nVidia ends GeForce Partner Program

[Kamjam21xx]

10 minutes ago, App4that said:

You missed where I said logic (philosophy) says morality is an opinion, and culture is what says morality is a fact? 

 

We're talking Sociology now too? Hold on, I need to check my privilage if we're including sociology. BRB

Being a blind "liberal" (or fake liberal since liberals are just for liberty) is not an automatic condition caused be learning philosophy and sociology. 

 

Youre thinking of womens studies.

[Kamjam21xx]

But ya philosophy generally falls in line with common law. Most people seem to think its immoral, i think thats backed up by their stock prices during the entire ordeal.

 

Not to mention breaking the law.

[ARikozuM]

6 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Stop tellin us your boring stories, grandpa.

I'm afraid that the exciting stories might clash with your Victorian attitudes. 

[App4that]

Just now, Kamjam21xx said:

Being a blind "liberal" (or face liberal since liberals are just for liberty) is not an automatic condition caused be learning philosophy and sociology. 

 

Youre thinking of womens studies.

My student debt is responsible for my view on morality, which comes from philosophy (the view not the debt, my god I'm not homeless). The kind this website and every piece of software ever written is based on. 

 

Very hard to remove culture from your view. I'd argue impossible. But morality isn't why people are upset at Nvidia, people are upset at Nvidia because Nvidia is more powerful than Radeon. If Radeon was the size and scope of Nvidia, it would have been the RPP. Nothing else would have been different, including the topic. 

[Kamjam21xx]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

My student debt is responsible for my view on morality, which comes from philosophy (the view not the debt, my god I'm not homeless). The kind this website and every piece of software ever written is based on. 

 

Very hard to remove culture from your view. I'd argue impossible. But morality isn't why people are upset at Nvidia, people are upset at Nvidia because Nvidia is more powerful than Radeon. If Radeon was the size and scope of Nvidia, it would have been the RPP. Nothing else would have been different, including the topic. 

Its the abuse of power that makes it worse than if AMD did it, however it would still be against the law. AMD did not do this.

[ARikozuM]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

RPP

For anyone not in the know: RPP = Radeon Planck Project

[App4that]

Just now, Kamjam21xx said:

Its the abuse of power that makes it worse than if AMD did it, however it would still be against the law. AMD did not do this.

AMD would, any company would and does every day. Keep saying that.

 

The use of power, is the abuse of power, to those without. Power

[Kamjam21xx]

Just now, App4that said:

AMD would, any company would and does every day. Keep saying that.

 

The use of power, is the abuse of power, to those without. Power

Well that hasent been proven, so thats completely refutable.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, App4that said:

The use of power, is the abuse of power, to those without. Power

Which is why there are laws that limit the use of power, not prevent the use of it. Not that I'm saying any laws have been broken but one example of the use of market power that is not illegal doesn't make all forms of use of power legal.

 

That's the distinction here, like your store example (I think it was yours?) with getting your products at the front. What if the deal was to remove the competitors product from the main franchise chain and only allow it to be sold in the discount franchise store chain, owned by the same company. In many countries a deal like that is illegal, how comparable to GPP that is is still questionable but it is in my opinion a little closer than simply having items in the front of the store to the back of the store, both are at least in the same store.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Kamjam21xx said:

Well that hasent been proven, so thats completely refutable.

So, the Z490 isn't a thing? AMD didn't get sued back in the FX days for lying about "cores"

 

Come on. I get it, buddy AMD. But it's a lie, AMD isn't "bad" or "good" they're a company with responsibilities. You don't think the size of the company doesn't correlate with the number of people working there? Nvidia has families that eat or starve based on their success, any company faces that. They do what it takes, within what's the norm. Nvidia stayed within the norm. 

 

 

[Kamjam21xx]

4 minutes ago, App4that said:

So, the Z490 isn't a thing? AMD didn't get sued back in the FX days for lying about "cores"

 

Come on. I get it, buddy AMD. But it's a lie, AMD isn't "bad" or "good" they're a company with responsibilities. You don't think the size of the company doesn't correlate with the number of people working there? Nvidia has families that eat or starve based on their success, any company faces that. They do what it takes, within what's the norm. Nvidia stayed within the norm. 

 

 

Not the same, this is one instance. On that though... kindof a blurry time for threading. They were wrong to do it. 

 

Still not the same.

 

They broke the law, ill say it.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Which is why there are laws that limit the use of power, not prevent the use of it. Not that I'm saying any laws have been broken but one example of the use of market power that is not illegal doesn't make all forms of use of power legal.

 

That's the distinction here, like your store example (I think it was yours?) with getting your products at the front. What if the deal was to remove the competitors product from the main franchise chain and only allow it to be sold in the discount franchise store chain, owned by the same company. In many countries a deal like that is illegal, how comparable to GPP that is is still questionable but it's in my opinion a little closer than simply having items in the front of the store to the back of the store, both are at least in the same store.

Not here, take it from an ex retail manager. I still have PRSD from it.

 

Why Sony pushes developers to give them exclusives, or at least exclusive content. No country says Sony has broken any law by stopping developers from supporting the Xbox One have they? 

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Kamjam21xx said:

Not the same, this is one instance. On that though... kindof a blurry time for threading. They were wrong to do it. 

 

Still not the same.

Lamas and hot girls my friend. Why it's tough to call out companies for things like this. To say it's a complicated mess is an understatement. 

