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

[leadeater]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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

Sorry but AMD not agreeing with it squarely puts in the realm of unethical. Unless you're now implying that Asus naturally decided to go against AMD and their partner status risking losing it and Nvidia/GPP was not a factor at all. Asus's partnership status with AMD wouldn't last very long if that was the case and given all the other AMD products Asus sells outside of the graphics card sector Asus isn't going to simply risk that partnership.

 

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

so no evidence?

So AMD products didn't get re-branded then?

 

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

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.

Right so making a partner re-brand their competitors products is not abusing their power? Edit: How high is your bar for abuse of power?

 

And it would be rather fruitless to file a lawsuit because of a program that no longer exists, AMD could if they judged it worth their time, money and likelihood to win it which is probably a no to 2 if not all 3.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Sorry but AMD not agreeing with it squarely puts in the realm of unethical.

huh? Is that the only criteria you need to to prove someone is being unethical,  to not agree with it?

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

Unless you're now implying that Asus naturally decided to go against AMD and their partner status risking losing it and Nvidia/GPP was not a factor at all. Asus's partnership status with AMD wouldn't last very long if that was the case and given all the other AMD products Asus sells outside of the graphics card sector Asus isn't going to simply risk that partnership.

 

I'm not implying anything. I am simply stating you do not have the evidence to claim GPP was unethical or illegal, or anything.

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

So AMD products didn't get re-branded then?

AMD being relegated to Arez is not evidence.  You cannot using the end result as evidence of causality.  There are too many possibilities that would result in the same outcome. This is basic science methodology.  So again what evidence do you have that this result was caused specifically by GPP being unethical or illegal or whatever you are trying to insinuate it is?

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Right so making a partner re-brand their competitors products is not abusing their power?

 

Depends on how that comes to be. The thing here is you are hung up on it being an abuse or unethical but without evidence to prove that. 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And it would be rather fruitless to file a lawsuit because of a program that no longer exists, AMD could if they judged it worth their time, money and likelihood to win it which is probably a no to 2 if not all 3.

 

I just listed lawsuits as an example of what would be considered evidence, I did not say there had to be one in order to prove anything.  I listed several things that would pass muster as evidence.  if you could provide something/anything that shows what happened i will certainly accept it.  but until then my appraisal from page 2 stands.

[Lathlaer]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

AMD being relegated to Arez is not evidence.

Exactly. 

 

The way I see it, GPP made ASUS choose a brand for NVIDIA - or, to better word it, made ASUS choose not to sell NVIDIA and AMD's cards under the same brand.

 

What happened next is solely on ASUS. It's ASUS' choice to rebrand AMD and not NVIDIA in order to comply.

 

I do however believe that what wasn't stated in legal contract could've been heavily implied "with a wink". As in, NVIDIA telling ASUS something like this:

 

"Under this contract you will be distinguishing our cards from AMD but we would really appreciate it if ROG stayed with us".

[Carclis]

16 hours ago, pas008 said:

like I said I can see it as good thing too alignment of brands for competing products should be in place

like I said I dont like the rog thing wish they would have just done what they do with their rog monitors swift and strix

but thats business, if amd came up with this concept would you seriously be huffing and puffing about right and wrong?

Yes I would because I don't think it's acceptable for an Nvidia contract to be responsible for the removal of any other competitor from a manufacturers premium line of products. If you want your own brand, make it yourself. It's as simple as that. If AMD did the same thing I'd be just as upset.

16 hours ago, pas008 said:

and we have no evidence of good or bad, just speculation/assumptions but no evidence with nvidia getting a bunch of bad pr which right now will prolly not affect them

and if these aic/aib have to spend money to create their new co brand so be it they should have done that from the get go

My problem with this whole thing is AIBs already had co brands that were differentiated. We had ROG Strix Radeon RX Vega 64 and ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1080Ti which was obvious and transparent. The changes that Nvidia wanted were not consistent with transparency. That's why people protested against it and demanded to know what was happening.

If we waited for the indisputable evidence that you keep asking for then it would likely be too late for us to get any decent outcome, just as was the case with Intel when they were fined for bribing Dell. All Intel got was a slap on the wrist and it took something like a decade for the lawsuits to conclude. I've already seen AMD branding changes on the Asus side for no good reason and I've seen the MSI Radeon cards get downgraded from the Gaming X to the Armor cooler. I'm telling you that if it looks like shit, smells like shit and taste like shit. Then it probably is shit.

