:

My focus is on impact (hence reach). 

 

More market capital => more competitive edge (aggressive advertisement ect..) => more impact (reach)

 

 

This is very true but that is the nature of competition and getting the lead right?

[mr moose]

Just now, Deus Voltage said:

My focus is on impact (hence reach). 

 

More market capital => more competitive edge (aggressive advertisement ect..) => more impact (reach)

 

But that doesn't address why a smaller company will be more dodgy with their practice.  which I think we agree on, I just want to know why the reach bit is important in determining that why?

[hobobobo]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Except that is not true.  failure rates across the industry do not change depending on size of production. Also I am not sure how the conversation moved from a company carrying out dodgy practices to producing dodgy products.

Tbh im not sure either, i just responded disagreing with the statement that bigger=better(to put it in a crude way) but avarage rate of failure across the industy is shite argument. Every company got different quality standrts, some are higher some are lower, to a base level. Easy example, albait a bit dodgy one, ram made by samsung and flash memory made by shenzhen joinix, failure rates are more or less the same but the endproduct is vastly different, despite both makin, for example, 2133 ddr4

[Razor01]

4 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

Tbh im not sure either, i just responded disagreing with the statement that bigger=better(to put it in a crude way) but avarage rate of failure across the industy is shite argument. Every company got different quality standrts, some are higher some are lower, to a base level. Easy example, albait a bit dodgy one, ram made by samsung and flash memory made by shenzhen joinix, failure rates are more or less the same but the endproduct is vastly different, despite both makin, for example, 2133 ddr4

 

 

Do you know why your ram example made by shenzen joinix is probably the same as Samsung, they are getting the memory from Samsung lol. 

 

But yeah bigger doesn't always mean better, quality control and failure rates are different though.  too complex to get into but most SS devices have similar failure rates because they are made and sourced by a handful of companies.  Component failure is part of quality control, quality control varies across different lines.  Those ultra high end power supplies have 10 year warranties because the components used are expected to last that long.  They can still fail though before hand.

[hobobobo]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Do you know why your ram example made by shenzen joinix is probably the same as Samsung, they are getting the memory from Samsung lol. 

 

But yeah bigger doesn't always mean better, quality control and failure rates are different though.  too complex to get into but most SS devices have similar failure rates because they are made and sourced by a handful of companies.  Component failure is part of quality control, quality control varies across different lines.  Those ultra high end power supplies have 10 year warranties because the components used are expected to last that long.  They can still fail though before hand.

I used joinix as a random example, but there are chinese plants producing their own ddr and its inferior to samsung ddr of the same spec by a country mile

[mr moose]

Just now, hobobobo said:

Tbh im not sure either, i just responded disagreing with the statement that bigger=better(to put it in a crude way)

I never said bigger is better, I said bigger equals less dodgy practices.  Like false advertising or skimping on food handling practices.

 

Just now, hobobobo said:

 

but avarage rate of failure across the industy is shite argument. Every company got different quality standrts, some are higher some are lower, to a base level. Easy example, albait a bit dodgy one, ram made by samsung and flash memory made by shenzhen joinix, failure rates are more or less the same but the endproduct is vastly different, despite both makin, for example, 2133 ddr4

 

Exactly,  that's failure rate across the industry, we don't see generally higher failure rates in larger companies and lower failure rates from smaller businesses. Which means the size of the business does not effect the quality of the product.  Other factors like target customers (are they selling a cheap product to a DIY market), price point (is the product design to be cheap), ability to actually design a product (is the product priced and guaranteed for industrial use) all determine quality.  A large company is not intrinsically hampered by its size when trying to produce a quality product.

[Deus Voltage]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

 

But that doesn't address why a smaller company will be more dodgy with their practice.  which I think we agree on, I just want to know why the reach bit is important in determining that why?

I'm talking about bigger companies, specifically ones that have "monopolies". So let me clear out some of the potential confusion that I have caused in the process of this conversation:

 

1) What in my opinion should be taken for granted:

 

-All companies deserve equal scrutiny.

-All companies that are in the business of selling products/ services to customers share the basic responsibility of being transparent.

