OEMs not interested in Nvidia GPP

[Vode]

39 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

This is where the true problem of this contract is, but we can't even consider it a problem because in the course of business, some partners are going to have leverage over others ones.  Normal course of business.

 

If we have EVGA which is the biggest nV card vendor is an exclusive partner, MSI, Gigabyte, Asus, are all rounding up the 2 3 4 spots and are pretty close, as is PNY another exclusive partner, all those guys are really close to each other.  So for any of these companies to stay competitive with EVGA and PNY they need the same benefits as those exclusive partners.  But what in return are they giving nV for those benefits.  These AIB's are getting rich off of nV products (in the current market situation), they are the ones raising price due to supply and demand in the marketplace, its not the IHV's doing that. 

 

So what would the benefit be for nV giving marketing $ to an Asus ROG brand that promotes both a Geforce and a Radeon in the same line up?  The money nV or AMD gives to promote their brand, is not only promoting their brand but also Asus's brand.

 

The first ROG product was an SLi motherboard, nforce.  The money ASUS got for MDF from nV helped build their ROG brand.  That ROG brand is now being used to sell AMD graphics products too! 

 

Wouldn't that piss you off if you are the market leader at something and your money is being used directly or indirectly to sell competitor's products?

 

Every one wants to talk about morals and ethics.

 

In this case is it MORALLY or ETHICALLY right for this to happen?  Its on the fence right?  if we are talking about feelings that is what happens there is no way to judge if something is right or wrong, and that needs to be left outside.

I agree pretty much but the one thing I think doesn't add up is the ROG branding issue.

 

ASUS built the ROG brand, not Nvidia.

 

Nvidia effetively claims the ROG brand as if it was theirs. This is ethically fucked up. (Which doesn't matter in business BTW).

 

You as a consumer should look out for your own good and Nvidia dominating the market will not work out for you, as prices are sure to go up. Just look at the high end GPU market, where Nvidia dominated in the past couple years prices have nothing but gone up drastically even before the GPU mining price inflation. (Founders Edition, Titan Xp, selling midrange chips at high end prices, Titan V etc.). -> this is all directly caused by Nvidia being able to do whatever they want because lack of competition. I'm not even blaming Nvidia, they do what a smart business does and they sure are kicking ass in that department. GPP is just another step towards total market dominance (which doesn't mean monopoly) and you as a consumer will get fucked hard.

[Nocte]

11 minutes ago, pas008 said:

love for you to learn how monopoly laws work and how they arent allowed to charge whatever

I have studied (and I am studying) my good share of economics and business over the years. Obviously, they would not be able to charge whatever prices they want, but it will still be much higher than in a competitive market.

11 minutes ago, pas008 said:

so I can use if I produce apple products like foxconn can I just name them whatever I like?

What?

That does not even relate to what we are talking about here.

When selling a GPU, say Asus, they are going to advertise what type of product it is, say a GeForce GTX 1060. On a GPU box (or online sale) it is going to say what product it is GeForce GTX 1060, and the name of the brand selling it, which would be Asus ROG.

 

When you are buying an Apple iPhone, it is called like that because customers see it as an iPhone, not as an ensamble of electronic components which it is made out of.

9 minutes ago, Snapperx said:

At least Nvidia always improves even without competition.

If they did not improve with Pascal, AMD's Polaris would have been better in the sub-1070 market. There is competition (even if NVIDIA is dominating it currently).

[Vode]

5 minutes ago, Eibe said:

I have studied (and I am studying) my good share of economics and business over the years. Obviously, they would not be able to charge whatever prices they want, but it will still be much higher than in a competitive market

True.

 

Nvidia is smart though, they won't let it come to that.

 

They dominate the high margin high end segment of the market, have a quasi monopoly, let their puny competitor survive by the skin of their teeth in the low end segment so that they have somebody to point at as a competitor. This will be even worse for prices and is pretty much already happening or going to get worse. We can thank mining that AMD is still around, Vega wouldn't have fared so well otherwise.

[Nocte]

Just now, Vode said:

True.

 

Nvidia is smart though, they won't let it come to that.

