OEMs not interested in Nvidia GPP

[Okjoek]

It's kind of irrational, but I just like AMD for some reason. I'm generally anti- corporate and that doesn't completely exclude AMD, but the Human nature part of me that craves justice has always felt that they've been treated unfairly so I just like to help a brother out as long as I see they're trying their best, and Ryzen has shown me that and more.

 

My i5 3450 that I got as part of a gifted system will probably be replaced by an APU no sooner than Zen 2 + Navi.

[mrthuvi]

9 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

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.

No... just no.....

 

70% of human is water doesn't mean human is water

Having 70% of the market doesn't mean you are monopoly. This is wrong by definition of the word.

 

I have said it before and I will say it again. It's abuse of market of dominance not monopoly.

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/abuse_en.html

 

[MrDynamicMan]

On 4/17/2018 at 11:42 AM, Tellos said:

@Ryan_Vickers it's not a momnopoly or AMD woudl not exsist literily. I hate people using that word when they dont like hwo big a company gets. a monopoly literily means the ONLY choice as in NO OTHER COMAPNIES OR OPTIONS. I work for Comcast people call us a monopoly we are not or AT&T would not exsist. Please can we stop using words incorrectly?

Oligopoly, if it suits you. Either way Nvidia is using their disproportionate market share to manipulate key aspects of the market unethically. 

 

Likewise, Comcast is in a 'true' oligopoly because of region segmentation, lack of true competition, unethical lobbying, unethical business practices, etc, etc, etc.

[Voids]

I would have to say that I don't like how nVidia can essentially dictate what a company can do with its already preestablished branding.

 

ASUS created the ROG branding for many  components/peripherals and now nV are saying "right we want you to stop putting your own controlled branding on our competition and have it solely for us. Not only this but you'll now have to have a the job of creating a new brand name and you have it advertised to gain consumer recognition that we have now already established for x amount of years"

 

Now AMD products will be given a new and unrecognised brand that people will in some instances avoid due to being a new brand. Seems anti competitive to me.

 

Its as if nV is controlling these puppet company's (ASUS etc).

[Jahramika]

On 4/17/2018 at 1:16 AM, mr moose said:

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

I think your statement should read they dont stand to loose anything being that Nvidia cant blackamail them since they dont manufacture GPU's. Sure they tried!

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Jahramika said:

I think your statement should read they dont stand to loose anything being that Nvidia cant blackamail them since they dont manufacture GPU's. Sure they tried!

You are very welcome to read that however you want.  But I can assure you the amount of malice in these companies is pretty even.  They are all only interested in protecting their bottom line while blowing wind up the consumers arse. If dell and HP say no it's genuinely because they can't make enopugh money out of it, not because they care about the consumer or any perceived injustice.   Also OEM's use GPU's in their gaming branded laptops.

[KarathKasun]

On 4/17/2018 at 1:09 AM, mr moose said:

So are you a proponent of government agencies starting investigations and subpoenaing private contracts based on hearsay in  singular media articles?  I get why people would want to know the truth, but surely you can see how this would be a bad precedent to set.

Its obvious that those parts of the GPP terms are true with what the companies signed onto it are doing.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, KarathKasun said:

Its obvious that those parts of the GPP terms are true with what the companies signed onto it are doing.

Is it?  your perception of the information you have been given is not evidence.  

 

Remember expectation has been proven to make people think they can see things that aren't there.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/kidding-ourselves/201404/we-see-what-we-want-see

 

And this is why government agencies will not investigate based on what you see, what I complain about or what AMD/HardOCP write about.  They will only investigate if someone puts significant evidence on the table that proves something illegal is happening.

[KarathKasun]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

Is it?  your perception of the information you have been given is not evidence.  

 

Remember expectation has been proven to make people think they can see things that aren't there.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/kidding-ourselves/201404/we-see-what-we-want-see

 

And this is why government agencies will not investigate based on what you see, what I complain about or what AMD/HardOCP write about.  They will only investigate if someone puts significant evidence on the table that proves something illegal is happening.

I dont expect a specific result based on the article.  Even without the [H] article, seeing AMD cards get de-branded while NV still gets the same branding is a bit of a clue that something is not quite above board.  Gigabyte claiming that "Gaming" not being the purpose of a eGPU that has game performance touted on its product page is a big clue here.

 

We have seen this exact behavior before, primarily in the case of Intel with OEM's like Dell.  And guess what, it was decided that it was illegal then.

[Dylanc1500]

11 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

I dont expect a specific result based on the article.  Even without the [H] article, seeing AMD cards get de-branded while NV still gets the same branding is a bit of a clue that something is not quite above board.  Gigabyte claiming that "Gaming" not being the purpose of a eGPU that has game performance touted on its product page is a big clue here.

 

We have seen this exact behavior before, primarily in the case of Intel with OEM's like Dell.  And guess what, it was decided that it was illegal then.

 The big difference being intel said that you couldn't carry the competition period. What NVidia is saying is "hey, we want to be branded differently than our competition". So far nothing has shown otherwise, everything we have seen has been assumptions and people making their own conclusions. If there has been anything actually showing otherwise then please, by all means, correct me.

