nVidia ends GeForce Partner Program

[App4that]

Just now, pas008 said:

they put glutten in it to rile up the liberals

Like I said, stupid LOL

[App4that]

Just now, Notional said:

 

.. is what your subjective opinion is.

No, as the morallity is set by capitolism, and the law by the courts. 

[Notional]

3 minutes ago, pas008 said:

oh really you have a copy of this contract so I can read

and why werent these companies allowed to make custom titans before nvidia took over the titan cards?

oh so its ok for amd to drop allocation of chips and how a company advertises their product hmmm

Well, since you made the original claim that NVidia has full rights to ROG and other Asus branding, please provide the sources to prove that statement.

 

Now, since you can't, no company ever would sign away their IP/branding away to a third party company to use their stuff like that. You misunderstand what GPP is, demands from NVidia's side and what the vendors actually have to do.

[Notional]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

No, as the morallity is set by capitolism, and the law by the courts. 

Morality is 100% subjective, although it can have a majority consensus in a society. You don't know the law, so you have no legitimacy to claim what you claimed.

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, pas008 said:

oh so its ok for amd to drop allocation of chips and how a company advertises their product hmmm

AMD dropped allocation to a company that broke prior contract by going out of spec.

 

5 minutes ago, pas008 said:

and why werent these companies allowed to make custom titans before nvidia took over the titan cards?

Companies were. They didn't because it's stupid to sink money into R&D on an excessively small product niche.

 

 

But now I'm just done with even acknowledging what you have to say and your opinions. As far as I'm concerned, it's invalid.

 

Same with Razor and Moose.

[Okjoek]

 

[pas008]

1 minute ago, Notional said:

Well, since you made the original claim that NVidia has full rights to ROG and other Asus branding, please provide the sources to prove that statement.

 

Now, since you can't, no company ever would sign away their IP/branding away to a third party company to use their stuff like that. You misunderstand what GPP is, demands from NVidia's side and what the vendors actually have to do.

never said that plz quote me saying they have full rights to it

nvidia is entitled to their own branding to separate them for competition

if asus and nvidia come to agreement so be it

if your argument is extortion or etc, then quid pro quo is illegal now?

[pas008]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

AMD dropped allocation to a company that broke prior contract by going out of spec.

 

Companies were. They didn't because it's stupid to sink money into R&D on an excessively small product niche.

 

 

But now I'm just done with even acknowledging what you have to say and your opinions. As far as I'm concerned, it's invalid.

 

Same with Razor and Moose.

going out of spec? same specs as the card razor linked their were many cards with gddr5

lol wow

 

every angle right? keep going this is fun

[Razor01]

10 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

They tied MFD to exclusivity. Almost literally the exact things Nvidia was threatening. Imagine that comparison right?

 

You can't draw a line when the line isn't straight lol.  Did they do what Intel did?  Are they bribing AIB's not to use AMD GPU's or limiting their ability to get AMD GPU's?

 

MDF can be done with exclusivity of their products.  If they are spending money to advertise their products, it should go to their products and brands.  Not to another products in that same brand.  Effectively, right now with MDF, if it promotes Asus ROG graphics nV cards, it is also promoting Asus ROG AMD cards too, because Asus is using that MDF not only to promote Geforce cards but ROG Geforce cards.

[Razor01]

5 minutes ago, pas008 said:

going out of spec? same specs as the card razor linked their were many cards with gddr5

lol wow

 

every angle right? keep going this is fun

 

Dude he doesn't look at facts he goes by feelings, I just linked a GDDR5 card by Sapphire which was a LAUNCH card by AMD!

[pas008]

Just now, Razor01 said:

 

Dude he doesn't look at facts he goes by feelings, I just linked a GDDR5 card by Sapphire which as a LAUNCH card by AMD!

invalid gluten response

[App4that]

8 minutes ago, Notional said:

Morality is 100% subjective, although it can have a majority consensus in a society. You don't know the law, so you have no legitimacy to claim what you claimed.

You agree with that morality since take part in it, this conversation is impossible without it. 

 

Also, I don't know the law? That's cute LOL

[Notional]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

never said that plz quote me saying they have full rights to it

nvidia is entitled to their own branding to separate them for competition

if asus and nvidia come to agreement so be it

if your argument is extortion or etc, then quid pro quo is illegal now?

NVidia have their own branding. It's called Geforce. I'm sure they can make a contract stating they want their own unique branding as well. What GPP stated, was that the primary brand of the vendor had to be exclusively used by NVidia cards. There's a huge difference between requiring a new brand deal to go along with these chips, and then outright usurpring existing branding worth billions from the third party vendor.

[Kamjam21xx]

2 hours ago, App4that said:

No LOL. They care about making money, hard to do that while caring. 

Well yeah, its called a fiduciary duty. You do what makes them money or go to prison or be sued for their losses... however AMD is really opensource and value/price oriented..

 

I can confidently say that without adding "i think" or "i believe" 

[pas008]

5 minutes ago, Notional said:

NVidia have their own branding. It's called Geforce. I'm sure they can make a contract stating they want their own unique branding as well. What GPP stated, was that the primary brand of the vendor had to be exclusively used by NVidia cards. There's a huge difference between requiring a new brand deal to go along with these chips, and then outright usurpring existing branding worth billions from the third party vendor.

Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce

not primary

 

adding your feelings to it cause aibs signed them contracts and started giving up their already established brands

 

maybe you should reread the article

 

dont think those brands are even close to billion yet many of their products are others products

 

[Notional]

15 minutes ago, App4that said:

No, as the morallity is set by capitolism, and the law by the courts. 

Yes, but that morality is subjective on my part as well. 

No, you don't. You might know some of the law in the US, for instance. That does not necessarily make you qualified on this specific matter, and especially not on the legality of this matter in other countries. Or would you like to tell me about the anticompetitive laws in Denmark and their set precedent in relations to this matter? The US is not the entire world.

 

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce

not primary

And how many vendors have more than 1 brand? Gigabyte had to remove all their gaming branding from AMD GPU's. As for Asus, ROG is their gaming brand. Now no longer allowed to be used on AMD GPU's.

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, Kamjam21xx said:

Well yeah, its called a fiduciary duty. You do what makes them money or go to prison or be sued for their losses... however AMD is really opensource and value/price oriented..

 

I can confidently say that without adding "i think" or "i believe" 

Buddy AMD, riiiight LOL

 

AMD is only your buddy because they're trying to keep up. If AMD was in Intel or Nvidia's position, they'd do the same. 

[Razor01]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce

not primary

 

adding your feelings to it cause aibs signed them contracts

 

maybe you should reread the article

 

 

Actually Kyle eluded to that, so its not national's fault, its Kyle's fault.

[pas008]

Just now, Razor01 said:

 

 

Actually Kyle eluded to that, so its not national's fault, its Kyle's fault.

its there

The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP comes down to a single requirement in order to be part of GPP. In order to have access to the GPP program, its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." I have read documents with this requirement spelled out on it

 

everyone just wrote it off because of his opinion

[Razor01]

I don't think anyone here thinks what nV did with GPP or still doing is morally right from a consumer point of view or AIB point of view (since they are nV's customers too) lol, but when it comes to a company doing what it has to do their morals are different then ours.

[Razor01]

2 minutes ago, pas008 said:

its there

The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP comes down to a single requirement in order to be part of GPP. In order to have access to the GPP program, its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." I have read documents with this requirement spelled out on it

 

everyone just wrote it off because of his opinion

Oh yeah I agree with ya, Kyle's opinion was totally F'ed up lol.  It had nothing to do with the GPP contract he was reading far between the lines when he made his opinion.

[App4that]

8 minutes ago, Notional said:

Yes, but that morality is subjective on my part as well. 

No, you don't. You might know some of the law in the US, for instance. That does not necessarily make you qualified on this specific matter, and especially not on the legality of this matter in other countries. Or would you like to tell me about the anticompetitive laws in Denmark and their set precedent in relations to this matter? The US is not the entire world.

Funny how the US isn't the entire world, until it's time to copy the US. Always interests me.

 

Denmark isn't the world either, and no international law says a company has to sell their product to anyone who wants to buy it. Selling their product is their choice. 

[pas008]

9 minutes ago, Notional said:

Yes, but that morality is subjective on my part as well. 

No, you don't. You might know some of the law in the US, for instance. That does not necessarily make you qualified on this specific matter, and especially not on the legality of this matter in other countries. Or would you like to tell me about the anticompetitive laws in Denmark and their set precedent in relations to this matter? The US is not the entire world.

 

And how many vendors have more than 1 brand? Gigabyte had to remove all their gaming branding from AMD GPU's. As for Asus, ROG is their gaming brand. Now no longer allowed to be used on AMD GPU's.

 

many aibs have multiple subbrands

 

and that business deal isnt part of our knowledge, if asus signed away on it then that is their business

hate on asus they were bought out, oh wait its worth billions if they agreed to give up a so called billion dollar brand for chips lol

 

oh wait another one they could have left nvidia alone and just went amd only lol

 

[Notional]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

Funny how the US isn't the entier world, until it's time to copy the US. Always interests me.

 

Denmark isn't the world either, and no international law says a company has to sell their product to anyone who wants to buy it. Selling their product is their choice. 

Neither did I state so. But we are talking about international companies. They might not break the law in Taiwan or the US with the GPP. But that doesn't mean they aren't breaking the laws in Canada or Japan. So when you make a blanket statement about NVidia not breaking "the law", you're kinda over reaching, don't you think?

 

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

many aibs have multiple subbrands

 

and that business deal isnt part of our knowledge, if asus signed away on it then that is their business

hate on asus they were bought out, oh wait its worth billions if they agreed to give up a so called billion dollar brand for chips lol

I can think of Asus with Rog and Strix, but that is about it. It's still their primary of the 2 NVidia wants, which is why Asus only uses ROG for Nvidia now. Asus signed what they were forced to sign. And yes, if they wanted to be competitive and relevant compared to the other vendors, they had no choice. That's how abuse of power (from NVidia's side) works.

[pas008]

Just now, Notional said:

Neither did I state so. But we are talking about international companies. They might not break the law in Taiwan or the US with the GPP. But that doesn't mean they aren't breaking the laws in Canada or Japan. So when you make a blanket statement about NVidia not breaking "the law", you're kinda over reaching, don't you think?

 

I can think of Asus with Rog and Strix, but that is about it. It's still their primary of the 2 NVidia wants, which is why Asus only uses ROG for Nvidia now. Asus signed what they were forced to sign. And yes, if they wanted to be competitive and relevant compared to the other vendors, they had no choice. That's how abuse of power (from NVidia's side) works.

they could have went amd only if their brand was worth so much lol