OEMs not interested in Nvidia GPP

[SpaceGhostC2C]

5 minutes ago, pas008 said:

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

 

Dude, you are not even trying. Just stop banging your head against the keyboard, take your time, think what you want to say, how to express it, and probably whether it makes sense to quote me (as in whether you are actually referring to anything I've said). I'm afraid this stopped being a conversation long ago.

[Razor01]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Dude, you are not even trying. Just stop banging your head against the keyboard, take your time, think what you want to say, how to express it, and probably whether it makes sense to quote me (as in whether you are actually referring to anything I've said). I'm afraid this stopped being a conversation long ago.

 

What were the reasons why AMD and nV had AIB partners to begin with?  Benefits on both sides please of such an arrangement.

[AresKrieger]

Again why do the optics GPP even matter in this scenario, 'sigh' I think people need to understand opportunity cost before writing articles involving corporate partnership and fiscal decisions. Specifically why would anyone join into a partnership that does not provide benefit, unless they are stupid then they won't ergo the OEM's do not benefit enough from GPP to bother while AIBs do.

 

Quote

Legion brand gaming systems with Radeon GPUs listed on its site.

Also this ^^ doesn't mean anything, that aspect of the GPP rumor mill has already been made irrelevant, not that I suspect Lenovo is going to join I'm just pointing out that this article has a lot of fluff and irrelevant sections that annoy me.

 

[Dabombinable]

6 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.

Intel doesn't compete at all with AMD Radeon and Nvidia when it comes to GPU. They only compete with AMD's CPU division meaning that Nvidia does have the monopoly of the GPU market.

[AresKrieger]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

meaning that Nvidia does have the monopoly of the GPU market.

Without AMD they would, though if AMD were to keel over from its debts rather than something anti-competitive (the legal definition not the internets definition) then Nvidia would likely not be broken up even if they were a true monopoly, so long as they didn't skyrocket prices without justification.

 

Also law makers most likely don't know the difference between discrete and integrated graphics tbh.

[mr moose]

6 hours 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'm not defending anything, you just think i am because you are emotionally wound up in the subject.

 

I personal don't care two hoots for nvidia, but if there is one thing I won't do it's become a fanboy and start using emotional language disparaging anyone based on anything other than cold hard evidence.

 

I personally think if dell and HP don't sign up it is because they don't care for it, it brings nothing to them.  That's how all business works,  they don't decide to join a program based on feelings and good will, they weigh up how much they can make from it.  And frankly anyone who thinks business puts feels in front of money doesn't know shit about business.

[Arika]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I'm not defending anything, you just think i am because you are emotionally wound up in the subject.

 

I personal don't care two hoots for nvidia, but if there is one thing I won't do it's become a fanboy and start using emotional language disparaging anyone based on anything other than cold hard evidence.

 

I personally think if dell and HP don't sign up it is because they don't care for it, it brings nothing to them.  That's how all business works,  they don't decide to join a program based on feelings and good will, they weigh up how much they can make from it.  And frankly anyone who thinks business puts feels in front of money doesn't know shit about business.

This.

 

Which is also why when they said it was unethical, it was prefixed by "off the record" meaning this is just how they personally felt but had no bearing on their business decision and don't speak for their respective companies as a whole...because that would be a stupid thing to do

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Sierra Fox said:

This.

 

Which is also why when they said it was unethical, it was prefixed by "off the record" meaning this is just how they felt but had no bearing on their business decision and don't speak for their respective companies as a whole...because that would be a stupid thing to do

Not only that but any mention of being unethical is simply a PR stunt.  Remember these are the companies that are responsible for superfish, keyloggers and bloatware on their laptops.   They hardly care about ethics.

[Nocte]

2 hours ago, Razor01 said:

But nV products are bringing something new to the table.  They have more weight in the marketplace now, its what more people want.

And? You are basically explaining why AIB partners signed without second thoughts to NVIDIA's GPP.

The discussion here is how unethical (and questionably legal) of a move it is. It is basically executing AMD's hopes to remain in the GPU market by forcing other companies not to have ties with Radeon TG.