 

They dominate the high margin high end segment of the market, have a quasi monopoly, let their puny competitor survive by the skin of their teeth in the low end segment so that they have somebody to point at as a competitor. This will be even worse for prices and is pretty much already happening or going to get worse. We can thank mining that AMD is still around, Vega wouldn't have fared so well otherwise.

While that is indeed their objective (never said that they were dumb ), market monopoly is also a possible scenario in the unlikely case that AMD decides to exit the discrete GPU market to focus resources elsewhere (e.g. embedded SoCs for consoles and other machines that require custom solutions).

[Razor01]

14 minutes ago, Vode said:

I agree pretty much but the one thing I think doesn't add up is the ROG branding issue.

 

ASUS built the ROG brand, not Nvidia.

 

Nvidia effetively claims the ROG brand as if it was theirs. This is ethically fucked up. (Which doesn't matter in business BTW).

 

You as a consumer should look out for your own good and Nvidia dominating the market will not work out for you, as prices are sure to go up. Just look at the high end GPU market, where Nvidia dominated in the past couple years prices have nothing but gone up drastically even before the GPU mining price inflation. (Founders Edition, Titan Xp, selling midrange chips at high end prices, Titan V etc.). -> this is all directly caused by Nvidia being able to do whatever they want because lack of competition. I'm not even blaming Nvidia, they do what a smart business does and they sure are kicking ass in that department. GPP is just another step towards total market dominance (which doesn't mean monopoly) and you as a consumer will get fucked hard.

Us as a consumer have no say other than not buying their products and the way the market is if you don't buy nV graphics cards you end up buying the second best thing on the market than what we really want.

34 minutes ago, Eibe said:

ROG is just an Asus's brand in the gamer-targeted market. It does not only involve GPUs, but also peripherals, laptops, monitors, motherboards. Shoud they scrap all of those as well? It's an Asus brand, not NVIDIA's.

Are they asking them to remove any other products from the ROG brand?  I haven't seen that yet...... they are only concerned about the products that directly compete with their products.

 

AIBs and system builders are in a totally different area than AIB's, where AIB's sell singular products one at a time, AIB's and system builders sell many different components at the same time.  So nV doesn't have the muscle there to push them around.  And logistically speaking there is no where for them to push either lol.

 

Lets go back and ask ourselves why did AMD drop nV as a chip set partner?  Was it ethical for AMD do that after buying ATi out?  nV was the one that made the best AMD chipsets, nForce was the cream of the crop.  It made the ROG brand an many other brands too at that time. 

 

So was it ethical for AMD to strip that way from nV because they now can make their own chipsets.

 

Why share the pie when they don't need to comes to question.  Intel did the same thing to nV right?

 

We are looking at something so much more ephemeral to what happened there and people are shouting anti trust, anti competitive.

 

Intel and AMD essentially removed ALL competition in the chip set business.  They create their chip sets and sell to others.  No more custom chip sets.

[pas008]

9 minutes ago, Eibe said:

I have studied (and I am studying) my good share of economics and business over the years. Obviously, they would not be able to charge whatever prices they want, but it will still be much higher than in a competitive market.

What?

That does not even relate to what we are talking about here.

When selling a GPU, say Asus, they are going to advertise what type of product it is, say a GeForce GTX 1060. On a GPU box (or online sale) it is going to say what product it is GeForce GTX 1060, and the name of the brand selling it, which would be Asus ROG.

 

When you are buying an Apple iPhone, it is called like that because customers see it as an iPhone, not as an ensamble of electronic components which it is made out of.

If they did not improve with Pascal, AMD's Polaris would have been better in the sub-1070 market. There is competition (even if NVIDIA is dominating it currently).

its because they are aib

point being its still a nvidia card just like iphone is apple product

these companies are creating a sub brand of others products and naming them under same sub brand which nvidia wanted to they could just entirely pull the plug from these aibs

[Notional]

3 hours ago, pas008 said:

Im sorry to jump in here but scummy how?

gpp isnt scummy  quidproquo for aligning their products under a name that isnt used by a competitor?

See below.

