OEMs not interested in Nvidia GPP

[Mihle]

11 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

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.

Without an engine it wouldnt move at all, with a different engine it would have different performance.

[Razor01]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

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.

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.

 

 

Its common practice in the tech industry, and any industry for that matter.

 

Companies don't need to sell to other companies if those other companies don't do what they are expected to do lol.  Said with a contract or without one. 

 

Since AIB's aren't selling their own products they need to pay attention to what the primary holder of the tech wants for their products.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

Its common practice in the tech industry, and any industry for that matter.

 

Companies don't need to sell to other companies if those other companies don't do what they are expected to do lol.  Said with a contract or without one. 

 

Since AIB's aren't selling their own products they need to pay attention to what the primary holder of the tech wants for their products.

If for example ASUS was consistently making crappy nvidia cards and not marketing them well, etc. then yeah I can totally see that as justification for not dealing with them any more, since I'm sure they're contractually obligated to do things how nvidia wants, and that would be perfectly reasonable.  After all, nvidia needs to maintain some control over the product that's reaching the end user.

 

But this isn't a case of AIBs failing to handle nvidia's product properly.  It's a case of not handling a competator's product the way nvidia wants.  I'm sure you can appreciate that neither nvidia nor AMD should have any say over how their AIBs handle the other's cards.  That just doesn't make sense.

[Razor01]

8 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

If for example ASUS was consistently making crappy nvidia cards and not marketing them well, etc. then yeah I can totally see that as justification for not dealing with them any more, since I'm sure they're contractually obligated to do things how nvidia wants, and that would be perfectly reasonable.  After all, nvidia needs to maintain some control over the product that's reaching the end user.

 

But this isn't a case of AIBs failing to handle nvidia's product properly.  It's a case of not handling a competator's product the way nvidia wants.  I'm sure you can appreciate that neither nvidia nor AMD should have any say over how their AIBs handle the other's cards.  That just doesn't make sense.

 

 

Lets take this example,  Asus is at the nV booth and promoting Asus ROG nV cards.  Asus also has their own booth just down the ally with Asus ROG AMD cards.  This is what nV doesn't want.  They don't want to promote Asus's ROG brand because now ROG is also associated with AMD graphics cards.

 

nV is using their money to promote ROG for Asus, and in turn ROG is now being used to promote AMD's cards too.

 

Why would any company let this go?  In most industries when a company has leadership, they don't, they tell their partners keep them separate even before anything begins.

 

Just like AMD pushing nV out of the AMD enthusiast chip set market even though nV was the one the made that chipset market.  AMD had no more use for them, and they told them we don't need you anymore.  nV is saying if we are going to give you money to promote your products and other benefits, align your branding to specifics to what we want for our products what ever that may be. Or we really don't need you anymore.

[Dylanc1500]

7 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

If for example ASUS was consistently making crappy nvidia cards and not marketing them well, etc. then yeah I can totally see that as justification for not dealing with them any more, since I'm sure they're contractually obligated to do things how nvidia wants, and that would be perfectly reasonable.  After all, nvidia needs to maintain some control over the product that's reaching the end user.

 

But this isn't a case of AIBs failing to handle nvidia's product properly.  It's a case of not handling a competator's product the way nvidia wants.  I'm sure you can appreciate that neither nvidia nor AMD should have any say over how their AIBs handle the other's cards.  That just doesn't make sense.

It's all in how you choose to look at things. I may be wrong, but it honestly could be looked at as Nvidia determining how their product is handled. In NVidia's eyes they don't want their product to be branded the same as AMD's.

 

At no point (from what I have seen so far admittedly) has NVidia said "we don't want our competition's product to be handled in "X" manner. They have just said they don't want the same branding that is being used for their competition, being used for their product.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

Lets take this example,  Asus is at the nV booth and promoting Asus ROG nvidia cards.  Asus also has their own booth just down the ally with Asus ROG AMD cards.  This is what nV doesn't want.  They don't want to promote Asus's ROG brand because now ROG is also associated with AMD graphics cards.

 

nV is using their money to promote ROG for Asus, and in turn ROG is now being used to promote AMD's cards too.