[KarathKasun]

Just now, Dylanc1500 said:

 The big difference being intel said that you couldn't carry the competition period. What NVidia is saying is "hey, we want to be branded differently than our competition".

Not true.  The AMD parts had to be in only "entry level" PCs for you to get a majority of the payout.  This meant no AMD in servers, workstations, and high performance home systems.

[Razor01]

7 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Not true.  The AMD parts had to be in only "entry level" PCs for you to get a majority of the payout.  This meant no AMD in servers, workstations, and high performance home systems.

• That Intel paid rebates to manufacturers on the condition that they would buy all (Dell) or nearly all of their CPUs from Intel.
• That it paid retail stores rebates to only stock x86 parts.
• That it paid computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of AMD hardware, including Dell, Acer, Lenovo, and NEC.
• That it restricted sales of AMD CPUs based on business segment and market. OEMs were given permission to sell higher percentages of AMD desktop chips, but were required to buy up to 95% of business processors from Intel. At least one manufacturer was forbidden to sell AMD notebook chips at all.

 

This is what the EU found

[Dylanc1500]

5 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Not true.  The AMD parts had to be in only "entry level" PCs for you to get a majority of the payout.  This meant no AMD in servers, workstations, and high performance home systems.

Yes which put a restrictions on them being able to use a product from the competition. By staying "period" I didn't mean they couldn't all of the competition's products. NVidia (from what we have seen so far) hasn't put any restriction on what, or how much, of the compitions products can be used. I should have clarified my statement further but I'm on my phone and I'm trying to be quick about it.

 

 

@Razor01 you might be able to elaborate further for me, if you wouldn't mind

 

edit:oops my bad you already beat me.

[Razor01]

Intel pretty much broke every anti trust law except pricing lol.  Can't get more blatant than that.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, KarathKasun said:

I dont expect a specific result based on the article.  Even without the [H] article, seeing AMD cards get de-branded while NV still gets the same branding is a bit of a clue that something is not quite above board.  Gigabyte claiming that "Gaming" not being the purpose of a eGPU that has game performance touted on its product page is a big clue here.

 

We have seen this exact behavior before, primarily in the case of Intel with OEM's like Dell.  And guess what, it was decided that it was illegal then.

As the others have pointed out the Intel issue was a lot different. they actually broke a few laws on top of being unethical and left a trail of evidence that could be taken to court.  What we have here is not tantamount to evidence.  No matter how much anyone dislikes what they see, that does not make it evidence to an illegal act.

[laminutederire]

3 hours ago, Razor01 said:

Intel pretty much broke every anti trust law except pricing lol.  Can't get more blatant than that.

I wouldn't be surprised if some laws were to be invented just because they were too scummy and that no law maker thought about it because of that

[Jtalk4456]

On 4/17/2018 at 5:42 AM, Tellos said:

@Ryan_Vickers it's not a momnopoly or AMD woudl not exsist literily. I hate people using that word when they dont like hwo big a company gets. a monopoly literily means the ONLY choice as in NO OTHER COMAPNIES OR OPTIONS. I work for Comcast people call us a monopoly we are not or AT&T would not exsist. Please can we stop using words incorrectly?

To Clarify: Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area. Monopolization is an offense under federal anti trust law. The two elements of monopolization are (1) the power to fix prices and exclude competitors within the relevant market.

So as others have stated, you are using the word wrong. Also working with a internet/tv utility service, you are almost always a monopoly within that area, as more people only have one, maybe two options to choose from, with one having a clear advantage over a specific area and not allowing the other company to move into that area. The latter part of that is especially relevant concerning this statement "exclude competitors within the relevant market."

Fixing prices is harder to argue, but I agree this is a problem, and the major reason why so many "cable cutters" have appeared. I'm one of them, and I haven't had cable in about 4 years. The only thing I OCCASIONALLY miss is HGTV. But I love not paying over $100 for the 3-5 channels that most people actually watch. It's not about how big a company gets, it's about whether there is any competition in the market and how you deal with competition. If I create a business buying up old PC monitors, breaking the glass and making dangerously sharp baby mobiles with the shards, you could argue a monopoly by your definition even if only 1 sale is made. But that's not illegal, they can't be mad at me for coming up with a new idea and no one else is doing it. But if 2 people are trying to make that business and the other acts in an anti competitive way, that's a problem. That's when the monopoly term comes into play

[KarathKasun]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

As the others have pointed out the Intel issue was a lot different. they actually broke a few laws on top of being unethical and left a trail of evidence that could be taken to court.  What we have here is not tantamount to evidence.  No matter how much anyone dislikes what they see, that does not make it evidence to an illegal act.

Except that whole thing about not being able to market AMD parts under the OEM's "Gaming" brand.  That is a disincentive for carrying a competing product, which is illegal.

[Razor01]

26 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Except that whole thing about not being able to market AMD parts under the OEM's "Gaming" brand.  That is a disincentive for carrying a competing product, which is illegal.

