OEMs not interested in Nvidia GPP

[Dylanc1500]

20 minutes ago, pas008 said:

dont forget nvidia sued them(3dfx) first

And funnily enough matrox has sued Nvidia in the past lol. It's a carnival of lawyers and money.

[Notional]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

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

Because unlike their desktop computers using third party vendor cards, their laptops needs direct GPU access from NVidia.

 

Still don't get why you are defending NVidia's scummy practices.

[pas008]

5 minutes ago, Notional said:

Because unlike their desktop computers using third party vendor cards, their laptops needs direct GPU access from NVidia.

 

Still don't get why you are defending NVidia's scummy practices.

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?

[Razor01]

1 hour ago, Notional said:

Because unlike their desktop computers using third party vendor cards, their laptops needs direct GPU access from NVidia.

 

Still don't get why you are defending NVidia's scummy practices.

 

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.

[DrMacintosh]

9 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

Asus, Gigabyte, and MSI all have signed up for it.

Guess who I'm not buying from

[Ginger_]

I really wish amd could make a enough gpus to keep them at MSRP, and have something in the high end. Nvidia is just too damn big and greedy

 

Til that happens I'm stuck with them though

[Humbug]

1 hour ago, pas008 said:

Im sorry to jump in here but scummy how?

-Using the current market conditions to strongarm AIB partners

-Using the current market conditions to lock out competitors from brand names which they have been using for years

-claiming full transparency and then putting a gag order on your AIB partners

-refusing to acknowledge the issue to the press

 

To many of us this is scummy and not healthy, so we make our buying decisions accordingly.

 

You may not see it that way, that's ok. We are talking about moral judgements here made by consumers on which company to support... so people will have different opinions and different standards.

[laminutederire]

4 hours 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.

Unlike AIB, OEM have already caved once before with Intel, and it did bite them in the ass afterwards. Solely because of that they won't say yes even if they would gain money from that. That and some of them are big in the datacenter space and workstation business space, in which AIB are not that present, and it's a juicy market that Nvidia can't separate itself from. So they don't even have the upper hand.

[Vode]

3 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Unlike AIB, OEM have already caved once before with Intel, and it did bite them in the ass afterwards. Solely because of that they won't say yes even if they would gain money from that. That and some of them are big in the datacenter space and workstation business space, in which AIB are not that present, and it's a juicy market that Nvidia can't separate itself from. So they don't even have the upper hand.

Jup. You get it.

 

To be fair though because AIBs that only do Nvidia card exist (EVGA, Palit etc.) the other ones don't really have a chance and have to go for it as well. GPP is such a shitty practice.

[laminutederire]

6 minutes ago, Vode said:

Jup. You get it.

 

To be fair though because AIBs that only do Nvidia card exist (EVGA, Palit etc.) the other ones don't really have a chance and have to go for it as well. GPP is such a shitty practice.

To be fair, they could have just said no since unlike EVGA and Palit, a lot of them, they also sell laptops and everything, which they could have leveraged against Nvidia. Or just get that it would hurt them on the long term.

But yeah if it's true it's shitty !

[Razor01]

17 minutes ago, Humbug said:

-Using the current market conditions to strongarm AIB partners

-Using the current market conditions to lock out competitors from brand names which they have been using for years

-claiming full transparency and then putting a gag order on your AIB partners

-refusing to acknowledge the issue to the press

 

To many of us this is scummy and not healthy, so we make our buying decisions accordingly.

 

You may not see it that way, that's ok. We are talking about moral judgements here made by consumers on which company to support... so people will have different opinions and different standards.

 

I pointed out something that AMD did with Palit where Palit and its companies were 2nd tier partners and AMD did the same thing.

 

Why don't you boycott AMD graphics products too, if you feel that strongly about it?

 

Now transparency, your use of transparency, is not what nV used in GPP.  If you want to twist and mangle grammar that way, that is not a normal thing to do. 

 

The only one in the press that is saying anything about this is Kyle Bennett, and now we know he got his first article wrong by AMD's blog today lol. 

 

So why talk about something when the accuser of said story already got it wrong?

[pas008]

32 minutes ago, Humbug said:

-Using the current market conditions to strongarm AIB partners

-Using the current market conditions to lock out competitors from brand names which they have been using for years

-claiming full transparency and then putting a gag order on your AIB partners

-refusing to acknowledge the issue to the press

 

To many of us this is scummy and not healthy, so we make our buying decisions accordingly.

 

You may not see it that way, that's ok. We are talking about moral judgements here made by consumers on which company to support... so people will have different opinions and different standards.

lol those are all in nvidia's rights of THEIR product

and many of the names have only been around less 4 yrs

can I name your products under  your competitors name too lol

many business agreements have confidentially clauses lol where have you been

asus, evga, msi, etc all prolly going to get different agreements which you need confidentially clauses

 

[Vode]

18 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

To be fair, they could have just said no since unlike EVGA and Palit, a lot of them, they also sell laptops and everything, which they could have leveraged against Nvidia. Or just get that it would hurt them on the long term.

But yeah if it's true it's shitty !

Pretty hard to say no if your competitor gets better chips, a headstart on market release because of early access to specs and much more... I don't think they could have sadi no. In the business world money trumps ethics.

[Razor01]

11 minutes ago, Vode said:

Pretty hard to say no if your competitor gets better chips, a headstart on market release because of early access to specs and much more... I don't think they could have sadi no. In the business world money trumps ethics.

 

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.

[laminutederire]

8 minutes ago, Vode said:

Pretty hard to say no if your competitor gets better chips, a headstart on market release because of early access to specs and much more... I don't think they could have sadi no. In the business world money trumps ethics.

