ASUS Killing AREZ brand? ROG is Back? *UPDATED ARTICLE*

[pas008]

i'd still like to see info on amd giving just rog funding/mdf and not asus in general

same goes for intel/nvidia too

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

The fact is no amount of examples is going to convince you otherwise.

They will, but I just don't see any parallels at all between a supply contract with McDolands and Coke as to Nvidia, AIBs and AMD manufacturing products and selling them, the situation is just too different. Coke has a trademark on the shape of the Coke bottle so if that required Pepsi to change their bottle design they were using that would be similar, dunno if that was a thing though just something I can think of that is like this.

 

We're talking about how a product is getting made, not where it's allowed to be sold and on which shelves it's allowed to be placed on in the store. Edit: That's why I want examples the revolve around the product manufacturing process, and the branding of the product, which all happen before you try and distribute and sell the product.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They will, but I just don't see any parallels at all between a supply contract with McDolands and Coke as to Nvidia, AIBs and AMD manufacturing products and selling them, the situation is just too different. Coke has a trademark on the shape of the Coke bottle so if that required Pepsi to change their bottle design they were using that would be similar, dunno if that was a thing though just something I can think of that is like this.

That was never a thing, no one has ever tried to make pepsi change their product.   The contracts coke made retailers sign was that retailers would exclusive sell and advertise coke in exchange for fridges, cheaper product and better supply conditions.  Just like Nvidia said to Asus, sell only our product in your gaming brand (we have no evidence they asked for specifics) and we will give you X resources, supply guarantees, and financial benefits.  It's the same deal,  Pepsi got pushed out of the market in these retailers due to exclusive contracts. Coke used their market power and financial incentives to make very attractive deals that favored their product.  Nvidia used their market power and financial incentives to make very attractive deals that favour their product.

[leadeater]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That was never a thing, no one has ever tried to make pepsi change their product.  

I know it wasn't a thing, I said it was made up. That was an example to you to show what I would find similar. Coke does have a trademark on the bottle shape so if that did effect current Pepsi products that would indeed by very similar. Still a bit different in that this would be a physical product attribute though but if there many examples like this out there then I will indeed agree this normal.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The contracts coke made retailers sign was that retailers would exclusive sell and advertise coke in exchange for fridges, cheaper product and better supply conditions.  Just like Nvidia said to Asus, sell only our product in your gaming brand (we have no evidence they asked for specifics) and we will give you X resources, supply guarantees, and financial benefits.  It's the same deal,  Pepsi got pushed out of the market in these retailers due to exclusive contracts. Coke used their market power and financial incentives to make very attractive deals that favored their product.  Nvidia used their market power and financial incentives to make very attractive deals that favour their product.

This is all gain post product being made and a brand place on it. GPP, as being talked about, did not limit who can sell it and where in stores the products can be. Coke's contract did not cause a branding change of Pepsi, in fact this doesn't effect anyone's branding at all so I just don't see how this is similar to what happened with ROG.

 

If GPP turned Asus in to an Nvidia only AIB then sure that would be like your example.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I know it wasn't a thing, I said it was made up. That was an example to you to show what I would find similar. Coke does have a trademark on the bottle shape so if that did effect current Pepsi products that would indeed by very similar. Still a bit different in that this would be a physical product attribute though but if there many examples like this out there then I will indeed agree this normal.

But that is going beyond GPP.  As far as we know Nvidia aren't making Asus change ROG. They are making Asus choose a brand to be for them exclusively.  Forcing pepsi to change their product would not be similar to this at all.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

But that is going beyond GPP.  As far as we know Nvidia aren't making Asus change ROG. They are making Asus choose a brand to be for them exclusively.  Forcing pepsi to change their product would not be similar to this at all.

The differentiator I'm point to is contracts that have visible effect on the competitor, like making their products all change their brand or the shape of the bottle or what ever example there is of this.

 

Asus may of had to make a choice, join GPP or not, but the going discussion is by choosing to it required Asus to re-brand all the competitors products. No Coke example mentioned is like that.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

This is all gain post product being made and a brand place on it. GPP, as being talked about, did not limit who can sell it and where in stores the products can be.

But it does limit what asus can brand along side it and what they can sell.