That's an interesting perspective on this actually.  But that doesn't change what I said which I still feel is an issue.  And I'm not sure this fixes anything anyway.  Ok, so now AMD will be under AREZ instead of ROG.  Well, they're both still ASUS though... has that really solved the problem?  Not to mention things have been done like this for a long time and no one seems to have had an issue so far.  Even if this is really their only concern, and it's not intentional bullying, it would still be bullying the competition because ROG has a lot of brand recognition and a new one will not, which is going to hurt AMD.

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

It's all in how you choose to look at things. I may be wrong, but it honestly could be looked at as Nvidia determining how their product is handled. In NVidia's eyes they don't want their product to be branded the same as AMD's. At no point (from what I have seen so far admittedly) has Nvidia said "we don't want our competition's product to be handled in "X" manner. They have just said they don't want the same branding that is being used for their competition, being used for their product.

exactly

would you want your products named similar to your competition?

 

and like I have said numerous times also, this copy and paste design shit is just as bad

[Razor01]

4 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

That's an interesting perspective on this actually.  But that doesn't change what I said which I still feel is an issue.  And I'm not sure this fixes anything anyway.  Ok, so now AMD will be under AREZ instead of ROG.  Well, they're both still ASUS though... has that really solved the problem?  Not to mention things have been done like this for a long time and no one seems to have had an issue so far.  Even if this is really their only concern, and it's not intentional bullying, it would still be bullying the competition because ROG has a lot of brand recognition and a new one will not, which is going to hurt AMD.

 

Well it should solve the problems in nV's eyes.  In my eyes its kinda pointless lol this whole GPP thing, but again we are talking about what nV feels, if they feel that way, they are correct to do what it takes to have their brand stand away from competitor's brands.

 

It will hurt AMD initially, but its limited, because well right now doesn't matter what the parent brand is, because Geforce is selling a certain amount Radeon is selling a certain amount.

 

From an AIB point of view, how many people don't know what they are buying?  We are smart enough to pull out a card and seat a new one in right?  We know what we are buying lol.

[pas008]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

 

Well it should solve the problems in nV's eyes.  In my eyes its kinda pointless lol this whole GPP thing, but again we are talking about what nV feels, if they feel that way, they are correct to do what it takes to have their brand stand away from competitor's brands.

you bet if they just out right bought the sub brands from these companies it would be ok too?

[vanished]

Just now, Razor01 said:

 

Well it should solve the problems in nV's eyes.  In my eyes its kinda pointless lol this whole GPP thing, but again we are talking about what nV feels, if they feel that way, they are correct to do what it takes to have their brand stand away from competitor's brands.

They could have just asked that ASUS changes their own branding though and it would have been a footnote in the week's news, but that's not what they did.  They basically took over the existing brand for themselves, forcing the companies to make a new one for AMD.  Whether it was intentionally out of malice, or just a unintended consequence of wanting to rebrand like you say, the result is the same; they've used their dominant market position to force changes that caused or will cause harm to a competitor.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

you bet if they just out right bought the sub brands from these companies it would be ok too?

If ASUS sold the whole ROG branch to nvidia then yeah they could do whatever they want with it, but for obvious reasons ASUS would never do that.  Then it would get fun if nvidia was like "sell it to us or we'll cut off your supply"

[Razor01]

3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

They could have just asked that ASUS changes their own branding though and it would have been a footnote in the week's news, but that's not what they did.  They basically took over the existing brand for themselves, forcing the companies to make a new one for AMD.  Whether it was intentionally out of malice, or just a unintended consequence of wanting to rebrand like you say, the result is the same; they've used their dominant market position to force changes that caused or will cause harm to a competitor.

 

It had to be agreed upon, the initial article got it wrong that it had to be their main gaming brand, a new brand could have been made for nV cards instead.  Asus was actually the first one to sign this agreement and they were a proponent for it.  We don't know why they were but I would guess they are getting something out of the GPP that is favorable to them in a competitive stance.

[vanished]

Just now, Razor01 said:

 

It had to be agreed upon, the initial article got it wrong.  Asus was actually the first one to sign this agreement and they were a proponent for it.  We don't know why they were but I would guess they are getting something out of the GPP that is favorable to them in a competitive stance.

