OEMs not interested in Nvidia GPP

[KarathKasun]

16 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

Quote

 

Contra revenue is a deduction from the gross revenue reported by a business, which results in net revenue. Contra revenue transactions are recorded in one or more contra revenue accounts, which usually have a debit balance (as opposed to the credit balance in the typical revenue account). There are three commonly used contra revenue accounts, which are:

• Sales returns. Contains either an allowance for returned goods, or the actual amount of revenue deduction attributable to returned goods.
• Sales allowances. Contains either an allowance for reductions in the price of a product that has minor defects, or the actual amount of the allowance attributable to specific sales.
• Sales discounts. Contains the amount of sales discounts given to customers, which is usually a discount given in exchange for early payments by customers.

 

 

Instead of paying directly for "marketing" the producer simply sells for a discount or refunds a decent percentage of total sales based on "performance".  This was exactly what Intel was doing, contra-revenue accounts were the mechanism of the payouts to hide the reason for them happening.

 

If NV is offering marketing money as part of GPP and excluding competition from established brands is a requirement, this falls under excluding the competition in the relevant market.  It would be like Motorola or Bosch requiring a car company to not brand a car with a different embedded controller or fuel injectors as a "sports" or "Nürburgring" edition.

[Trik'Stari]

I find the idea of the likes of Dell or HP calling something unethical, laughable.

 

Still good on them for not joining I guess.

[pas008]

36 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

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. 

Sometimes i wonder if nvidia and amd could technically sue these aib/aic manufacturers on branding of the products but we will never get to see those contracts 

They could have included some small clauses

[Razor01]

15 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

 

 

Instead of paying directly for "marketing" the producer simply sells for a discount or refunds a decent percentage of total sales based on "performance".  This was exactly what Intel was doing, contra-revenue accounts were the mechanism of the payouts to hide the reason for them happening.

 

If NV is offering marketing money as part of GPP and excluding competition from established brands is a requirement, this falls under excluding the competition in the relevant market.  It would be like Motorola or Bosch requiring a car company to not brand a car with a different embedded controller or fuel injectors as a "sports" or "Nürburgring" edition.

 

And contra revenue is still an accounting term. which the definition you quoted, states it right there.  Do you see anything law abiding based on that definition?

 

What you should be saying is "kick backs" which are part of MDF, which on itself is normal in the computer industry.  All IHV's do it because their partners don't make enough money on straight out selling computer parts.  We even see MDF for advertising on commercials man.

 

Nothing illegal about that unless its "abused" to the point it creates a pricing variation to the point competitors can't compete with.  That second part is where anti trust steps in, the pricing of the products.

 

The rest of it, yeah it is like that, too bad if the AIB's agree to that, there are no laws that are set up to stop that!

[Razor01]

8 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Sometimes i wonder if nvidia and amd could technically sue these aib/aic manufacturers on branding of the products but we will never get to see those contracts 

They could have included some small clauses

 

 

nah they can't they are contractual obligated already so unless that contract ends and then they tell them they can't do it, and a new contract is signed and they still do it, then they can.

[KarathKasun]

6 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

MDF is normal in the computer industry, all IHV's do it because their partners don't make enough money on straight out selling computer parts.  We even see MDF for advertising on commercials man.

 

Nothing illegal about that unless its "abused" to the point it creates a pricing variation to the point competitors can't compete with.

And if NV is able to commandeer established brands from some of the largest manufacturers in the business, would you not see that as evidence enough to at least have a legal/regulatory review of the contract for that kind of abuse?

 

I'm sure ASUS has put tons of its own money into ROG branding, so NV is leveraging some kind of monetary incentive to make decisions about that brand.

[pas008]

Just now, Razor01 said:

 

 

nah they can't they are contractual obligated already so unless that contract ends and then they tell them they can't do it, and a new contract is signed and they still do it, then they can.

Like just what happened

 

But we will never see those old contracts what If they had small clauses with branding solely for geforce/radeon products?

[Razor01]

19 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

And if NV is able to commandeer established brands from some of the largest manufacturers in the business, would you not see that as evidence enough to at least have a legal/regulatory review of the contract for that kind of abuse?

 

I'm sure ASUS has put tons of its own money into ROG branding, so NV is leveraging some kind of monetary incentive to make decisions about that brand.