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Coke's contract did not cause a branding change of Pepsi, in fact this doesn't effect anyone's branding at all so I just don't see how this is similar to what happened with ROG.

Again that is irrelevant. it has nothing to do with changing pepsi as a brand.  GPP did not force AMD to change it's product at all, in fact from what we know there is nothing in GPP that says AIB partners are restricted in how they make AMD products with the exception of not being under the same branding.   The product can be identical, different, better, worse pink, red or green. So long as it doesn't carry the same brand name.   That is worlds different from pepsi being forced to change there product.

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If GPP turned Asus in to an Nvidia only AIB then sure that would be like your example.

 

I fail to see completely how you draw any of these conclusions.   It's like you have fixated on correlation hat isn't there.  Asus aren't being forced to change AMD, just use a different branding for those products. 

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Again that is irrelevant. it has nothing to do with changing pepsi as a brand.  GPP did not force AMD to change it's product at all, in fact from what we know there is nothing in GPP that says AIB partners are restricted in how they make AMD products with the exception of not being under the same branding.   The product can be identical, different, better, worse pink, red or green. So long as it doesn't carry the same brand name.   That is worlds different from pepsi being forced to change there product.

See my last reply, it required Asus to change it's products. Asus and AMD are partners and without some requirement in a contract being signed there is no way Asus would just re-brand their AMD based products, not when AMD is directly objecting to it actually being done.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

The differentiator I'm point to is contracts that have visible effect on the competitor, like making their products all change their brand or the shape of the bottle or what ever example there is of this.

 

Asus may of had to make a choice, join GPP or not, but the going discussion is by choosing to it required Asus to re-brand all the competitors products. No Coke example mentioned is like that.

Of course it does,  that's the whole point of the program/contract.  Brand isolation favors the brand that is being sold.   That is why it is the same thing,  Coke never forced a change in anyone's product, simple a change in what products are sold.  Nvidia are telling Asus use their product exclusively in any one branding.  That is not the same as forcing a change in AMD products or a change to the way Asus make AMD products.   In fact if you look at he pictures of the Arez they were ROG products with different stickers.   That's not a product change, that's a name change.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

See my last reply, it required Asus to change it's products. Asus and AMD are partners and without some requirement in a contract being signed there is no way Asus would just re-brand their AMD based products, not when AMD is directly objecting to it actually being done.

What's your point?  If someone offers me a deal that is too financially incentivizing for me to knock back I am going to take it too. 

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Of course it does,  that's the whole point of the program/contract.  Brand isolation favors the brand that is being sold.   That is why it is the same thing,  Coke never forced a change in anyone's product, simple a change in what products are sold.  Nvidia are telling Asus use their product exclusively in any one branding.  That is not the same as forcing a change in AMD products or a change to the way Asus make AMD products.   In fact if you look at he pictures of the Arez they were ROG products with different stickers.   That's not a product change, that's a name change.

Coke never force a brand change either. That's why it not. A change of branding for a product is still a product change, something about the product changed.

 

Show me an example of your Coke contracts doing this or get a better one that actually does have an impact in some way to a competitor before sale. That's all I'm asking for, a better example that is like what I have pointed to that I would see as similar. I do not see how and where Coke is sold as being similar to how a AIB is required to brand a product and that requirement causing a re-brand of competitor products.

 

Intel Ultrabook is brand ioslation, it did not cause a re-brand of competitor products, if it did them boom there is your example I am looking for.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Coke never force a brand change either. That's why it not. A change of branding for a product is still a product change, something about the product changed.

No, they forced the retailer to outright not have it's competitions brand in their store let alone sell it from a different fridge.

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Show me an example of your Coke contracts doing this or get a better one that actually does have an impact in some way to a competitor before sale. That's all I'm asking for, a better example that is like what I have pointed to that I would see as similar. I do not see how and where Coke is sold as being similar to how a AIB is required to brand a product and that requirement causing a re-brand of competitor products.

 

Intel Ultrabook is brand ioslation, it did not cause a re-brand of competitor products, if it did them boom there is your example I am looking for.

