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

[Razor01]

yeah the subprime loan scandal was really messed up and it did come from the government

[hobobobo]

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

The FTC guidelines are lax for a certain reason, having them ridged also creates for problems because it stops innovation and creativeness.

 

Hey I agree with ya on market speech its damn close to out right crap lol.  But its protected.  FTC has guidelines on that too.  But changing an amendment is not easy to do.

 

The reason why anti trust is not easy to take to court.

 

When ever we see things like anti trust or anti competitive practices are taken to court, its not just a singular thing that the offending company does.  Its a multitude of abuses. 

 

Three things must happen for anti trust to be upheld by the law.

1)  The company must have enough marketshare to be deemed a monopoly, and that market share gained was due to anti competitive tactics

2)  The company must exhibit that they are doing things that will further enhance their monopoly by hurting others directly (this can not be because of direct competition, it must by by other means)

3)  Deliberately stopping competition in the market place.

 

Anti competitive lawsuits are closely tied with anti trust behavior lol.

One can argue that lax guidelines do not promote innovation or creativeness, its just an excuse given by those who hold IP vital to innovation and creativness. Id agree that rigid guidelines would stifle innovation only in context of current IP legislature, since it is whats stops it in alot ways as of now.

 

Anti trust, protected corporate speech and anti competative is hard to argue for, mainly, one reason - the state of society, or to be more precise, the mechanism for setting public agenda and the sources of the public agenda. Its all so fucked up, with business world being its own alternative reality, and b2c companies seeing their own client base little more then brainless consumption machines, that, despite being of a firm belive that its all so wrong beyond belief, i see no clear mechanism for the fix. And, as i side note, i would really like to know just how much of hand did those beholdent to the antitrust laws did have in writing them.

[laminutederire]

7 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Without getting too derailed from the topic, the subprime market crash was caused by federal interference from Fannie Mae (FNMA) & Freddie Mac (FMCC), both of which are government entities.  They forced lenders to offer those unsustainable loans to people who should never have been approved.

Like the guys in banks werent willing to do those?

They gained a looot of money in the operation until it crashed and after the crash for those who survived.

[hobobobo]

9 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Without getting too derailed from the topic, the subprime market crash was caused by federal interference from Fannie Mae (FNMA) & Freddie Mac (FMCC), both of which are government entities.  They forced lenders to offer those unsustainable loans to people who should never have been approved.

And the ratings of those subprime derivatives on the secondary market sure had nothing to do with that, they were 3xA for a reason. Neither did the outright market manipulation by several investment banks. And one should not forget the reason the lenders were forced to offer those loans and who lobbied it

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

Like the guys in banks werent willing to do those?

While some may have been, there's no direct evidence to support your allegation.  We do have definitive evidence of the market manipulation by the aforementioned entities, however.

 

In any event, this is starting to get too far off-topic.

[hobobobo]

10 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

yeah the subprime loan scandal was really messed up and it did come from the government

One last thing offtopic, blaming the goverment in the US is the same as blaming the corporations, thank god lobbing records are open, for now.

[laminutederire]

16 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

While some may have been, there's no direct evidence to support your allegation.  We do have definitive evidence of the market manipulation by the aforementioned entities, however.

 

In any event, this is starting to get too far off-topic.

There is evidence of it laying in the fact that the value of those titles bursted out of proportions solely because of the fact that the trend made it an easy title to sell for a profit. In many ways the Bitcoin craze has similar traits.

And it's not off topic as it is the kind of behaviour which stems from the lack of accountability which subsequently can lead to the behaviour of nvidia.

 

If you want evidence this was not only because a government said so: Paper about it.

[Razor01]

39 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

One can argue that lax guidelines do not promote innovation or creativeness, its just an excuse given by those who hold IP vital to innovation and creativness. Id agree that rigid guidelines would stifle innovation only in context of current IP legislature, since it is whats stops it in alot ways as of now.