 

Brands are not what the FTC look into.  Brands are something a company owns, and they get to choose what to do with them, if they don't want to give nV control over their brands they don't need to sign the GPP.  But if they don't they get squeezed out of the market.

 

Pretty much here is the problem, nV has a virtual monopoly right?  Because of that their brand Geforce is higher on the totem pole when it comes to consumer presence.  Geforce is what is selling these cards, not Asus ROG, MSI gaming, Gigabyte Aorus.  Geforce got the 70% market share not these brands.

 

For nV to exercise control on their brand they need their AIB's to separate their lines ups.  They have the right to do so.  As does the AIB with their brands.  This is the problem area, both sides have control over their respective brands.

 

Will the AIB's assign a new brand to Geforce and potentially lose their sales to well established brands from EVGA and PNY who are exclusive partners or keep Geforce in those brands and put AMD cards in another brand?  What would you do if you were the CEO of ASUS in this case.

 

nV has no need to sell chips to any company at any time if they don't agree to this, that is up to them, no Gov can force them to sell chips to specific companies either, unless contracts are already in place, which contracts for every generation they do expire.

 

That is the situation correct?  Yes

 

So now AIB's don't want to switch brands, they loose the ability to sell Geforce products.  nV is ok with that, as we can all see, they don't give a crap about the AIB's that sell AMD cards too right now.

 

 

Is this correct?  Yes

 

So how is the FTC or EU trade commission going to go after this lol?

 

There are no laws being broken right now and even if precedent is created it doesn't matter if the FTC and EU actually make new laws that stop this type of co branding separation either because next go around all these AIB's will not be selling nV cards lol.

 

Now if the FTC or EU go after nV on this basis of branding, they are going to get screwed, because nV can prove the reason they are in market dominance in the first place is because of their tech.  Most graphics cards sold are done through OEM's not AIB's.  If they bring something like that up, the AIB's at that point will have to concede their brands have very little to do with what has transpired in the market place in concern with nV's virtual monopoly. If its an OEM instead of an AIB (which nV doesn't have the muscle to push around OEM's) so I don't see this happening anyways.

[Razor01]

9 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Like just what happened

 

But we will never see those old contracts what If they had small clauses with branding solely for geforce/radeon products?

True we will never see them, well we can only guess on the old contracts and most likely branding wasn't on the top priority list of AMD and nV prior to this event.

[Canada EH]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

RGB/GAMING tax

So true

 

People do like flashy things, thats why dance is popular and Vegas wins and people buy multiple items that do the same thing, shoes for example. I have 2 pairs, street and gym. Been wearing the same hoody for years, no need for two. PC sits under a desk where it belongs!

[KarathKasun]

9 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

nV has no need to sell chips to any company at any time if they don't agree to this, that is up to them, no Gov can force them to do this, unless contracts are already in place, which contracts for every generation they do expire.

 

That is the situation correct?

 

So now AIB's don't want to switch brands, they loose the ability to sell Geforce products.  nV is ok with that, as we can all see, they don't give a crap about the AIB's that sell AMD cards too right now.

 

 

Is this correct?

 

The argument can be put forth that the control NV is exerting over branding is an attempt to apply monopolistic market control over the vendors that use their parts.  That is where the FTC has a toehold in this case.

 

Remember that ASUS also makes ROG systems, and this would likely exclude the ability of ASUS to use graphics technology from anyone but NV in these systems which have their own established market.

[Razor01]

8 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

The argument can be put forth that the control NV is exerting over branding is an attempt to apply monopolistic market control over the vendors that use their parts.  That is where the FTC has a toehold in this case.

 

Remember that ASUS also makes ROG systems, and this would likely exclude the ability of ASUS to use graphics technology from anyone but NV in these systems which have their own established market.

 

 

Can't do that with co branding, dude, because nV also has rights with their brand!  They are licensing their brand and tech, that gave them the position they are in, to these companies. 

 

You are suggesting that the FTC and EU should stop nV from controlling something they own too.

This is why its so difficult for them to step into a situation like this, because one party that actually makes the product that gives life to the other's brand can't be overlooked either.

[KarathKasun]

1 minute ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

Can't do that with co branding, dude, because nV also has rights with their brand!