So? just because the Intel thing did not cause a rebrand does not mean anything.  You are now asking me to effectively prove a negative.  Showing me an example with a different contract and a different outcome expecting me to able to show evidence it would have been the same had the conditions been different makes no sense.

 

It doesn't matter how many times you ask or how many times I point it out,  the exclusivity contract between coke and retailers is the same as GPP and Asus (don't sell our competitors products in the same store).

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So? just because the Intel thing did not cause a rebrand does not mean anything.  You are now asking me to effectively prove a negative.  Showing me an example with a different contract and a different outcome expecting me to able to show evidence it would have been the same had the conditions been different makes no sense.

And if it did then you'd have an example, so if there is something not this that did happen then you can show me that example. Not asking you to prove a negative I'm showing you something that would have been an example I'm looking for. That last bit that didn't cause a re-brand of AMD lapatops is the line where it goes from not similar to Asus and ROG to similar.

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No, they forced the retailer to outright not have it's competitions brand in their store let alone sell it from a different fridge.

In bold, there is the problem that I find with your examples.

 

[mr moose]

Just now, leadeater said:

And if it did then you'd have an example,

No, you just have a different product under a different contract with a similar outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

No, you just have a different product under a different contract with a similar outcome.

Yes exactly, the examples I'm looking for to show that this is normal business that happens all the time. Great now you get it, go forth and find me these.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

In bold, there is the problem that I find with your examples.

 

 

The retailer in is the same position as Asus, they both rely on the manufacturer for product, they both are beholden to the manufacturers desires because the manufacture in both cases make the product the end user wants.    Asus has been told not to sell competitors products under the same branding, that is exactly the same as retailers being told not to sell competitors products in the same fridges/stores.  It is the same exclusivity contract.  There really is nothing else to it.

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Yes exactly, the examples I'm looking for to show that this is normal business that happens all the time. Great now you get, go forth and find me these.

So you want me to provide examples of things that don't exemplify my point?  Thanks but I will stick to the ones that do.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yes exactly, the examples I'm looking for to show that this is normal business that happens all the time. Great now you get, go forth and find me these.

Seriously? you give me an example that doesn't relate, and ask me to provide more because that will some how clear things up?

[leadeater]

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So you want me to provide examples of things that don't exemplify my point?  Thanks but I will stick to the ones that do.

Well your points aren't convincing me that those are similar to Asus, ROG, Nvidia, AMD, AIBs and GPP so you can stick to them but it's not convincing me so far.

 

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Seriously? you give me an example that doesn't relate, and ask me to provide more because that will some how clear things up?

It does relate, if that had been what Intel Ultrabook caused. That's the bit I'm showing you that to me would make it similar enough for me. None of your examples required anything of a current, selling, in manufacture products from a competing product and this is the part I don't see as normal business that happens all the time.

 

Contract example 1: GPP = Arez branding for AMD based products

Contract example 2: GPP = Arez branding for Nvidia products

 

See how in example 2 the branding contract would not have effected the current, selling, in manufacture products of AMD?

 

You've given me many cases of example 2 and none of example 1, even if I don't really agree retail contracts are that similar to a contract between an AIB and Nvidia/AMD. If there are retail contracts that introduce new branding or make another product not be sold under it's otherwise normal name then that will also suffice i.e. if you want to sell our premium brand product then all others, not our products, need to be sold as Home Brand/Budget Brand.

[leadeater]

32 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The retailer in is the same position as Asus, they both rely on the manufacturer for product, they both are beholden to the manufacturers desires because the manufacture in both cases make the product the end user wants.    Asus has been told not to sell competitors products under the same branding, that is exactly the same as retailers being told not to sell competitors products in the same fridges/stores.  It is the same exclusivity contract.  There really is nothing else to it.

A retailer is not making the product in question, Asus is using a part supplied by AMD but are making the product and are also putting their branding on it. Is the retailer making the product? Is the retailer branding the product?

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well your points aren't convincing me that those are similar to Asus, ROG, Nvidia, AMD, AIBs and GPP so you can stick to them but it's not convincing me so far.

. None of your examples required anything of a current, selling, in manufacture products from a competing product and this is the part I don't see as normal business that happens all the time.