2 hours ago, Razor01 said:

 

I don't think that is the problem,  nV might not be doing what some people feel ethical but their feelings seem to be pushing them towards its legality.  They really need to get a hold of their emotions on this, ethical != legal, not ethical != illegal.  This is exactly why courts hate having media involvement, it makes their job a billion times harder.  Because at that point they need to pander to other peoples emotions right or wrong and they will side against the company that brings it to the media.  AMD did nothing for their case by doing this.  Kyle doesn't seem to understand this, he picked a fight with me about this when I stated it.  His response was like many others when if the people know then we can uncover the facts so the gov can act.  Sorry it doesn't work that way lol, only stupidity of the masses works that way, and no likes stupidity of the masses interfering with their jobs.

We have seen people using words like extortion to describe GPP, sorry that is quite different from this, extortion is a criminal act.  Laws are cut and dry, there is very little room to maneuver when it comes to pursuing (execution of law) them once in court there is more room there because that is interpretation of law, people shouldn't be using words they don't understand because they are using the wrong words to get an emotional response out.

 

A market leading company is using it's power to usurp the intellectual property of third party vendors. The result of this, since gaming branding and marketing in general, plays a huge role in the sales of this hardware. It WILL have an impact on the sales and recognition. If it does, it might very well be in massive violation of trade and commerce laws. That is up to the FTC and EU equivalence, etc. to figure out. These laws are complex and a court has to make the call in the end.

 

As for me as a consumer, ethics definitely plays a big part. If I don't like scummy behaviour from a company, I will call them out for it. There are now so much proof, in what the original article told us, what ALL vendors refuse to tell us (or any youtuber out there), that you'll have to actively deceive yourself to not be able to extrapolate what is going on here.

 

AMD basically confirmed the bullshit too:

https://gaming.radeon.com/en/radeon-a-gamers-choice/

 

Quote

Over the coming weeks, you can expect to see our add-in board partners launch new brands that carry an AMD Radeon product.

GPP bullshit confirmed straight from AMD.

[Nocte]

Just now, pas008 said:

its because they are aib

point being its still a nvidia card just like iphone is apple product

these companies are creating a sub brand of others products and naming them under same sub brand which nvidia wanted to they could just entirely pull the plug from these aibs

The product is by Asus. People do not buy Founder's Edition (fully, fresh, sparkling NVIDIA-only brand) because they want a different PRODUCT with a better cooling solution, customer service, warranty, and whatever comes after it. They even make the motherboards for the GPU.

The product is not just the chip.

 

A quick marketing lesson:

A product is made out of several layers. While the "core benefit" of a GPU is definitely the NVIDIA (or AMD) chip, everything else (the actual and augmented product) are provided by AIB partners.

 

NVIDIA making the chip does not give them the right to force branding limitations upon their partners.

It is the partners that provide the WHOLE product.

 

Furthermore, they are not creating a sub-brand of NVIDIA products, they have sub-brands of their own brands. ROG, AORUS, etc. comprise GPUs, motherboards, keyboards etc.

 

Why does not Intel or AMD do this then? These AIB are receiving the Z370, X370, etc. chipsets (or AMD Radeon with their own GPUs) and these manufacturares dare to name all their motherboards ROG, AORUS, etc.? Lol.

What if Intel came up with this and "ROG" became an Intel's exclusive, instead of NVIDIA's?

ROG is an Asus brand, not NVIDIA's (or Intel's).

[Razor01]

44 minutes ago, Eibe said:

ROG is just an Asus's brand in the gamer-targeted market. It does not only involve GPUs, but also peripherals, laptops, monitors, motherboards. Shoud they scrap all of those as well? It's an Asus brand, not NVIDIA's.

 

Right but if it wasn't for the nforce brand which was all nV's they made custom chipsets for AMD CPU's. ASUS's ROG wouldn't have gotten the attention it did lol.

[Razor01]

2 minutes ago, Eibe said:

The product is by Asus. People do not buy Founder's Edition (fully, fresh, sparkling NVIDIA-only brand) because they want a different PRODUCT with a better cooling solution, customer service, warranty, and whatever comes after it. They even make the motherboards for the GPU.

The product is not just the chip.

 

A quick marketing lesson:

A product is made out of several layers. While the "core benefit" of a GPU is definitely the NVIDIA (or AMD) chip, everything else (the actual and augmented product) are provided by AIB partners.

 

NVIDIA making the chip does not give them the right to force branding limitations upon their partners.

It is the partners that provide the WHOLE product.