 

2) Potential point of contention:

 

-More reach (with regards to monopolies, specifically the dedicated GPU market with Nvidia) comes with the perk of more leeway in terms of legalities. 

 

I am yet to see a monopoly (The word is beginning to lose a bit of meaning at this point) that has followed all competitive laws to the letter.

[Razor01]

3 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

I used joinix as a random example, but there are chinese plants producing their own ddr and its inferior to samsung ddr of the same spec by a country mile

 

Hmm interesting I wasn't aware many companies made their own dram, thought it was a limited few.  Do you have info on this?

[Razor01]

Just now, Deus Voltage said:

I'm talking about bigger companies, specifically ones that have "monopolies". So let me clear out some of the potential confusion that I have caused in the process of this conversation:

 

1) What in my opinion should be taken for granted:

 

-All companies deserve equal scrutiny.

-All companies that are in the business of selling products/ services to customers share the basic responsibility of being transparent.

 

2) Potential point of contention:

 

-More reach (with regards to monopolies, specifically the dedicated GPU market with Nvidia) comes with the perk of more leeway in terms of legalities. 

 

I am yet to see a monopoly (The word is beginning to lose a bit of meaning at this point) that has followed all competitive laws to the letter.

Agreed with point 1

 

point 2:  All companies big or small try to get away with anything they can.

 

Just look at any marketing campaigns of companies, most of it BS based on the most basic of truths or features.

 

[Deus Voltage]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

Agreed with point 1

 

point 2:  All companies big or small try to get away with anything they can.

 

Just look at any marketing campaigns of companies, most of it BS based on the most basic of truths or features.

 

That's the point, I don't disagree with the fact that companies regardless of size may try to be dodgy.

 

I specifically said 'more leeway" to put things in very relative terms. Because bigger companies have more financial and human resources to deal with the legalities. 

 

Intel for example is far more capable of handling lawsuits than, admittedly, AMD. In the same vein, AMD is far more capable of handling lawsuits than, say, a small radio channel in a rural area.

 

Apple of course has more money than the devil himself, so we know how that'll end.

[Razor01]

Well at the end of it, that's why the regulatory bodies are there, to stop that, but the company has to cross that line first before they get involved.  As consumers we can say we won't buy their products, but we are informed consumers, and when you have a company that has better products even that is hard to do lol.

[Deus Voltage]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

Well at the end of it, that's why the regulatory bodies are there, to stop that, but the company has to cross that line first before they get involved.  As consumers we can say we won't buy their products, but we are informed consumers, and when you have a company that has better products even that is hard to do lol.

In theory, yes. Money trumps everything though, unless we're talking about national interests. (case in point, Broadcom attempting to "take over" Qualcomm)  

[hobobobo]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I never said bigger is better, I said bigger equals less dodgy practices.  Like false advertising or skimping on food handling practices.

 

 

Exactly,  that's failure rate across the industry, we don't see generally higher failure rates in larger companies and lower failure rates from smaller businesses. Which means the size of the business does not effect the quality of the product.  Other factors like target customers (are they selling a cheap product to a DIY market), price point (is the product design to be cheap), ability to actually design a product (is the product priced and guaranteed for industrial use) all determine quality.  A large company is not intrinsically hampered by its size when trying to produce a quality product.

 

Quality product is a wide term, im not saying its hampered, im saying maintining a superb level of quality on a large scale is harder then on a smaller one. I used to work with Кристал, its a Russian vodka, and some other spirits, manufacturer: there 3 grades of sipirt according to ГОСТ (sovier-russian quality standart on everything) - alpha, extra and luxe. Achieving production of luxe spirit on a big production line is next to impossible, takes alot of extra investment in inventory and qc and does not guarantee return, since most of the time, even with extra investment (theyve built an a big facility for this purpose in a free economic zone near moscow) you still get extra grade spirit. They have got an old, relativly small facility, built by a small company and later aquired by them, which can consistently produce luxe grade spirit. This is basicly my argument, its kinda wobly but i seem to be not be able to put it better, maybe im just plain wrong but i dont think so

[hobobobo]

20 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

Hmm interesting I wasn't aware many companies made their own dram, thought it was a limited few.  Do you have info on this?

