OEMs not interested in Nvidia GPP

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The accusations of illegality and the evidence of illegality are what's missing.  So far nvidia's press release does not  contravene any laws that I am aware of.  What the AIB are doing with their stock also doesn't contravene any laws. All the other claims are only coming from one source who will not provide his evidence.  Whether or not we consider that to be fair is moot.   Essentially what people want is an investigation because they don't like the way something looks.   Maybe someone has enough evidence to tip the scales and start an investigation, but if they don't then there is nothing to base one on.

 

Their press release does not break any laws, but it does say part of how the program will work.  The AIBs rebranding also on its own is not illegal, but it's obvious that something caused them to do it since they all did it at the same time as each other, right after we heard about them joining GPP, and it would have taken a non-trivial amount of effort.  It's also obvious that kicking AMD out of their established gaming brands would not earn them any points with AMD so they wouldn't have done it without a reason.  This is evidence of what I said - that the GPP forces partnered brands to not also sell AMD under that brand.  Again, this is not illegal, but the combination of these two things almost without question is.

[Tellos]

@Ryan_Vickers it's not a momnopoly or AMD woudl not exsist literily. I hate people using that word when they dont like hwo big a company gets. a monopoly literily means the ONLY choice as in NO OTHER COMAPNIES OR OPTIONS. I work for Comcast people call us a monopoly we are not or AT&T would not exsist. Please can we stop using words incorrectly?

[AlTech]

42 minutes ago, Tellos said:

@Ryan_Vickers it's not a momnopoly or AMD woudl not exsist literily. I hate people using that word when they dont like hwo big a company gets. a monopoly literily means the ONLY choice as in NO OTHER COMAPNIES OR OPTIONS. I work for Comcast people call us a monopoly we are not or AT&T would not exsist. Please can we stop using words incorrectly?

I'm afraid you're the one using words incorrectly.

 

Nvidia is very much a monopoly with the majority market share. If a single company owns more than 70% of the market  by themselves, they are an effective monopoly and consumers do not benefit from monopolies.

[Trixanity]

I wonder if the reason HP, Dell etc. aren't playing ball isn't so much they find it unethical but rather Intel saying they want none of that shit in their ecosystem especially with them going for high performance graphics first with Kaby Lake-G and later their own designs. If anyone can beat Nvidia at bullying and intimidation it's Intel. And they kinda have the track record to back it up.

[Humbug]

19 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

I wonder if the reason HP, Dell etc. aren't playing ball isn't so much they find it unethical but rather Intel saying they want none of that shit in their ecosystem especially with them going for high performance graphics first with Kaby Lake-G and later their own designs. If anyone can beat Nvidia at bullying and intimidation it's Intel. And they kinda have the track record to back it up.

It's also because for discrete GPUs the AIBs right now are desperate for supply, so they are weak and obviously will play ball for any advantage...

 

They are fighting to get hold of whatever allocation they can amidst the current supply crisis. So they have no bargaining power. That's the reason Nvidia chose now to push the Geforce Partner Program. They can easily get them to sign on the dotted line now when they are desperate for supply and Nvidia will reap the benefits later..

[pas008]

lol nviida can just pull them all and have their cards all manufactured by foxconn  or  evga

how does these aib partners even have a say in anything, do they have a say with apple products?

 

[Humbug]

21 minutes ago, pas008 said:

lol nviida can just pull them all and have their cards all manufactured by foxconn  or  evga

how does these aib partners even have a say in anything

Yep, they are weak, they need Nvidia.

That's why they rolled over and signed GPP and listened to Nvidia's gag order.

[Vode]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

I personally don't think Dell, HP and Lenovo stand to gain anything from it. why would they care?

They see right through it.

 

If Nvidia gains more of a monopoly from this they'll charge OEMs more in future. Duh.

[mrthuvi]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

I'm afraid you're the one using words incorrectly.

 

Nvidia is very much a monopoly with the majority market share. If a single company owns more than 70% of the market  by themselves, they are an effective monopoly and consumers do not benefit from monopolies.