 

Anti trust, protected corporate speech and anti competative is hard to argue for, mainly, one reason - the state of society, or to be more precise, the mechanism for setting public agenda and the sources of the public agenda. Its all so fucked up, with business world being its own alternative reality, and b2c companies seeing their own client base little more then brainless consumption machines, that, despite being of a firm belive that its all so wrong beyond belief, i see no clear mechanism for the fix. And, as i side note, i would really like to know just how much of hand did those beholdent to the antitrust laws did have in writing them.

 

 

Well for anti trust, those laws are deeply in bedded in the history of the free market in the US.  It started with the Sherman Act which was created to stop Standard Oil.  Standard Oil was an organization that was fully vertical and did many things that stopped the free market, in many different levels.    This is why we rarely see anti trust coming about.  A company must really be doing many things to be looked at as such.  Even Intel is not considered to be a monopoly in that sense even with its 100% of server market and 80% of PC market. And it will never be. 

 

Vertical companies are rare in that regard.  But what Intel did was they did the same things to OEM's as Standard Oil did with retailers of their products.  They stopped the free market by not allowing the retailers to sell competing products because of pretty much bribing them.  This is where anti competitive comes in.  Because Intel did that, they maintained their marketshare, which becomes anti trust, this is where the FTC stepped in. 

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, XenosTech said:

Until a country outright bans the sale of their products they don't care because they'll still make more money than the fines add up to over a period of time

Given market share control that Nvidia possesses across a lot more than just the gaming sector, the tax revenue being generated, and the seemingly strained supply of AMD Vega chips, a complete sales ban could inflict more harm upon the EU than on Nvidia.

[hobobobo]

23 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Well for anti trust, those laws are deeply in bedded in the history of the free market in the US.  It started with the Sherman Act which was created to stop Standard Oil.  Standard Oil was an organization that was fully article and did many things that stopped the free market, in many different levels.    This is why we rarely see anti trust coming about.  A company must really be doing many things to be looked at as such.  Even Intel is not considered to be a monopoly in that sense even with its 100% of server market and 80% of PC market. And it will never be. 

 

Vertical companies are rare in that regard.  But what Intel did was they did the same things to OEM's as Standard Oil did with retailers of their products.  They stopped the free market by not allowing the retailers to sell competing products because of pretty much bribing them.  This is where anti competitive comes in.  Because Intel did that, they maintained their marketshare, which becomes anti trust, this is where the FTC stepped in. 

Tbh, the principles of free market in the US have been twisted beyond recognition and there is almost nothing left of the original intent, thanks to GE, DuPont, Disney and alot of others. Not saying they dont exist, they are miles better then in Russia, but still fucked up.

 

Id once again come back to the issue with IP, since it would be impossible for intel to remain what it is without them, VIA and AMD having such a firm grip on x86 licensing, amoung other stuff. I just see not being able to produce anything relatively high-tech without shelling out stupid amount of money, and sometimes even that is not enough, just for the right to use derivatives of someones half-a-century old ideas. Im of a firm belief that even disregarding the state of other legislature, making any technical IP open, with mandatory royalties and mb grace period, would solve half of the problems with "natural" monopolies in hi-tech industries. As an exmaple, perhaps a weak one, Russian chip makers have been dreaming of bringing proper x86 processors to market(even though their market is mostly defense contractors), but have been relegated to ARM and VLIW, since they have been constantly refused the license.

[Razor01]

43 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

Tbh, the principles of free market in the US have been twisted beyond recognition and there is almost nothing left of the original intent, thanks to GE, DuPont, Disney and alot of others. Not saying they dont exist, they are miles better then in Russia, but still fucked up.

 

Id once again come back to the issue with IP, since it would be impossible for intel to remain what it is without them, VIA and AMD having such a firm grip on x86 licensing, amoung other stuff. I just see not being able to produce anything relatively high-tech without shelling out stupid amount of money, and sometimes even that is not enough, just for the right to use derivatives of someones half-a-century old ideas. Im of a firm belief that even disregarding the state of other legislature, making any technical IP open, with mandatory royalties and mb grace period, would solve half of the problems with "natural" monopolies in hi-tech industries. As an exmaple, perhaps a weak one, Russian chip makers have been dreaming of bringing proper x86 processors to market(even though their market is mostly defense contractors), but have been relegated to ARM and VLIW, since they have been constantly refused the license.