[Kamjam21xx]

Gpp is really clear cut. The deal with cores is a little more understandable.

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, App4that said:

Not here, take it from an ex retail manager. I still have PRSD from it.

You'll find that it is in fact illegal depending on how it is done, though as I said it's not directly comparable situation because an AIB is not a retail store so trying to draw equivalency is doomed to fail.

 

5 minutes ago, App4that said:

Why Sony pushes developers to give them exclusives, or at least exclusive content. No country says Sony has broken any law by stopping developers from supporting the Xbox One have they? 

And that again is not the same thing either.

 

Guess you missed the part about one legal form of use of power doesn't make all forms legal. You can list as many examples of legal actions but that doesn't make GPP legal. Though again I have to repeat myself since it gets missed, I'm not saying GPP is illegal I'm say other examples of different legal actions doesn't make GPP legal.

[App4that]

Just now, Kamjam21xx said:

Gpp is really clear cut. The deal with cores is a little more understandable.

The GPP is clear cut because you're invested. If a company making screwdrivers does the exact same thing not only do you not see it as clear cut, but don't care. 

 

You're not doing anything wrong, you're doing what culture tells you to. How we approch everything. A starving friend steals bread to survive, you feel bad for them. If someone starving steals form you, you're angry at them. 

 

Why I got re involed and are saying let it go. It's not about the GPP anymore. 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Carclis said:

If they were right they would not have backtracked so quickly. Why do you think GPP is no longer a thing? Can you honestly say that they were not afraid of legal action?

 

I'll ask again. Do the actions of Nvidia not perfectly match exactly what the ACCC terms as "Misuse of Market Power"?

 

They back tracked because of bad PR, we can only make guess and assumptions as to if any of it was illegal.

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You'll find that it is in fact illegal depending on how it is done, though as I said it's not directly comparable situation because an AIB is not a retail store so trying to draw equivalency is doomed to fail.

 

And that again is not the same thing either.

 

Guess you missed the part about one legal form of use of power doesn't make all forms legal. You can list as many examples of legal actions but that doesn't make GPP legal. Though again I have to repeat myself since it gets missed, I'm not saying GPP is illegal I'm say other examples of different legal actions doesn't make GPP legal.

Issue is what was written down, isn't what has people upset. You can't go into court and say you "felt" they wanted you to do something, well companies that is LOL. 

 

What wasn't written down and the focus of the argument, is speculative. Again, not something you can use in court. 

 

EDIT: I totally agree they did that on purpose, but we're talking legality here. 

 

[Kamjam21xx]

3 minutes ago, App4that said:

The GPP is clear cut because you're invested. If a company making screwdrivers does the exact same thing not only do you not see it as clear cut, but don't care. 

 

You're not doing anything wrong, you're doing what culture tells you to. How we approch everything. A starving friend steals bread to survive, you feel bad for them. If someone starving steals form you, you're angry at them. 

 

Why I got re involed and are saying let it go. It's not about the GPP anymore. 

I want them to be fined. 

[App4that]

Just now, Kamjam21xx said:

I want them to be fined. 

So they distribute that cost to their customers. OK 

 

whispers It won't change anything.

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, App4that said:

Issue is what was written down, isn't what has people upset. You can't go into court and say you "felt" they wanted you to do something, well companies that is LOL. 

 

What wasn't written down and the focus of the argument, is speculative. Again, not something you can use in court. 

Except I, and probably you, don't actually care that much about whether or not GPP is illegal. My point was simply GPP could be or not be illegal independent of 10 million examples of legal uses of market power so getting bogged down in examples is a bit of waste of time for everyone.

[ARikozuM]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

They back tracked because of bad PR, we can only make guess and assumptions as to if any of it was illegal.

We have no copy of the legal agreement for the GPP and Kyle, who supposedly got his hands on a copy, hasn't made it publicly available. Every side of the discussion is working on speculation and one guy's interpretation of the scenario. 

 

Hell, GPP could have said "give us a separate gaming line-up and exclude AMD from using the same branding". Company A could have accepted the agreement and chose to use their current brand for Geforce while company B created a new brand for Geforce while leaving AMD on the current. 

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Except I, and probably you, don't actually care that much about whether or not GPP is illegal. My point was simply GPP could be or not be illegal independent of 10 million examples of legal uses of market power so getting bogged down in examples is a bit of waste of time for everyone.

I can see that. Fun though. 

[Carclis]

29 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

They back tracked because of bad PR, we can only make guess and assumptions as to if any of it was illegal.

I just find it more than a little strange that they backed off the program instead of practicing what they preached. They talked big about transparency and yet nothing materialised from it. I think that says a lot about the questionable legality of the program.

[mr moose]

57 minutes ago, Carclis said:

I just find it more than a little strange that they backed off the program instead of practicing what they preached. They talked big about transparency and yet nothing materialised from it. I think that says a lot about the questionable legality of the program.

 

But finding it a little strange is not the same as being illegal or underhanded.   Rule number one when faced with bad PR, tread carefully and say nothing unless you are absolutely sure it won't backfire.   A lot of PR nightmares don't actually come from a what a company has done but what they say after the fact.

 

 

Just in regard tot he rest of the thread:

 

I'm not too sure what is going on on these forums of late, but why is it o.k for some people assume correlation is enough to proclaim guilt, but several examples of something being an industry standard practice is just written off as "not the same thing"?