 

Furthermore, they are not creating a sub-brand of NVIDIA products, they have sub-brands of their own brands. ROG, AORUS, etc. comprise GPUs, motherboards, keyboards etc.

 

Why does not Intel or AMD do this then? These AIB are receiving the Z370, X370, etc. chipsets (or AMD Radeon with their own GPUs) and these manufacturares dare to name all their motherboards ROG, AORUS, etc.? Lol.

What if Intel came up with this and "ROG" became an Intel's exclusive, instead of NVIDIA's?

ROG is an Asus brand, not NVIDIA's (or Intel's).

 

 

That is good an all, but when a sub brand becomes more viable then the primary brand, what happens then?  Does the main brand even matter at that point?  So nV promoting another person's brand that sells competitor's products under that brand, is kinda counter productive for them

[Nocte]

3 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Right but if it wasn't for the nforce brand which was all nV's they made custom chipsets for AMD CPU's. ASUS's ROG wouldn't have gotten the attention it did lol.

Asus ROG got the attention it did thanks to the laptop market mainly lol.

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

That is good an all, but when a sub brand becomes more viable then the primary brand, what happens then?

If your response to a constructive discussion I made is "that is good and all" just to liquidate my point, I am not even going to waste another 10 minutes of my time to make another post.

 

[Razor01]

1 minute ago, Eibe said:

Asus ROG got the attention it did thanks to the laptop market mainly lol.

I don't know if you remember, those SLi motherboards were enthusiast favorites.  The other boards out at that time couldn't even come close to the overclocking and feature sets they had.  After AMD pulled the plug  nV switched over to Intel, and ROG kept on going, it wasn't till a few of years ago till ROG notebooks showed up  Think it was 2012 or 13.

[Vode]

19 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Us as a consumer have no say other than not buying their products and the way the market is if you don't buy nV graphics cards you end up buying the second best thing on the market than what we really want.

I agree, although we have seen often in the past even when AMD has the superior product people still buy Nvidia (HD4870, HD 5870, R9 290).

[Razor01]

8 minutes ago, Vode said:

I agree, although we have seen often in the past even when AMD has the superior product people still buy Nvidia (HD4870, HD 5870, R9 290).

Err nV lost a lot of market share with those cards coming out. lol it wasn't till the refresh and midrange of Fermi came out till nV get back on track. 

 

At that time AMD was doing a full line up launch top to bottom, where nV was only doing their top end chips and then migrating down to the lower end ones

 

 

The 4xxx series also force nV to cut prices and that was the first loss they had since FX series of products on Q reports.

 

I do agree there is mindshare in play here, but at most 5%, the attach rate of GPU's when a product is superior is pretty much non existent lol.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

8 hours 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?

Yes, monopoly literally means one supplier.

Also, irrelevant from a legal perspective. Having a monopoly isn't illegal (if all your competitors happen to go bankrupt, you don't go to jail or pay a fine for that), and "abusing a dominant market position", which doesn't require a monopoly, is. The latter is informally referred to as "monopolistic practices", because it sounds more intuitive. And it isn't that wrong, since things don't require monopolies to be "monopolistic" (see, for instance, "monopolistic competition").

 

So, if it makes things easier for you: this is just the same type of discussion that took place over Windoews+Internet explorer bundling, or Winamp vs Windows+WMP, or Intel vs. AMD in the EU (notice I'm saying the same type of discussion, not necessarily the same situation or that it will have the same outcome).

 

42 minutes ago, pas008 said:

love for you to learn how monopoly laws work and how they arent allowed to charge whatever

Which monopoly laws do you mean? The only restrictions to a monopolist's pricing is consumers' demand function. It's not even a restriction: it can charge whatever it wants, it just happens that only one particular price maximizes its profits, with everything above or below it translating into lower profits.

Of course, an industry can be regulated due to its monopolistic or oligopolistic nature, but there is no law that automatically becomes active the moment you reach X% market share or X number of companies in the industry. Many things go into consideration to decide about such regulation (for example, whether more companies could potentially enter or there are technical limitations to it).

For instance, we have fewer companies producing CPUs and GPUs than many utility industries, yet utilities are regulated as mopolistic/oligopolistic markets, while PC parts are not.