 

 

There is a time limit on IP rights, but if the original IP is changed and then refiled the time is renewed.  The problem here is x86 when it first started is not the same as x86 is now lol, there has been a lot of changes, but backward compatibility is still there.

 

This won't stop the course of natural monopolies in the tech industry.  In economics its called the rule of three.

 

Eventually in any industry that requires increased expenditure from R&D or costs there will be 3 companies that out last the rest in a free market.  This has been shown to happen in many markets.  And eventually two of those three companies will succumb to the eventual leader.

 

https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/competitive-markets-and-the-rule-of-three/

 

 

Because we are in a free market, the rule of three actually works out.  If we want a highly regulated market, then competition is hindered and actually prices of products will be much higher unless there are subsides by the regulatory bodies, cause someone has to pay for the oversight.

[hobobobo]

21 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

There is a time limit on IP rights, but if the original IP is changed and then refiled the time is renewed.  The problem here is x86 when it first started is not the same as x86 is now lol, there has been a lot of changes, but backward compatibility is still there.

 

This won't stop the course of natural monopolies in the tech industry.  In economics its called the rule of three.

 

Eventually in any industry that requires increased expenditure from R&D or costs there will be 3 companies that out last the rest in a free market.  This has been shown to happen in many markets.  And eventually two of those three companies will succumb to the eventual leader.

 

https://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/competitive-markets-and-the-rule-of-three/

 

 

Because we are in a free market, the rule of three actually works out.  If we want a highly regulated market, then competition is hindered.

Time limit is 25 years, as i understand it, and its ridiculous and can hardly be argued as a time limit at all, in market time might as well be eternity.

 

Thats the points with x86, the original one is open, x86-64 is AMDs, alot of other extensions are Intels and its virtually impossible to get them. Considering the size of x86 ecosystem, developing your own advancent x86 instruction sets is not feasable by any means.

 

I know of the rule of three, but free market is an abstract idea hardly rooted in reality, since it requires perfect information, rational agents, low entry barries and alot of other things. Rule of three works in free market, but can be broken in reality based scenarios, easiest example would be defense contractors, where cost efficiency is secondary to security. Russian Defense Ministry wanted those x86 chips in the past, badly, and was ready to invest into R&D, but was ultimatly deterred by their contractor (elbrus, i think), since they would not be able to release them on the market later, and now they have turned to ARM and VLIW. Chinese defense uses their own chips, which infringe on a shitton of IP and would probably be semi-competative in the market if there was a slightest possibility of their release without inferring a shitstorm of lawsuits.

 

I strongly oppose calling any market a free market, since none of them are, maybe only by the most basic definition. US market can be called free only in the most basic sense of goverment not directly mandating supply and demand, and even then it is constantly manipulated.

 

One could also argue that rule of three works out exactly because of the state of IP legislature, where alot of innovation in those high-R&D sectors come from small companies, developing tech separatly from the IP-holders and later selling it to them. In an abstract example of, lets say, 3 years of exclusive IP rights and 25 years of holding royalties to those rights, without the ability to exclude, its is feasable to see those small companies developing their own products without and bringing them to the market, without having to outright sell the tech because of having no other means to profit of it. There ofc could be a counter-argument made that this deters the IP holder from further R&D, but i think its a weak one, since if not them then somebody else.

 

 

[Razor01]

Its a good proposal, but still, IP rights have to, specially for big budget R&D, be able to recoup their money and make money as you stated, plus it takes time to get patents, patents that are granted now probably started a few years prior.  20 year time limit for US patents right now can be extended based on the time it takes to grant that patent.  But any case to even conceivable compete in a high R&D market, the funds need to be there and of course the talent too, companies that have both in the respective sector or market, hard to find.  Look at AMD right now, no funds, no talent (GPU side), that is the way it goes.  Patent portfolio is important for future growth, to get those patents they need money which gets talent and the proper resources to make those advancements. 