Nvidia is not a monopoly by definition (mono) since there are 3 gpu vendors, there's 100% no legal case here to sue Nvidia.

 

The case we should be looking at is abuse of a dominant position
 

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/abuse_en.html

[pas008]

23 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Yep, they are weak, they need Nvidia.

That's why they rolled over and signed GPP and listened to Nvidia's gag order.

well it is nvidias product

9 minutes ago, Vode said:

They see right through it.

 

If Nvidia gains more of a monopoly from this they'll charge OEMs more in future. Duh.

you obviously dont know what comes when having a monopoly, nvidia doesnt have one if they did they would be forced to price their products

 

and dell/hp/etc are not aibs they actually get their shit from aib so why would they need to sign up to name their cards that are being sold as whole unit 99.9% of the time

[Vode]

3 minutes ago, pas008 said:

well it is nvidias product

you obviously dont know what comes when having a monopoly, nvidia doesnt have one if they did they would be forced to price their products

How about a counter argument instead of baseless assumptions? You're taking my statement literally. Which is dumb thing to do.

[pas008]

7 minutes ago, Vode said:

How about a counter argument instead of baseless assumptions? You're taking my statement literally. Which is dumb thing to do.

you are the one that stated it lol

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, mrthuvi said:

Nvidia is not a monopoly by definition (mono) since there are 3 gpu vendors, there's 100% no legal case here to sue Nvidia.

 

The case we should be looking at is abuse of a dominant position
 

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/abuse_en.html

There is only 2 GPU vendors, and 1 of them has a market share high enough that they can directly influence the success of the other if they so choose (which it seems they are).

[Jito463]

6 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

I feel a Michael Moore documentary coming.  Oh, wait!

Sorry, I just threw up a little there.

[Razor01]

7 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

No, certainly not on a singular media article, particularly if there was nothing to back it up.  Yes, that would be stupid and terrible.  But this is not that.  For one thing, nvidia publicly announced on their own website what this is and what they'd be doing.  Additionally, we've already seen evidence supporting what was claimed in the original article.  I don't support looking into things over nothing, and I can't think of another thing in recent memory that would have warranted it.  This however, I think it does.

 

 

Already posted this in another thread

 

 

20 hours ago, Razor01 said:

The funny thing about this.  Does anyone even remember what AMD did to gainward and why Palit left AMD as a selling partner?
 

http://vrworld.com/2009/05/27/gainward-and-palit-blast-amd-for-their-gpu-product-policy/

 

 

Come one guys, everyone has these types of dealings lol.

 

Opps where was the uproar back then?  Just because nV is going to make all their AIB partners and OEM's who are part of the GPP tier one partners is a major problem here right?

 

I'm going to say this.  These companies can sell GPU's and allocate as they wish to whom ever they wish.

 

Kyle now has no backing from AIB's and can't get any more info, so now he is making things up about OEM's.  Yeah I have a friend at a very high position in the gaming side of things at Dell and a prior employee of the IHV's game dev programs, his articles have many mistakes.  Kyle is either talking to the wrong people, or people that doen't understand what the contract is about.  Pretty much my take on this is correct, Kyle is barking up the wrong tree. 

 

Law suits pending my ASS lol. 

 

Coming from a person that can't even read the contract properly he is making assumptions like that.  That is just bad.

 

This is what is going to happen

 

The FTC and EU will now look into it because of people complaining and waste tax payer's money and then they won't do anything because there is nothing to do lol.  So for the next 3 to 5 years just our money down the toilet.

 

The problem that Kyle doesn't seem to understand, he keeps saying its like what Intel did with AMD, its not what Intel did with AMD, nothing like it at all.  In the GPP, the GPP is straight forward, if you are part of GPP, you get these things, if not, you don't get them at all.  nV is saying it point blank, they don't want to spend their money unless they get benefits from spending that money.

 

Intel didn't do that, they turned around and stopped selling chips and stopped or lowered kickbacks, or increased kick backs based on the % of AMD chips being sold or bought lol.