 

[Vode]

10 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Err nV lost a lot of market share with those cards coming out. lol it wasn't till the refresh and midrange of Fermi came out till nV get back on track. 

 

At that time AMD was doing a full line up launch top to bottom, where nV was only doing their top end chips and then migrating down to the lower end ones

 

Nice chart!

 

Looking at it they gained 3% with the HD4870, lost almost 10% with the HD5870 gained it back because Nvidia wasn't launching anything competitive at all!! (Total tech dominance and 46% market share to show for, it's pathetic). Both HD4000 and HD5000 where getting positive reviews by reputable sites like AnandTech etc.. AMD had better performance per watt and performance per $ by a long shot even after GTX 400 series launched.

 

R9 290 Series lost them 3% market share and it got mixed reviews, still performance per $ was waaay better than Nvidia.

 

It's all in the marketing. AMD stood no chance with better tech. Now Nvidia got the better tech too. AMD is fucked.

[Razor01]

8 minutes ago, Vode said:

Nice chart!

 

Looking at it they gained 3% with the HD4870, lost almost 10% with the HD5870. Both where getting positive reviews by reputable sites like AnandTech etc.. AMD had better performance per watt and performance per $ by a long shot.

 

R9 290 Series lost them 3% market share and it got mixed reviews, still performance per $ was waaay better than Nvidia.

 

It's all in the marketing. AMD stood no chance with better tech. Now Nvidia got the better tech too. AMD is fucked.

 

The r290 different problem there, no one could get their hands on one.  People blamed mining but if that was the case the chart wouldn't show the deficit lol.

 

Yeah 5% around there I can see is marketing/mindshare.  But any more than that its coming down to other problems.  At launch the 290x did get remarks about its cooler which hurt it a bit too.

 

Well with the launch of the 5xxx series nV was able to get out their lower end products of Fermi, which helped them out considerably in the market share, that 10% drop quickly came back to their side too.  So there could have been other market pressures that we aren't privy to going on.

[Vode]

9 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

The r290 different problem there, no one could get their hands on one.  People blamed mining but if that was the case the chart wouldn't show the deficit lol.

 

Yeah 5% around there I can see is marketing/mindshare.  But any more than that its coming down to other problems.  At launch the 290x did get remarks about its cooler which hurt it a bit too.

Yes it's true. R9 290 already was a sign of the end since AMD cheaped out on the cooler, which only hurt them more...

 

You can even see the slow decline of AMDs top products compared to the competition:

 

HD4870 - better tech, more efficient, cheaper, better perf now

HD5870 - better tech, more efficient, cheaper, better perf now

HD7970 - good tech, less efficient, only faster til GTX 680, maybe faster in future

R9 290 - same tech bigger die, faster, cheaper, hot, loud, less efficient, maybe faster in future

RX 480 - same perm, maybe more in future, less efficient, roughly same price

Vega - worse performance, maybe more in future, hot, less efficient, more expensive

[Mihle]

@Razor01 so for you a McLaren with an BMW engine is a BMW product and not s McLaren product?

[Razor01]

3 minutes ago, Vode said:

Yes it's true. R9 290 already was a sign of the end since AMD cheaped out on the cooler, which only hurt them more...

 

You can even see the slow decline of AMDs top products:

 

HD4870 - better tech, more efficient, cheaper, better perf now

HD5870 - better tech, more efficient, cheaper, better perf now

HD7970 - good tech, less efficient, only faster til GTX 680, maybe faster in future

R9 290 - same tech bigger die, faster, cheaper, hot, loud, less efficient, maybe faster in future

RX 480 - same perm, maybe more in future, less efficient, roughly same price

Vega - worse performance, maybe more in future, hot, less efficient, more expensive

 

The first few there had to do with not having a halo product which does bring in mindshare.  HD7xxx cards were excellent, they competed well on all fronts, since then AMD wasn't really able to compete on everything. With delays and what not just put their lineups in a real mess.  Can't have products coming out 2 Qs later to a year later and expect them to be competitive.  People already bought the competing products lol.  They are going to be telling others to just buy the one that has been on the market already.

[pas008]

18 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Yes, monopoly literally means one supplier.