 

The US gov is there to stop the manipulation of direct consumer manipulation by corporations.  If government regulations are in place to stop a free market, pretty much stop companies in the most mundane ways, it will cause things like taxation without representation.  It will also cause things that increase the price of products dramatically. Lets get down to things like electrical bills, 20% of my bill are other fees lol.  Electricity is a gov controlled monopoly done by regions.  Why am I paying all these fees?  Because of the extra regulations that are in place for oversight.  Also because electrical costs are different across different areas of one region depending on the type of property, how that electricity is delivered, who's lines are being used etc.  Its a necessary evil at times.  But in this case with tech companies, we don't want government oversight, just like at the Cell phone bills, 50% of some bills from carriers are not for the services at all.

 

Current its the best system we have available, gov oversight after something goes wrong.

 

And also with IP there are strong sense of things to come, national security is kinda important with computer chips.  US doesn't want other countries to be able to produce their chips, then the US will loose their technology leadership, and our military leadership is certainly based on that.  They also don't want to put workers here out of work.  Cost of lets say a Chinese company making a x86 chip will be less than that of Intel making chips here in there fabs correct?  Cost of engineers here is higher. 

 

It would be nice if they were only be able to make yesteryear chips, but that doesn't work, because they will be able to pick things up fast once they have the IP, they will be able to make something better in the future.  This is EXACTLY what AMD did with x86, when Intel stopped AMD from accessing x86 IP, AMD went around that by creating a full clean room to analysis and reverse engineer i386 chips after which, they bought out Cyrix and then NexGen for their 486 and Pentium Clone projects.  NexGen AMD chips were better than anything Intel had, by far we are talking 30% clock for clock differences here.

 

The reason why x86 and x64 are such highly sought after tech isn't because they are hard to reproduce, its the market they can open up for other companies.  These markets don't shift too much when it comes to IP, only about ever 7 to10 years or so are we going to see major IP changes from an architecture level, that will have ramifications on ways we do things at a software level.  The last one was predictive branching, the one before that was Pentium's SSE, before that the math co processor lol.

 

The cost of creating the chip, goes into how to make them go faster.  Many of these new features are leveraged by new architectural changes for speed.  So even if lets say a Chinese company has access to x86, they still won't be able to compete well in the market.  They need to get that talent.  For Russia same thing.    If they can't compete well, and products aren't as good as they can be, what happens?  It waters down the entire market.

 

Now for graphics.  when ATi and nV started in the graphics industry all that time ago.  there were many companies that were doing the same as they were.  We are talking 20 some companies.  Free market, nV took a wrong direction and almost went bankrupt.  They needed revamp their IP for their next chip so they could be competitive again, while doing so they almost ran out of money if it wasn't for their creative QA process that saved them time and money by only doing one spin of the chip.

 

Back to AMD, AMD on the other hand the only reason they are in the marketplace right now in x86 and x64 is because the Gov put them there.  The US military needed a second source of products and Intel was "forced" to give up its IP to another company.  AMD was that company.  So the military needs of dual sourcing promoted competition in the market place.

 

Gov agencies must triple bid on a projects before they can be signed off.

[MegaTechPC]

15 hours ago, asus killer said:

i saw the WAN show and still don't get the drama. I get that Nvidia made the partners join the GPP almost by force removing them any freedom to say no, but there are a lot of markets where this happens, it's actually pretty normal for this to happen when one of the parts have more power than the rest.

 

But i still don't see the anti competitive part, at most partners had to create a new subbrand for AMD products, i guess it sucks for the partners, more marketing, but it's not the end of the world and for consumers i guess it matters zero, you don't buy a ROG or a Strix you buy some other premium name, strax by democracy of gamers 

 

They don't remove ability to sell AMD products nor could they, that would be illegal and not in a soft way, that would probably be a serious problem for Nvidia.

The problem is that AMD had a hand in helping Asus build the ROG brand since they've always offered both AMD and Nvidia cards under that name.  How is it OK for Nvidia to now claim sole ownership of ROG?  If they want a different branding than AMD then THEY should be the ones to have to build up a new sub-brand, not AMD.