[Arika]

29 minutes ago, Eibe said:

It is basically executing AMD's hopes to remain in the GPU market by forcing other companies not to have ties with Radeon TG.

no it isn't. the partners of the GPP aren't being prevented from selling AMD GPUs, NVidia just asked for a brand exclusive to NVidia. Asus ROG will be Nvidia. Asus AREZ is AMD. it's still Asus and they are still selling AMD gpus.

 

is it unethical? maybe, companies have exclusive rights all the time, see console games that are exclusive to PS4, XOne or the Switch as one example

 

Illegal? i cant say, i don't have a legal background, but not likely considering that the GPP was able to go through and im pretty sure NVidia lawyers know much more about what they can and cannot do than random people on the internet.

[Razor01]

34 minutes ago, Eibe said:

And? You are basically explaining why AIB partners signed without second thoughts to NVIDIA's GPP.

The discussion here is how unethical (and questionably legal) of a move it is. It is basically executing AMD's hopes to remain in the GPU market by forcing other companies not to have ties with Radeon TG.

Its completely legal there is no question about it, otherwise AMD wouldn't have made a marketing video, about it or shopped the story around to websites lol.  If your going to try to take something to court to prove its illegal, you don't throw shit into a fan and see who comes out clean lol.

 

And again we can't compare our ethics and morals to what what a company does with their products, different set of ethics and morals.  The goal for us buying products is different than them for selling products to their partners.

[Nocte]

6 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

Its completely legal there is no question about it, otherwise AMD wouldn't have made a marketing video, about it or shopped the story around to websites lol.  If your going to try to take something to court to prove its illegal, you don't throw shit into a fan and see who comes out clean lol.

 

And again we can't compare our ethics and morals to what what a company does with their products, different set of ethics and morals.  The goal for us buying products is different than them for selling products to their partners.

I said it is "questionably" legal.

We will just wait and see whether the anti-trust and other regulatory bodies will challenge the GPP or not. 

There are rumours about it, but nothing confirmed. 

[Razor01]

12 minutes ago, Eibe said:

I said it is "questionably" legal.

We will just wait and see whether the anti-trust and other regulatory bodies will challenge the GPP or not. 

There are rumours about it, but nothing confirmed. 

Dude you don't see things like this, going to press, when there are legal ramifications lol.. Just doesn't happen.  No judge or prosecutor will even look at what AMD is doing to their favor, they will actually try to distance themselves from what AMD has done so far and give favoritism to the plaintiff when and if something comes up, and the plaintiff will actually put motions in place to stop the damage that it could cause them.

 

But since there is nothing happening legally, AMD isn't going to sit around and watch nV gain on their missteps.

[Nocte]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

But since there is nothing happening legal, AMD isn't going to sit around and watch nV gain on their missteps.

Well that is the most sensible thing to do for AMD right now. 

This does not mean that other regulatory bodies might intervene. You do not need to sue a company for the anti-trust to come forward. 

[Razor01]

37 minutes ago, Eibe said:

Well that is the most sensible thing to do for AMD right now. 

This does not mean that other regulatory bodies might intervene. You do not need to sue a company for the anti-trust to come forward. 

Its never sensible if there is going to a legal recourse, because things will start changing, they wouldn't want that.  This is why they put an injunction in place first so things don't change then do what they have to do lol.

 

Yeah I have asked IP attorneys about this situation they stated my thoughts about it to the T.

 

This is exactly why I outed Kyle on this, when he stated lawsuits were likely pending.  Everything done legally is public record, we can see it happening.  His response was to ban me.  I even showed him the links to the attorneys that stated this to me, that AMD would not go down this road.  Too much at stake.  Tortious interference is a big thing when it comes to company to company contracts and easily provable in court, but only if things don't change. 

 

Anti trust doesn't need to be shown from another company that is correct, but if its wasn't for that the other company violating anything most likely it will never come to light lol.  AMD first sued Intel for what was going on because of tortious interference, their contracts with the same OEM partners Intel was using were not being fulfilled as expected.  Then they uncovered what Intel was doing after that the FTC and EU stepped in on behalf of AMD.

 

The problem with this scenario is, nV must make the mistake and that mistake must have enough grounds to prove before any Gov regulatory body can step in lol.   They don't go into something just because AMD says so or it can happen lol, they better have the proof to back it up or damn close to it to even start an investigation.

 

The US senate has oversight of the FTC, so the FTC must be very careful about what they do and how they do things.  I'm not exactly sure how its done in the EU but I'm sure local political parties have oversight as well.