 

Very different scenarios. 

[CTR640]

What if AMD goes bankrupt on GPU devision? Won't the gov. get on nVidia's ass because nVidia is now monopoly?

nVidia can simply f*** off with their dirty shit tactics, wtf nVidia, really.

[Razor01]

6 minutes ago, CTR640 said:

What if AMD goes bankrupt on GPU devision? Won't the gov. get on nVidia's ass because nVidia is now monopoly?

nVidia can simply f*** off with their dirty shit tactics, wtf nVidia, really.

 

 

No, monopolies made by natural course of action are never prosecuted, the only ones that are is ones that abuse their power and hurt the consumer directly.

[mrthuvi]

32 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

There is only 2 GPU vendors, and 1 of them has a market share high enough that they can directly influence the success of the other if they so choose (which it seems they are).

There are 3. You forget Intel, the one with the most market share. 

 

Nvida and AMD are on the Discrete GPU market though.

[Jito463]

2 minutes ago, mrthuvi said:

There are 3. You forget Intel, the one with the most market share. 

If you're counting Intel (who doesn't actually have any discrete cards at this time), then there's actually 4.  Matrox is still a thing.  

[CTR640]

3 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

No monopolies made by natural course of action are never prosecuted, the only ones that are is ones that abuse their power and hurt the consumer directly.

Alright, lets forget about that mono/polygamy thing. The real question: what if AMD goes bankrupt on GPU division?

So far I only know two major GPU company is AMD and nVidia, the rest do not have the technology and knowledge to develop really PC GPU's as

in GPU's for PC gaming, not like those from Intel iGP's.

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

If you're counting Intel (who doesn't actually have any discrete cards at this time), then there's actually 4.  Matrox is still a thing.  

arent matrox using amd cards now though?

 

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/press/releases/2014/graphics_cards/amd/

[Dylanc1500]

7 minutes ago, CTR640 said:

Alright, lets forget about that mono/polygamy thing. The real question: what if AMD goes bankrupt on GPU division?

So far I only know two major GPU company is AMD and nVidia, the rest do not have the technology and knowledge to develop really PC GPU's as

in GPU's for PC gaming, not like those from Intel iGP's.

If AMD went under, someone would buy up their assets and create GPUs. Similar to 3dfx.

[Humbug]

3 minutes ago, CTR640 said:

Alright, lets forget about that mono/polygamy thing. The real question: what if AMD goes bankrupt on GPU division?

Not sure what the result of that would be, but don't worry RTG is not gonna go bankrupt. AMD financially is in a much better position now compared to a few years ago, even though they may have had better top end GPUs then (relative to Nvidia).

[pas008]

7 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

If AMD went under, someone would buy up their assets and create cards. Similar to 3dfx.

dont forget nvidia sued them(3dfx) first

[Razor01]

32 minutes ago, CTR640 said:

Alright, lets forget about that mono/polygamy thing. The real question: what if AMD goes bankrupt on GPU division?

So far I only know two major GPU company is AMD and nVidia, the rest do not have the technology and knowledge to develop really PC GPU's as

in GPU's for PC gaming, not like those from Intel iGP's.

It doesn't matter, because of a company that isn't able to compete on their own in the market place, like what we have been seeing so far for the past 2 generations, if that is the cause of their downfall, there is no recourse that any government body can take. 

 

The FTC and EU have strict guidelines on how they pursue monopolies.  And anyone can see these guidelines and read them for themselves, they are freely available on the FTC website and for EU treaty pages.  If a company doesn't cross those lines then there is nothing to do.

 

And this is the norm in any type of business that has increased R&D over the course of time, those markets always become a handful companies on top, and will continue till there are three left, then two, then one.   We have seen it in free markets for centuries now lol.

 

Its very hard for this not to happen because slip ups happen and once market share is lost or gained by either side for a sustained period of time, its not easy to go back, unless there are new forces or new markets that open up for the same products.