[Razor01]

24 minutes ago, MegaTechPC said:

The problem is that AMD had a hand in helping Asus build the ROG brand since they've always offered both AMD and Nvidia cards under that name.  How is it OK for Nvidia to now claim sole ownership of ROG?  If they want a different branding than AMD then THEY should be the ones to have to build up a new sub-brand, not AMD.

 

 

It was an nforce 4 motherboard wasn't it?  That was the first AMD based motherboard that was ROG branded.Did AMD have a hand in that or did both nV and AMD have a hand in that?

 

There were very few brands at that time that were good for overclocking and nForce was one those few....

 

 

[hobobobo]

2 hours ago, Razor01 said:

Its a good proposal, but still, IP rights have to, specially for big budget R&D, be able to recoup their money and make money as you stated, plus it takes time to get patents, patents that are granted now probably started a few years prior.  20 year time limit for US patents right now can be extended based on the time it takes to grant that patent.  But any case to even conceivable compete in a high R&D market, the funds need to be there and of course the talent too, companies that have both in the respective sector or market, hard to find.  Look at AMD right now, no funds, no talent (GPU side), that is the way it goes.  Patent portfolio is important for future growth, to get those patents they need money which gets talent and the proper resources to make those advancements. 

Well, the lengths of the periods can be different to accomodate for that, i just have problems with outright exclusivity of the IP. Maybe its the USSR influence in my upbringing, but im on the side of finding the fine line where the company is still barely/sufficiently incentified to continue R&D, but with the emphasis is on development on the tech, not the sole right of the company to profit from it. Thats basicly why i want more open IP laws. The other problem i have is increasing rate of innovation on how current IP law reflect that. The faster technology progresses the more valuable the patent becomes, since its utility upon expiration drops drasticly. And since new IP is rarely based on thin air, but usually on a large amount of previous IP, by the time advanced algorithms will be able to properly assist in R&D, accelerating the rate of development of new tech even further, the barriers to entry to high-tech markets will become insurmountable. Smells a tiny bit distopian. Patent porfolio is understandable, but owning exclusive rights to it, at least to me, is not. Being the developer of the patent is advantage enough to be able to sustain future growth even with the said patents open to competition, with mandatory royalties ofc. I doubt we would have x86-64 in its current form without AMD having access to x86, since itanium sucks comperativly (at least the way i see it, dont knoe much about IA64)

 

And on the talent part, you can hardly expect new talent popping up en mass without serious competition in the industry and relative openness of IP. With progression of tech, and if society follows (kinda what USSR/Star trek dreamt of, with everyone possesing sufficient knowledge to participate in high-tech industries) IP in its current form becomes a stopgap for free market/interpreneurship. This loops back to the Russia/China thing, there is no incentive to foster much talent in these industries since its gonna be snatched by the IP holders and the investment on cultivating said talent is going to be lost (China is a bit of a different case, ofc, since they are not as shit as motherland and do actually bother on homegrowing competative tech companies). Israel is a good example, they got Intel to be a tax-payer and their investment in education is paying off, which i highly doubt it would be if Intel, for some reason or another, decided that it would be better to just get those people to work for them in the US.

 

And on the original topic of the thread, Intel already showed what happens to the market if you push out your competition agressivly, kinda what NVidia wants, albeit who knows if it is actually as agressive. Though i think MCM is going to be next big thing in compute, with AMDs Infinity fabric and Intels EMIB maybe NVidia just feels the upcoming preasure and wants to solidify its position, since from what i gather they are bit behind on this front.

 

All of the issues mentioned, either by you or me, are so much interconnected with alot of other things left unspoken that i feel im getting a bit loopy.