Well of course, they get an edge against any companies that don't join.  It's a bit like the Prisoner's Dilemma but instead of stay silent or betray, you have join or not join.

[Razor01]

3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well of course, they get an edge against any companies that don't join.  It's a bit like the Prisoner's Dilemma but instead of stay silent or betray, you have join or not join.

 

 

Think its a bit more than that, from an AIB point of view, I see where most will say its a crummy deal lol, Asus never took it that way from my understanding.  There must be things in there that give them something that will let them go against the exclusive AIB's, it can't be something that just keeps everyone in the same position if they all sign up lol.

 

Game theory gotta love it

[vanished]

Just now, Razor01 said:

Think its a bit more than that, from an AIB point of view, I see where most will say its a crummy deal lol, Asus never took it that way from my understanding.  There must be things in there that give them something that will let them go against the exclusive AIB's, it can't be something that just keeps everyone in the same position if they all sign up lol.

I don't know.  Now we're definitely into guessing what might or might not be included in the terms

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

If ASUS sold the whole ROG branch to nvidia then yeah they could do whatever they want with it, but for obvious reasons ASUS would never do that.  Then it would get fun if nvidia was like "sell it to us or we'll cut off your supply"

 

3 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

It had to be agreed upon, the initial article got it wrong that it had to be their main gaming brand, a new brand could have been made for nV cards instead.  Asus was actually the first one to sign this agreement and they were a proponent for it.  We don't know why they were but I would guess they are getting something out of the GPP that is favorable to them in a competitive stance.

 

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well of course, they get an edge against any companies that don't join.  It's a bit like the Prisoner's Dilemma but instead of stay silent or betray, you have join or not join.

 

 

they must be offered enough/bought out to join

they could also become amd only we have many of those already xfx use to make nvidia

business partnerships and contracts are none of our business, because evga has some perks asus doesnt or vice versa

do we get to see why all the hbm2 memory went?

or why apple gets to buy  up all whatever for what price?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, pas008 said:

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

Yes, it's exactly what I told Tellos in my post, there are laws about "abusing dominant market position", which is the heart of the matter. You can also see in your source how ambiguous the definition is, hence the endless legal battles around it.

And as I said, whether there is exactly 1 company or more doesn't matter, as "abuse of dominant market position" can happen in either scenario, and there's no law tied to the number of firms or specifying price caps, such that the moment you go from 2 companies to 1 a certain price limit enters into place.

Also notice that for a price to be "unfair" in the EU it has to meet a number of (highly ambiguous) conditions as specified in that article. But there is a reason for all this ambiguity: it is the EU original treaty, which, although binding for signing states, is not in itself a law, but rather a commitment for domestic laws to enforce certain principles, and to not contravene them in any way.

You may also want to take notice that the original 1957 treaty is no longer active, as it has been replaced by newer treaties (check your source )

 

Relevant for the discussion about GPP, though, Nvidia could easily be under investigation in the EU according to laws guided by this article, in particular about this particular forms of abuse:

 

Quote

 

(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

 

[Nicnac]

I would love to see NVIDIA fall flat on their faces with this  

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, Razor01 said:

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! 

Would you be saying the same thing if Intel told their OEM partners, that if they wanted to keep getting good deals and support from them they had to stop selling AMD laptops/desktops under their premium/gaming brands?  So, an AMD laptop could no longer be sold under the ROG brand, only Intel laptops.

2 hours ago, Razor01 said:

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.

That is a completely different situation entirely.  Why do you keep conflating disparate issues as if they're identical?

1 hour ago, Eibe said:

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).

You beat me to it, but we both had the same thought in mind.

5 hours ago, pas008 said:

arent matrox using amd cards now though?

 

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

Ah, I was not aware of that.  I thought they were using their own custom chips.  Learn something new every day.

[pas008]

4 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Yes, it's exactly what I told Tellos in my post, there are laws about "abusing dominant market position", which is the heart of the matter. You can also see in your source how ambiguous the definition is, hence the endless legal battles around it.