[Jito463]

4 hours ago, Razor01 said:

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.

Completely different scenario.  Intel created the Ultrabook brand, it's their IP.  They didn't co-opt the brand from their partners, they created it themselves and then marketed it to the OEMs.  If this is what Nvidia were doing with the GPP, I would have no issues with it whatsoever.

4 hours ago, Razor01 said:

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.

This isn't Nvidia making a brand name and telling their AIB partners that they must use this for all Nvidia cards going forward, as I said above I would find that to be perfectly acceptable.  This is them essentially shoehorning their partners into an agreement, in order to co-opt their partners brands for their own chips.

 

Again, you're conflating issues that aren't equivalent.

4 hours ago, Razor01 said:

The gov can't step in and tell companies what to do when marketing their products.

I never made any such claim that they could, nor do I make any assertion that they even should do such a thing.  I'm very much opposed to unnecessary government regulation.

[Razor01]

4 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Completely different scenario.  Intel created the Ultrabook brand, it's their IP.  They didn't co-opt the brand from their partners, they created it themselves and then marketed it to the OEMs.  If this is what Nvidia were doing with the GPP, I would have no issues with it whatsoever.

This isn't Nvidia making a brand name and telling their AIB partners that they must use this for all Nvidia cards going forward, as I said above I would find that to be perfectly acceptable.  This is them essentially shoehorning their partners into an agreement, in order to co-opt their partners brands for their own chips.

 

Again, you're conflating issues that aren't equivalent.

I never made any such claim that they could, nor do I make any assertion that they even should do such a thing.  I'm very much opposed to unnecessary government regulation.

 

 

OK I raised this before, take Nike for example, and Air Jordan.  How did MJ get his own brand for all that Nike did for him?  The Air Jordan brand was made by Nike.  Not by MJ, although MJ is the face of Air Jordan. MJ's talents gave Air Jordan its sellability. Nike gave MJ his brand well gave 8% of profits of Nike to MJ to keep his brand.  We are only talking about 8% here.

 

Nike is Asus, Air Jordan is Geforce.  Maybe nV should just take a % of Asus profits instead of selling them chips lol, give the chips to them for free.  OK is that fair in this case.  Brands mean that much to these companies,  And when a brand like Geforce has no competition and has 70% of the market its in, the company that is cobranding those products have an damn same in anything legally when it concerns those brands.  nV can turn around and tell this AIB IHV agnostic partners, we aren't going to sell you GPU's go to AMD we don't care, because we can sell it to our exclusive partners get what we want anyways and still make the same money if not more, because now we don't need to worry about keeping too many people happy.

[MoonSpot]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

OK I raised this before, take Nike for example, and Air Jordan.  How did MJ get his own brand for all that Nike did for him?  The Air Jordan brand was made by Nike.  Not by MJ, although MJ is the face of Air Jordan.  Nike gave MJ his brand well gave 8% of profits of Nike to MJ to keep his brand.  We are only talking about 8% here.

 

Maybe if you state what 'MJ''s name is you might be able to figure that one out.

[Razor01]

3 minutes ago, MoonSpot said:

Maybe if you state what 'MJ''s name is you might be able to figure that one out.

 

Air Jordan is a brand that was coined by a NBC news caster ok?

 

MJ liked it, and stuck with it, Nike took it and made it a co brand of their products.

 

When MJ took over his brand if Nike didn't give him his brand back because they had input on his brand.  Which they did, they designed his shoes, his clothing lines, they advertised for him, all that money wasn't MJ's doing, that was Nike, but the brand still belongs to MJ. 

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

Nike is Asus, Air Jordan is Geforce.

I'm not even entirely sure what point you're trying to get across here.

[Razor01]

3 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I'm not even entirely sure what point you're trying to get across here.

Its cobranding or subranding which ever way you want to look at it, how hard is that to understand.  Prior to Air Jordan become its own brand without Nike in the mix, it was always NIKE AIR Jordan's.

 

 

Did you see the huge ass swoosh and Nike there?

[MoonSpot]

12 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

Air Jordan is a brand that was coined by a NBC news caster ok?

 

MJ liked it, and stuck with it, Nike took it and made it a co brand of products.