[pas008]

7 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

Well, the lengths of the periods can be different to accomodate for that, i just have problems with outright exclusivity of the IP. Maybe its the USSR influence in my upbringing, but im on the side of finding the fine line where the company is still barely/sufficiently incentified to continue R&D, but with the emphasis is on development on the tech, not the sole right of the company to profit from it. Thats basicly why i want more open IP laws. The other problem i have is increasing rate of innovation on how current IP law reflect that. The faster technology progresses the more valuable the patent becomes, since its utility upon expiration drops drasticly. And since new IP is rarely based on thin air, but usually on a large amount of previous IP, by the time advanced algorithms will be able to properly assist in R&D, accelerating the rate of development of new tech even further, the barriers to entry to high-tech markets will become insurmountable. Smells a tiny bit distopian. Patent porfolio is understandable, but owning exclusive rights to it, at least to me, is not. Being the developer of the patent is advantage enough to be able to sustain future growth even with the said patents open to competition, with mandatory royalties ofc. I doubt we would have x86-64 in its current form without AMD having access to x86, since itanium sucks comperativly (at least the way i see it, dont knoe much about IA64)

 

And on the talent part, you can hardly expect new talent popping up en mass without serious competition in the industry and relative openness of IP. With progression of tech, and if society follows (kinda what USSR/Star trek dreamt of, with everyone possesing sufficient knowledge to participate in high-tech industries) IP in its current form becomes a stopgap for free market/interpreneurship. This loops back to the Russia/China thing, there is no incentive to foster much talent in these industries since its gonna be snatched by the IP holders and the investment on cultivating said talent is going to be lost (China is a bit of a different case, ofc, since they are not as shit as motherland and do actually bother on homegrowing competative tech companies). Israel is a good example, they got Intel to be a tax-payer and their investment in education is paying off, which i highly doubt it would be if Intel, for some reason or another, decided that it would be better to just get those people to work for them in the US.

 

And on the original topic of the thread, Intel already showed what happens to the market if you push out your competition agressivly, kinda what NVidia wants, albeit who knows if it is actually as agressive. Though i think MCM is going to be next big thing in compute, with AMDs Infinity fabric and Intels EMIB maybe NVidia just feels the upcoming preasure and wants to solidify its position, since from what i gather they are bit behind on this front.

 

All of the issues mentioned, either by you or me, are so much interconnected with alot of other things left unspoken that i feel im getting a bit loopy.

I have already talked to razor about mcm/if/emib will give anyone the edge in gpu war right now cause they could be stacking those boards like voodoo cards back in the day

 

fyi how is wanting your product to be branded differently doing anything to amd and aggressively?

tell me where any competing products are under same brand(sub)?

[Razor01]

11 minutes ago, pas008 said:

I have already talked to razor about mcm/if/emib will give anyone the edge in gpu war right now cause they could be stacking those boards like voodoo cards back in the day

 

fyi how is wanting your product to be branded differently doing anything to amd and aggressively?

tell me where any competing products are under same brand(sub)?

 

 

yep and there is a major limitation of API and Software, once the API is done the hardware will follow soon after this will happen with in months, because the people working on the silicon will have the input to create that API, but for the API to be done, majority of the GPU market must be ready to embrace the tech.

 

One chip in a MCM type setup must be just as capable as a previous generation chip this will allow an MCM type set up for current performance levels and future speed enhancements via the other chips being enabled through the right software development.  Pretty much I see it happening around 2023, its going to have to come with a node shrink where large chips are no longer possible with acceptable yields and a completely new architecture.  The way I look at it the control silicon of the GPU must be broken out and each sub part of the GPU's broken out too (if there is still fixed function legacy parts), that way communication between all parts of the chips, are centrally controlled and everything can be transparent to the control silicon.  This introduces latency, that latency can be reduced or hidden by the API and programming techniques.

 

Good example when something like this would fail if the software community wasn't on board, Itanium, Itanium was a decent chip, specially Itanium 2, but the extra time to port software over to it, it wasn't worth the extra 15-20% performance boost.  Even Microsoft didn't want to have Windows support, eventually they did but by then the rest of the dev community was bathing in Itanium's ashes lol.

[hobobobo]

18 minutes ago, pas008 said:

I have already talked to razor about mcm/if/emib will give anyone the edge in gpu war right now cause they could be stacking those boards like voodoo cards back in the day

 

fyi how is wanting your product to be branded differently doing anything to amd and aggressively?

tell me where any competing products are under same brand(sub)?