Yeah but on the long term it's not necessarily profitable, that's what OEM have learned with Intel. Profitable on short term but not on long term.

[Fetzie]

23 minutes ago, pas008 said:

lol those are all in nvidia's rights of THEIR product

and many of the names have only been around less 4 yrs

can I name your products under  your competitors name too lol

many business agreements have confidentially clauses lol where have you been

asus, evga, msi, etc all prolly going to get different agreements which you need confidentially clauses

 

Republic of Gamers and Auros are not nVidia brands. They would be using the competition's branding if they were to sell a Republic of Gamers Radeon 1080ti. But they weren't.

[Razor01]

1 minute ago, Fetzie said:

Republic of Gamers and Auros are not nVidia brands. They would be using the competition's branding if they were to sell a Republic of Gamers Radeon 1080ti. But they weren't.

Sub branding an co branding there are dangers to them, that is where this problem is.  Asus brand is not the main brand in graphics cards, Geforce and Radeon are, those are the brands people recognize and those are the brands that sell or don't sell hence the market share differential right now.

[pas008]

7 minutes ago, Fetzie said:

Republic of Gamers and Auros are not nVidia brands. They would be using the competition's branding if they were to sell a Republic of Gamers Radeon 1080ti. But they weren't.

oh they are using competing company products under their own gaming brand with no separation and one of the companies wants separation and every fanboy liberal gets butthurt? come on please tell me where else this exists in products besides pc parts

I am for this needs to end now same with the copy and paste designs

[Nocte]

11 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

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!

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.

3 hours ago, mrthuvi said:

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

 

Nvida and AMD are on the Discrete GPU market though.

You have just said yourself that they are two different markets. So no point in bringing Intel in here. Intel does not operate in the GPU market, and it too often appears in GPU market share graphs just because it gets picked up by sampling software when people are running iGPUs (and those people do not need a "real" GPU, but just "something" that displays an image on their display).

[pas008]

1 minute 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.

You have just said yourself that they are two different markets. So no point in bringing Intel in here. Intel does not operate in the GPU market, and it too often appears in GPU market share graphs just because it gets picked up by sampling software when people are running iGPUs (and those people do not need a "real" GPU, but just "something" that displays an image on their display).

igpu is still a gpu

 

yes rog is their gaming brand

but geforce and radeon are not theirs,do they supply the chips? the drivers? the lockeddown firmware?

no they are just an aib partner

[Nocte]

7 minutes ago, pas008 said:

oh they are using competing company products under their own gaming brand with no separation and one of the companies wants separation and every fanboy liberal gets butthurt? come one please tell me where else this exists in products besides pc parts

I am for this needs to end now same with the copy and paste designs

You just said "under their own gaming brand" that gives them the right to use it however they prefer.

It would not be a problem if they developed two brands at the same time, one for NVIDIA and one for AMD. But NVIDIA is pretty much asking AIB partners to keep their already-known and well-placed brands in the market for NVIDIA products, while creating a new, unknown brandline for competitors products. Is it really that hard to see the problem here?

 

Looking forward to see how butthurt you will be if NVIDIA gets a full monopoly and starts charging ridiculous prices like Intel was doing in the CPU market before Zen (and is still doing, especially in the high-end).

[Nocte]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

igpu is still a gpu

 

yes rog is their gaming brand

but geforce and radeon are not theirs,do they supply the chips? the drivers? the lockeddown firmware?

no they are just an aib partner

NVIDIA and Radeon brands are very well advertised on the boxes of GPU and in searches. I do not see what you are trying to say? How would this give any right to NVIDIA to force marketing rules on their AIB partners?

 

iGPU is still a GPU, but it is not a discrete GPU. We are talking about a discrete GPU market here. The moment when people looking for a GPU to play games or do any graphic-intensive task will consider Intel, then you can say that they operate in the same market as NVIDIA and AMD. Until then, they are in a separate market.

[Vode]

23 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Yeah but on the long term it's not necessarily profitable, that's what OEM have learned with Intel. Profitable on short term but not on long term.

AIBs can't afford to lose out in the short term. Their margins already suck. They are in a though spot anyways. I agree it will be very rough in the long term as well, but at least they have time to react and prepare.

[pas008]

7 minutes ago, Eibe said:

You just said "under their own gaming brand" that gives them the right to use it however they prefer.

It would not be a problem if they developed two brands at the same time, one for NVIDIA and one for AMD. But NVIDIA is pretty much asking AIB partners to keep their already-known and well-placed brands in the market for NVIDIA products, while creating a new, unknown brandline for competitors products. Is it really that hard to see the problem here?

 

Looking forward to see how butthurt you will be if NVIDIA gets a full monopoly and starts charging ridiculous prices like Intel was doing in the CPU market before Zen (and is still doing, especially in the high-end).

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

3 minutes ago, Eibe said:

NVIDIA and Radeon brands are very well advertised on the boxes of GPU and in searches. I do not see what you are trying to say? How would this give any right to NVIDIA to force marketing rules on their AIB partners?

 

iGPU is still a GPU, but it is not a discrete GPU. We are talking about a discrete GPU market here. The moment when people looking for a GPU to play games or do any graphic-intensive task will consider Intel, then you can say that they operate in the same market as NVIDIA and AMD. Until then, they are in a separate market.

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

[Snapperx]

9 minutes ago, Eibe said:

Looking forward to see how butthurt you will be if NVIDIA gets a full monopoly and starts charging ridiculous prices like Intel was doing in the CPU market before Zen (and is still doing, especially in the high-end).

At least Nvidia always improves even without competition.