 

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

Contract example 1: GPP = Arez branding for AMD based products

Contract example 2: GPP = Arez branding for Nvidia products

 

See how in example 2 the branding contract would not have effected the current, selling, in manufacture products of AMD?

 

You've given me many cases of example 2 and none of example 1, even if I don't really agree retail contracts are that similar to a contract between an AIB and Nvidia/AMD. If there are retail contracts that introduce new branding or make another product not be sold under it's otherwise normal name then that will also suffice i.e. if you want to sell our premium brand product then all others, not our products, need to be sold as Home Brand/Budget Brand.

 

5 hours ago, leadeater said:

A retailer is not making the product in question, Asus is using a part supplied by AMD but are making the product and are also putting their branding on it. Is the retailer making the product? Is the retailer branding the product?

 

Do you believe there is evidence that Nvidia forced (not provided a deal that was too good to reject but an actual unethical blackmailing) Asus to Stop producing AMD ROG?  if so I'd like to see this evidence.  I remind you that aligning ROG with nvidia is not in and of itself  evidence it's just the outcome.  Evidence would be a contract, or a claim directly from Asus or even a leaked email from nvidia if it can be confirmed. 

 

Or are we to believe every little thing that happens in the tech industry is evidence of underhanded strong arming?

[leadeater]

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Do you believe there is evidence that Nvidia forced (not provided a deal that was too good to reject but an actual unethical blackmailing) Asus to Stop producing AMD ROG?  if so I'd like to see this evidence.  I remind you that aligning ROG with nvidia is not in and of itself  evidence it's just the outcome.  Evidence would be a contract, or a claim directly from Asus or even a leaked email from nvidia if it can be confirmed. 

 

Or are we to believe every little thing that happens in the tech industry is evidence of underhanded strong arming?

Forced or not, roses put at the feat of Asus, gold raining from the sky, GPP as is being talked about was the cause of the renaming of AMD based products and that is what I am pointing to as not "happens all the time".

 

Am I supposed to ignore one of the hallmarks of what's happening, the renaming of AMD based produces because of an Nvidia contract, so we can say all contracts with branding requirements are the same and are all adequate examples? Am I also supposed to ignore all the current benefits that Asus was getting with existing contracts with Nvidia that they would no longer get if they do not sign this new contract?

 

The evidence is the renaming of AMD products and not Nvidia products. If this was like any other contract with branding in it that is normal and happens all the time then we would not being seeing a branding change of AMD products. AMD and the AIB would drive that not an Nvidia contract.

 

Forced, an offer you cannot turn down, an offer to good to refuse etc are all just different ways of saying and framing the same thing. When I'm pointing at something and saying that isn't normal framing it in a different way doesn't exactly change it.

 

Asus, an AMD partner, still changed AMD product branding without AMD agreeing with it.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Forced or not, roses put at the feat of Asus, gold raining from the sky, GPP as is being talked about was the cause of the renaming of AMD based products and that is what I am pointing to as not "happens all the time".

 

Am I supposed to ignore one of the hallmarks of what's happening, the renaming of AMD based produces because of an Nvidia contract, so we can say all contracts with branding requirements are the same and are all adequate examples? Am I also supposed to ignore all the current benefits that Asus was getting with existing contracts with Nvidia that they would no longer get if they do not sign this new contract?

 

The evidence is the renaming of AMD products and not Nvidia products. If this was like any other contract with branding it is that is normal and happens all the time then we would not being seeing a branding change of AMD products. AMD and the AIB would drive that not an Nvidia contract.

 

Forced, an offer you cannot turn down, an offer to good to refuse etc are all just different ways of saying and framing the same thing. When I'm pointing at something and saying that isn't normal framing it in a different way doesn't exactly change it.

 

Asus, an AMD partner, still changed AMD product branding without AMD agreeing with it.

so no evidence? 

Ceasing to use AMD in ROG and creating Arez for AMD is not evidence of an unethical or blackmail style contract.

 

Did GPP cause asus to cease using AMD in ROG? yes. Was it an abhorrent abuse of market power that forced asus to make that decision?  no evidence to answer that. You can't provide any, the industry hasn't provided any, there are no pending lawsuits.  It's quiet and dark.  Unless you have evidence then I fail to see how my initial appraisal is wrong.