Also, irrelevant from a legal perspective. Having a monopoly isn't illegal (if all your competitors happen to go bankrupt, you don't go to jail or pay a fine for that), and "abusing a dominant market position", which doesn't require a monopoly, is. The latter is informally referred to as "monopolistic practices", because it sounds more intuitive. And it isn't that wrong, since things don't require monopolies to be "monopolistic" (see, for instance, "monopolistic competition").

 

So, if it makes things easier for you: this is just the same type of discussion that took place over Windoews+Internet explorer bundling, or Winamp vs Windows+WMP, or Intel vs. AMD in the EU (notice I'm saying the same type of discussion, not necessarily the same situation or that it will have the same outcome).

 

Which monopoly laws do you mean? The only restrictions to a monopolist's pricing is consumers' demand function. It's not even a restriction: it can charge whatever it wants, it just happens that only one particular price maximizes its profits, with everything above or below it translating into lower profits.

Of course, an industry can be regulated due to its monopolistic or oligopolistic nature, but there is no law that automatically becomes active the moment you reach X% market share or X number of companies in the industry. Many things go into consideration to decide about such regulation (for example, whether more companies could potentially enter or there are technical limitations to it).

For instance, we have fewer companies producing CPUs and GPUs than many utility industries, yet utilities are regulated as mopolistic/oligopolistic markets, while PC parts are not.

 

talking about

this quote

Second, Article 102 of the Treaty prohibits firms that hold a dominant position on a given market to abuse that position, for example by charging unfair prices, by limiting production, or by refusing to innovate to the prejudice of consumers.

 here

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html

[Razor01]

6 minutes ago, Mihle said:

@Razor01 so for you a McLaren with an BMW engine is a BMW product and not s McLaren product?

 

If it was only the engine that made that car do what it can do, yeah. But they can put a MB engine in there and it will do the same, like Mclaren Senna has a MB engine lol.  They can pick and choose a porsche engine if they want to, its still going to do what it did with the BMW engine. 

 

Graphics card AIB's don't have that luxury, They can't make an AMD card do what nV cards can do.

[Misanthrope]

Well OEMs never really rush to market on the latest tech anyway: the promotional GPU release time frames are likely not valuable enough for them since they still need to do a lot of testing and validation before launching the cards on the systems, the bigger they are the more this rings true btw.

[Vode]

6 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

The first few there had to do with not having a halo product which does bring in mindshare.  HD7xxx cards were excellent, they competed well on all fronts, since then AMD wasn't really able to compete on everything. With delays and what not just put their lineups in a real mess.  Can't have products coming out 2 Qs later to a year later and expect them to be competitive.  People already bought the competing products lol.  They are going to be telling others to just buy the one that has been on the market already.

Yep. It was caused because RnD was high for HD4870 and HD5870 yet they didn't earn enough money to keep it up. Downward spiral from there. Sad.

[vanished]

8 hours 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 not saying they are a monopoly, but they're using monopolistic practices.  Any time a company is so large it can effectively bully others into doing whatever it wants by threatening to withhold a service, even if they're not an exclusive provider, it falls under that category.

 

As an example, consider this hypothetical scenario:

Dell sells PCs - lots of them - and puts Windows on them all.  However, they want to start offering PCs with Linux on them too.  Microsoft dells Dell that if they start offering Linux preinstalled, Microsoft will not provide Dell with any more copies of Windows.  Obviously Dell needs those Windows licenses because the vast majority of users want it, so they have no choice but to comply with Microsoft's wishes, thus suppressing competition to Windows.

 

Microsoft, by your definition, is obviously not a monopoly since there is Mac and Linux, among others, but when you get big enough and your products are in sufficiently high demand, you can effectively act as a monopoly, even if there are other options.

On 4/16/2018 at 11:11 AM, 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.

I don't remember that story since it was before I started following tech news at all, but that sounds extremely similar.  I'd imagine there was no uproar because it was crushed by people telling everyone this is fine and there's no evidence of anything bad happening.

 

The problem here is they're basing their decision for allocation on how the company treats their competitors.  They're basically going "Hey, we'd sure like it if you didn't sell AMD under the same brand as us.  Now, this is totally optional but you know those GPUs we sell you so you can make the cards you need to survive?  Sure would be a shame if suddenly we didn't have enough for you..."

 

I'm pretty sure that's crossing a line.