They already are branded differently, its not like its Rog Strix 1080 and Rog Strix 64, both have NVidia Geforce or Radeon in the brand name as a subbrand. Exclusive branding and differently branded are miles apart

Samsung phones would be the easiest example, with both snapdragon and exynos being under the same galaxy brand. DRAM is another good example, with samsungs/hynix/micron chips being sold under the same branding.

[asus killer]

7 hours ago, MegaTechPC said:

The problem is that AMD had a hand in helping Asus build the ROG brand since they've always offered both AMD and Nvidia cards under that name.  How is it OK for Nvidia to now claim sole ownership of ROG?  If they want a different branding than AMD then THEY should be the ones to have to build up a new sub-brand, not AMD.

please read the next couple posts i wrote. i guess it only makes sense if it applies to strix not rog.

[rushboarduk]

The issue with GPP is its irritating crap - the Ts&Cs contradict themselves.  There's an advertisement the UK government did about needing to register to vote, which exemplifies a lot how this program works:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj8kmmZN4oA

 

To be honest, I think NVidia needs to take a good, long look about how they're running their business.

[leadeater]

37 minutes ago, Hyncharas said:

To be honest, I think NVidia needs to take a good, long look about how they're running their business.

They did look, they're making $$$$ of money so everything is fine in their view. Hard to make a company change their business practices when they don't see any reason to.

[Razor01]

 

 

 

 

 

Kitguru asked nV about the "crux" of the problem of Kyle's report, nV pointed them to, AIB's can have different gaming brands for different IHV's.

[Humbug]

1 hour ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

 

 

 

Kitguru asked nV about the "crux" of the problem of Kyle's report, nV pointed them to, AIB's can have different gaming brands for different IHV's.

Forcing partners to have different brands for Nvidia and AMD is less offensive than forcing them to only use Nvidia.

 

But is Nvidia trying to highjack existing brands such as 'Asus ROG' and 'MSI gaming' ? While forcing them to relegate AMD to new brands which haven't got a reputation built up... The example given by kitguru about ROG green and ROG red was a hypothetical. Does anybody really believe that the agreements signed by Nvidia have given them ownership of a sub brand like Asus ROG green? LOL. More likely they have highjacked the whole of the parent brand 'ROG'... Which means they have got forced exclusivity over a brand created by somebody else.

 

Also Why is this guy suggesting that AMD should not have shopped this story to the press? If they had not we the consumers would be even more in the dark and we would not be even having this discussion and asking these questions. That's just retarded.

[Razor01]

7 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Forcing IHVs to have different brands for Nvidia and AMD is less offensive than forcing them to only use Nvidia.

 

But is Nvidia trying to highjack existing brands such as 'Asus ROG' and 'MSI gaming' ? While forcing them to relegate AMD to new brands which haven't got a reputation built up... The example given by kitguru about ROG green and ROG red was a hypothetical. Does anybody really believe that the agreements signed by Nvidia have given them ownership of a sub brand like Asus ROG green? LOL. More likely they have highjacked the whole of the parent brand 'ROG'... Which means they have got forced exclusivity over a brand created by somebody else.

 

Also Why is this guy suggesting that AMD should not have shopped this story to the press? If they had not we the consumers would be even more in the dark and we would not be even having this discussion and asking these questions. That's just retarded.

 

 

Because for AMD to do that, it shows there is nothing illegal going on lol, its stupid for them to do so, its AMD complaining and whining because nV has an upper hand. 

 

Whats worse, a company that has the marketshare to do what they want to do when it comes to marketing their products or a company that whines about that because inability to make a decently competitive product due to their own choice to cut R&D of their graphics department.

 

Sorry can't make another company look bad when their own discussions caused poor products.

 

Its like talking shit when ya got no game, its not a good idea, you will be shown up.

 

AMD has done this with gameworks, they have done this with GPP, they have done this with Vega vs Pascal, they have done this with Polaris and its perf/watt,  they even went so far as to tell the public that nV is no longer caring about PC gaming prior to Pascal's release,  Its all BS, no reality, just innuendos, and feelings being hurt.  Sorry business isn't run that way.  Marketing isn't run that way.  If you want your company to look good, make your company look good, don't make another company look bad because they are more capable than you.

 

That is what is wrong with this situation.