:eyesroll:

Quote

How did MJ get his own brand for all that Nike did for him?

His name isn't MJ, it's Michael JORDAN!

Quote

The Air Jordan brand was made by Nike.

JORDAN is HIS NAME!  Not Nike's, not NBC's, not whatever you want to claim.  It's Micheal Jordan's name, and he owned it since shortly after his birth.

Not to mention the image they were trying to sell was his to boot.  Nike wouldn't have had a chance in hell at selling anything 'air jordan' without paying Michael Jordan.  and just because someone attached the word 'air' to someone else's personhood does not give them any ownership on anything.

 

You might have chosen the worst example as an analogy to back up your view on this topic.

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

Its cobranding, how hard is that to understand.  Prior to Air Jordan become its own brand without Nike in the mix, it was always NIKE AIR Jordan's.

Since I have virtually no knowledge of the Air Jordans (aside from hearing the name occasionally), I'll just move along from your obsession with this.  Because I still don't understand what you're trying to say here in relation to the GPP.

 

The AIB partners have been using the same brands for both AMD Radeon and Nvidia Geforce cards for years now, yet suddenly Nvidia has decided they want to co-opt those brands for themselves.  Sorry, but I'm not accepting that as easily as you seem to be.

 

It is nothing like the other scenarios you've posted.  It's nothing like the Ultrabook branding.  It's nothing like AMD dropping Nvidia as a chipset manufacturer.  It has absolutely no comparison to any of the alleged equivalences you've attempted to make.

[Razor01]

25 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Since I have virtually no knowledge of the Air Jordans (aside from hearing the name occasionally), I'll just move along from your obsession with this.  Because I still don't understand what you're trying to say here in relation to the GPP.

 

The AIB partners have been using the same brands for both AMD Radeon and Nvidia Geforce cards for years now, yet suddenly Nvidia has decided they want to co-opt those brands for themselves.  Sorry, but I'm not accepting that as easily as you seem to be.

 

It is nothing like the other scenarios you've posted.  It's nothing like the Ultrabook branding.  It's nothing like AMD dropping Nvidia as a chipset manufacturer.  It has absolutely no comparison to any of the alleged equivalences you've attempted to make.

 

 

You don't see where MJ took his brand back from Nike as the same thing as nV trying to take control over their brand and asking their partners to create separate lines for their competitor's brands?  Nike and MJ built the Air Jordan brand.  AIB's never built the Geforce or Radeon brand.   That was all done by the respective companies by themselves.  Was it because of Asus ROG or MSI gaming X or Gigabyte Aurous that propelled Geforce to have 70% of the market?  No that was all nV's doing, their hard work and engineering efforts that created their brand.  So if AIB's want to keep selling nV products, nV stated split the lines up or else you lose.  Is it wrong for them to ask that or in this case force them?  Hell no there is nothing wrong with that.  Its nV's product that gives those AIB's the ability to sell and make money.  70% of graphics cards being sold as ROG is because of nV's brand, not because of the ROG brand.  So AIB's are making 70% of their money from graphics card sales because of Geforce.

 

If I was nV you know what I would have told those AIB's?  Drop your brand altogether for nV cards, No ROG, no Asus just Geforce.  Let nV's brand be your brand lol.  It will be fully transparent to anyone buying video cards that Geforce is what matters.  The AIB's brand means nothing at this point.  But that would seriously damage Asus and others, because anything that was with ROG branding before, will be looked at differently at that point.  Why aren't the best video cards in the same lineup as the other gaming components.  Is there something wrong with those other components? How do you think that would affect AMD graphics card sales in the long run? As nV's Geforce will be sitting all alone.  It would totally screw with them in the long run because now Geforce is what people have in their head, and that is all they see as it gets entrenched.  Screw everything else, there will be no confusion.

[Razor01]

https://www.sideman.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Co-Branding-Article.pdf

 

read this

 

the right side of it, in the blue box
 

Quote

 

Risks of co-branding

Dilutive effect because two companies share success of the co-branded item.

Relying on another brand’s equity and reputation.

Need to closely monitor the co-brand.

 

 

This written by an IP attorney.

 

This is exactly what is happening with AIB's right now, Geforce is what is selling their graphics cards.  And now nV is using like a hammer.

 

If you read the rest of the article you will know exactly where I'm coming from.