Would take me some time to search it on my own, it was a "fun activity" to do with my chinese tutor, but i can find it, even though my mandarin is subpar for the task. And its not many, as i remember its currently 1 fully operational and several nearing volume production, but i could be wrong on that

[Razor01]

cool thx no rush when ever ya got time

[hobobobo]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

cool thx no rush when ever ya got time

Ive got a lesson the day after tomorrow, i can ask her to revisit this) All i can find on english sites is relativly old articles detailing plans to build foundries either licensing ip or in coop

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, hobobobo said:

 

Quality product is a wide term, im not saying its hampered, im saying maintining a superb level of quality on a large scale is harder then on a smaller one. I used to work with Кристал, its a Russian vodka, and some other spirits, manufacturer: there 3 grades of sipirt according to ГОСТ (sovier-russian quality standart on everything) - alpha, extra and luxe. Achieving production of luxe spirit on a big production line is next to impossible, takes alot of extra investment in inventory and qc and does not guarantee return, since most of the time, even with extra investment (theyve built an a big facility for this purpose in a free economic zone near moscow) you still get extra grade spirit. They have got an old, relativly small facility, built by a small company and later aquired by them, which can consistently produce luxe grade spirit. This is basicly my argument, its kinda wobly but i seem to be not be able to put it better, maybe im just plain wrong but i dont think so

I have worked in manufacturing, I have also worked in several industries that rely on varying sources for tools.  What you are describing is product tiers.  Quality can be high or low from any organization depending on how much they can charge for their product and how much effort they want to put into QC.    It is not intrinsic to size.  There are multitudes of companies that produce cheap low grade shit en-masse, but that is a choice not a result of size. There are also large companies who only put their name to high quality products (snap-on) and again that is a choice not a condition of size.   If size dictated quality was low then all mass produced products would either be cheaper or have higher return rates (they don't).

[Derangel]

Sorry if these things have been posted here already:

 

https://hardforum.com/threads/geforce-partner-program-impacts-consumer-choice.1955963/page-18#post-1043530836

 

In that post Kyle is claiming that Nvidia is telling sites not to cover GPP other than to discredit Kyle's article. Kyle is an asshole often (something I'm sure he'd admit) but I do not believe he would lie about this. In light of that it makes any positive reporting of GPP, or any article calling out Kyle's, a bit suspicious. On the other hand, AMD's involvement on the other side makes a lot of the articles against GPP also a bit suspect, especially if they don't include investigation by the site itself. Nvidia's extreme reaction to this is troubling. There is no way those kind of demands wouldn't leak out and get back to the person Nvidia is trying to discredit and thus create a nasty Streisand effect. Actions like that will, naturally, cause people to give the information the company is trying to discredit even more weight as it will look like the company is trying to cover it up.

 

Additionally, Kyle did an interview with PCWorld on the subject. Video here: 

Haven't had a chance to watch it, so not sure what is all said, just passing it along so other people get a chance to watch.

 

 

[mr moose]

35 minutes ago, Derangel said:

Sorry if these things have been posted here already:

 

https://hardforum.com/threads/geforce-partner-program-impacts-consumer-choice.1955963/page-18#post-1043530836

 

In that post Kyle is claiming that Nvidia is telling sites not to cover GPP other than to discredit Kyle's article. Kyle is an asshole often (something I'm sure he'd admit) but I do not believe he would lie about this. In light of that it makes any positive reporting of GPP, or any article calling out Kyle's, a bit suspicious. On the other hand, AMD's involvement on the other side makes a lot of the articles against GPP also a bit suspect, especially if they don't include investigation by the site itself. Nvidia's extreme reaction to this is troubling. There is no way those kind of demands wouldn't leak out and get back to the person Nvidia is trying to discredit and thus create a nasty Streisand effect. Actions like that will, naturally, cause people to give the information the company is trying to discredit even more weight as it will look like the company is trying to cover it up.

 

Additionally, Kyle did an interview with PCWorld on the subject. Video here: 

Haven't had a chance to watch it, so not sure what is all said, just passing it along so other people get a chance to watch.

 

 

So basically just more claims and accusations form the same source. 

 

Sorry, I'll wait until there's actually something to read before I make any judgments.