And as I said, whether there is exactly 1 company or more doesn't matter, as "abuse of dominant market position" can happen in either scenario, and there's no law tied to the number of firms or specifying price caps, such that the moment you go from 2 companies to 1 a certain price limit enters into place.

Also notice that for a price to be "unfair" in the EU it has to meet a number of (highly ambiguous) conditions as specified in that article. But there is a reason for all this ambiguity: it is the EU original treaty, which, although binding for signing states, is not in itself a law, but rather a commitment for domestic laws to enforce certain principles, and to not contravene them in any way.

You may also want to take notice that the original 1957 treaty is no longer active, as it has been replaced by newer treaties (check your source )

 

Relevant for the discussion about GPP, though, Nvidia could easily be under investigation in the EU according to laws guided by this article, in particular about this particular forms of abuse:

 

 

how they are aib partner nvidia can just go to another manufacturer for their product to be produced just like everyone else does

[SpaceGhostC2C]

4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

how they are aib partner nvidia can just go to another manufacturer for their product to be produced just like everyone else does

I get the impression you mis-clicked the submit button too son...

[Razor01]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

Would you be saying the same thing if Intel told their OEM partners, that if they wanted to keep getting good deals and support from them they had to stop selling AMD laptops/desktops under their premium/gaming brands? 

 

Yeah if that is what a company wants its ok,having separate premium/gaming brands for each IHV is fine.

 

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

So, an AMD laptop could no longer be sold under the ROG brand, only Intel laptops.

That is kinda what Intel did, they told OEM's ultrabooks can only be their Intel machines, now its a bit backwards but they told OEM's you can't sell AMD notebooks as ultrabooks.  AMD products were then put as thin and light.

 

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

That is a completely different situation entirely.  Why do you keep conflating disparate issues as if they're identical?

You beat me to it, but we both had the same thought in mind.

 

Is it really disparate when one company created a brand that promotes the other brand above the competitions? And then the primary brand owner can now make their own and doesn't need their partner.  I'm looking at the business relationship between the two companies not the products or where they are in.

 

The business relationship is the same in this case.

 

Business relationships change because of market presence and pressures do you agree?

 

This is not like when AMD was at 40% gaming marketshare, where AIB's had options to push nV to their favor. 

 

Contracts are always equally favorable based on what each party brings to the table.  AIB's aren't bringing anything new to the table.  But nV products are bringing something new to the table.  They have more weight in the marketplace now, its what more people want.

 

Look if you were a publisher and I'm a gamedev.  I come with an idea to you, and you say you will put up the money to make the game.  I have very little weight on the table, the contract will reflect that, the publisher is going to take the lion's share of the profits and the IP and what not right?  I get pennies on the dollar because I only brought the idea to the table.

 

If I come with the game demo and a full team, they say they will give use money to fully make the game, I get more of the profits, I might lose my IP rights but I'm bringing something more so I should get more of the profits right?

 

If I come with a full game, don't take money for development, I expect keep my IP rights and also take more than 50% of the profits too!

 

That is what I'm saying,  if nV's brand has that much more weight than the Asus ROG brand, which it is right now, they can do what they wish with the Geforce brand.  The Geforce brand has much more weight now, the old contracts with AIB's where they could choose AMD over nV if need be forcing nV to play nice with them, are now dead. 

 

There is no such thing as fair and equal in business when there is definite market parity in products.  The gov can't step in and tell companies what to do when marketing their products.  Its silly to even think that is even possible.  The only time that happens if marketing is telling lies about their products.  False advertising right?  An action must be done to fool or harm the consumer directly.  By telling AIB's to split up their lines so products can be differentiated, is not that. 

[pas008]

13 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I get the impression you mis-clicked the submit button too son...

no

aib are just manufacturers of their product simple as that under license/contract

nvidia technically only needs 1 aib to make their cards

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

no

Well, then you are not writing in English 

I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say in your last two posts.

 

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Well, then you are not writing in English 

I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to say in your last two posts.

 

how does a manufacturer have any fucking rights to competitive shit for the production of a product that isnt theirs?

nvidia simply can just go to another aib

just like apple, you, I, akg, corsair, etc