 

And so far from what we have seen that is not the case, AIB's have made new gaming brands for AMD cards.  So no its not, advertising is not part of any anti trust laws man.  First precedent for that must be put into law which will be quite hard to do (advertising IS part of first amendment and freedom of speech), then the law has to be drafted. 

 

At this point in time all we can say its shitty and crummy and slimy, there is no such thing as legal action, illegal, lawsuits pending, what not.  Its all BS.

[mr moose]

24 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

Except that whole thing about not being able to market AMD parts under the OEM's "Gaming" brand.  That is a disincentive for carrying a competing product, which is illegal.

Again, this is your perception of things based on your understanding what is legal. But that perception is no substitute for actual law.  So far all we have is one article and some AIB's switching branding around.  There is yet to be any evidence that something illegal has occurred.    The reason many countries have a well defined legal system is to prevent people being investigated and having their contracts spilled out through courts on mere hearsay.  It is really important that there is a clear distinction between evidence and opinion.  All the opinions in the world do not equal one fact.  and the one fact so far in all this is that there is no evidence anything illegal has occurred.

 

 

 

[pas008]

8 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

And so far from what we have seen that is not the case, AIB's have made new gaming brands for AMD cards.  So no its not, advertising is not part of any anti trust laws man.  First precedent for that must be put into law which will be quite hard to do (advertising IS part of first amendment and freedom of speech), then the law has to be drafted. 

 

At this point in time all we can say its shitty and crummy and slimy, there is no such thing as legal action, illegal, lawsuits pending, what not.  Its all BS.

Imho

This shit needed to happen long ago

Along with motherboards and this copy and paste design shit across gens/chipsets 

[Razor01]

I agree, it should have been done when these companies first created their gaming brands, no other industry mocks up things like individual components/parts/items into a singular brand, unless the expressed single reason was to sell as a bundle or whole.

 

Interestingly many companies don't understand still about branding and how to do them properly and all the things about co branding and what not, hence the major expense of creating brands with advertising agencies and these agencies also take care of the legal aspects of co branding products because their have teams of attorneys looking into what they can do and can't do contractually between the two companies and if the industry resides in any governmental regulations like pharma.  I don't think any AIB use adverting agencies to do their branding at this point.  All their box artwork are from places likes Daz3d lol.  Its a joke to them. 

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, pas008 said:

 

Along with motherboards and this copy and paste design shit across gens/chipsets 

Fuck motherboards.   I have always bought the best performing locked CPU I can afford then put it in the cheapest motherboard I need.  Then I relax and enjoy 8 years of gaming without paying the RGB/GAMING tax or supporting BS flashy hardware that hardly anyone uses. 

[KarathKasun]

34 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Again, this is your perception of things based on your understanding what is legal. But that perception is no substitute for actual law.  So far all we have is one article and some AIB's switching branding around.  There is yet to be any evidence that something illegal has occurred.    The reason many countries have a well defined legal system is to prevent people being investigated and having their contracts spilled out through courts on mere hearsay.  It is really important that there is a clear distinction between evidence and opinion.  All the opinions in the world do not equal one fact.  and the one fact so far in all this is that there is no evidence anything illegal has occurred.

 

 

 

No, it comes from knowledge of what is legal in my country.  There is evidence that some sort of licensing or benefit deal has changed and it negatively impacts the marketability of other products using components from a different vendor.

 

There is obvious intent with what is actually being done by these equipment manufacturers, such as claims that these other products are not gaming capable by representatives of the OEM while marketing material and known capability show otherwise.

 

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/antitrust/

Contra-revenue and special pricing to force compliance with a marketing strategy to diminish competition falls under antitrust laws in the US.  You should read through this before continuing.

[Razor01]

10 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

No, it comes from knowledge of what is legal in my country.  There is evidence that some sort of licensing or benefit deal has changed and it negatively impacts the marketability of other products using components from a different vendor.

 

There is obvious intent with what is actually being done by these equipment manufacturers, such as claims that these other products are not gaming capable by their representatives while marketing material and known capability show otherwise.

 

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/antitrust/

Contra-revenue and special pricing to force compliance with a marketing strategy to diminish competition falls under antitrust laws in the US.  You should read through this before continuing.

 

 

Where is the contra revenue and special pricing to force compliance?

 

Also don't add words that you don't seem to understand that aren't even in the definitions of the FTC.

 

(contra revenue is a financial term not legal term so please don't try to put in words thinking they look "cool")

 

I'm in the US and understand its laws as I have been writing contracts for close to 15 years now in TV, Movies and production work.  And have also worked in advertising agencies, 2 of them earlier in my career, one small and the other one of the biggest in the world.  S&H, Sudler and Hennessy, the guys that made the NBC peacock in the 50's, which is part of WPP, one of the 3 largest advertising conglomerates in the world.

 

Now you want to tell me, advertising is part of FTC control on the basis of?  In all my experience in advertising and my friends whom now are VP and SR VP's at ad agencies, have never heard of such things what so ever.  Neither did their legal departments where they work lol.