It comes down to how they are incentivizing the use of their chips due to their near monopoly in the GPU market.

[Razor01]

2 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

It comes down to how they are incentivizing the use of their chips due to their near monopoly in the GPU market.

 

 

No it doesn't nV can say to the hell with them.  They don't need them lol.  Not anymore.

 

What do you think happens with an AIB that isn't part of the GPP.

 

They are screwed literally.

[KarathKasun]

2 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

No it doesn't nV can say to the hell with them.  They don't need them lol.  Not anymore.

 

What do you think happens with an AIB isn't part of the GPP.

 

They are screwed literally.

That is the problem.  NV is utilizing their monopoly status to drive the market in a specific direction.

 

That is the definition of anti-competitive behavior.

[Razor01]

1 minute ago, KarathKasun said:

That is the problem.  NV is utilizing their monopoly status to drive the market in a specific direction.

 

 

It doesn't matter because when the next gen cards come out the contracts have to be renewed.  So at this point if nV doesn't want them, they don't need to supply them.  Even if the GPP was there or not.

 

Its not anti competitive to choose ones business partners.  If it transpires to one of the supply issues or others in the FTC laws that are based on more than one company colluding to shift the market then it can be.

[KarathKasun]

Just now, Razor01 said:

 

 

It doesn't matter because when the next gen cards come out the contracts have to be renewed.  So at this point if nV doesn't want them, they don't need to supply them.  Even if the GPP was there or not.

So NV is pulling a 3DFX then?

[Razor01]

Just now, KarathKasun said:

So NV is pulling a 3DFX then?

 

Pretty much.  Was 3DFX sued for that?  lol.  No

[KarathKasun]

5 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

Pretty much.  Was 3DFX sued for that?  lol.  No

They couldn't be sued for it because they manufactured the parts themselves.  NV is still trying to control a market with their monopolistic position.

 

3DFX was also not in a duopoly (there were 3-4 other suppliers at the time. S3, ST, ATI, NV, 3DFX), so there was no ground for antitrust in that case.

[Razor01]

8 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

They couldn't be sued for it because they manufactured the parts themselves.  NV is still trying to control a market with their monopolistic position.

 

3DFX was also not in a duopoly (there were 3-4 other suppliers at the time), so there was no ground for antitrust in that case.

 

 

3Dfx had over 50% of the market at its peak.  And doesn't matter who manufactures the products?  Not even sure where that is coming from.  Cause nV doesn't make their own either, they make the IP for the products as did 3Dfx.

 

Monopolistic tactics are not measured by how many companies are in the market but by how much control one has in the market.

 

nV is not trying to control the market directly with pricing or influencing of not purchasing AMD products. AIB's are still allowed to purchase AMD products just as they did before, they just can't put those products in the same lines as nV products.

[KarathKasun]

6 minutes ago, Razor01 said:

 

 

3Dfx had over 50% of the market at its peak.

 

Monopolistic tactics are not measured by how many companies are in the market but by how much control one has in the market.

 

nV is not trying to control the market directly with pricing or influencing of not purchasing AMD products. AIB's are still allowed to purchase AMD products just as they did before.

50% is not a monopoly, and they did not have 50% at the time they went with in-house card manufacturing.

NV is sitting at over 75% currently, probably over 80% of new card sales.

 

 

[Mk7-Golf-R]

3 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

50% is not a monopoly, and they did not have 50% at the time they went with in-house card manufacturing.

NV is sitting at over 75% currently, probably over 80% of new card sales.

 

 

They are 80% of new cards sales because they are better, not because of a monopoly.

 

if nvidia had some real competition, they wouldn't be able to pull the stuff they are doing

[KarathKasun]

Just now, Mk7-Golf-R said:

They are 80% of new cards sales because they are better, not because of a monopoly.

 

if nvidia had some real competition, they wouldn't be able to pull the stuff they are doing

They have been over 80% when they were equal or worse.

[Razor01]

9 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

50% is not a monopoly, and they did not have 50% at the time they went with in-house card manufacturing.

NV is sitting at over 75% currently, probably over 80% of new card sales.

 

 

 

By FTC and EU laws it can be .  Depends on what they do with that market share. 

[KarathKasun]

Just now, Razor01 said:

 

By FTC and EU laws it can be .

Depends on the market.