[pas008]

8 minutes ago, Carclis said:

Yes I would because I don't think it's acceptable for an Nvidia contract to be responsible for the removal of any other competitor from a manufacturers premium line of products. If you want your own brand, make it yourself. It's as simple as that. If AMD did the same thing I'd be just as upset.

My problem with this whole thing is AIBs already had co brands that were differentiated. We had ROG Strix Radeon RX Vega 64 and ROG Strix GeForce GTX 1080Ti which was obvious and transparent. The changes that Nvidia wanted were not consistent with transparency. That's why people protested against it and demanded to know what was happening.

If we waited for the indisputable evidence that you keep asking for then it would likely be too late for us to get any decent outcome, just as was the case with Intel when they were fined for bribing Dell. All Intel got was a slap on the wrist and it took something like a decade for the lawsuits to conclude. I've already seen AMD branding changes on the Asus side for no good reason and I've seen the MSI Radeon cards get downgraded from the Gaming X to the Armor cooler. I'm telling you that if it looks like shit, smells like shit and taste like shit. Then it probably is shit.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/branding

 

Period.

Ty come again

[Lathlaer]

17 minutes ago, Carclis said:

That's why people protested against it and demanded to know what was happening.

Let's be honest here - people protested because AMD is the little guy here and people didn't want the little guy bullied out of the GPU market altogether. AMD's response to GPP was the equivalent of outcry for help and the community followed.

 

Now, whether the bullying part was done solely by NVIDIA or NVIDIA + AIB is a different matter. I strongly believe that NVIDIA did not specify that they want ROG for themselves but they heavily implied that and ASUS understood that too.

 

If ASUS chose to make a new ultra gaming brand for NVIDIA this thread would not have 11 pages.

[Carclis]

5 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

Let's be honest here - people protested because AMD is the little guy here and people didn't want the little guy bullied out of the GPU market altogether. AMD's response to GPP was the equivalent of outcry for help and the community followed.

 

Now, whether the bullying part was done solely by NVIDIA or NVIDIA + AIB is a different matter. I strongly believe that NVIDIA did not specify that they want ROG for themselves but they heavily implied that and ASUS understood that too.

 

If ASUS chose to make a new ultra gaming brand for NVIDIA this thread would not have 11 pages.

I think you're absolutely right and I perhaps should have clarified that too. It was a pretty good strategy honestly considering the only way Nvidia would get to have its way and claim AIB brands is by admitting to all of its customers that its responsible for the downgrading of competitors products.

I'm glad it turned out the way it did though. I think that litigation would have delivered poor results and no lesson would have been learned.

[pas008]

7 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

Let's be honest here - people protested because AMD is the little guy here and people didn't want the little guy bullied out of the GPU market altogether. AMD's response to GPP was the equivalent of outcry for help and the community followed.

 

Now, whether the bullying part was done solely by NVIDIA or NVIDIA + AIB is a different matter. I strongly believe that NVIDIA did not specify that they want ROG for themselves but they heavily implied that and ASUS understood that too.

 

If ASUS chose to make a new ultra gaming brand for NVIDIA this thread would not have 11 pages.

Like i said if amd came up with this program on aligning brands would this even be an issue?

I still don't understand why there is an argument 

Buy the best for your needs period brand loyalty is obtuse unless you redundancy

[Carclis]

32 minutes ago, pas008 said:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/branding

 

Period.

Ty come again

I think you're in a whole other world mate.

[pas008]

9 minutes ago, Carclis said:

I think you're in a whole other world mate.

Lol yeah cause i believe in  innocent til proven guilty

Assumptions mean shit to me

Actually have simple saying for assumptions

 

Assumptions are for bitches(no offense)

Literally no offense

But after my 38yrs i have learned i can never trust assumptions if that was the case id be rich on mining 7cents kwh 

Would be richer than ever if went full fledge 

And another point is if amd was being victimized wouldn't they counter suit right away instead of telling the biggest anti nvidia hate boy

Why didn't they report to bigger and better tech sites?

[Lathlaer]

19 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Like i said if amd came up with this program on aligning brands would this even be an issue?

I don't think so. Then again, if the contract was constructed the way I think it was, the ball would be in ASUS' court. And the main difference here would be that ASUS would not dare to remove NVIDIA cards from their ROG brand out of fear of retribution.

 

As a side note, I wonder what % of ASUS revenue are the GPUs. Because by revenue they are about 50% bigger than NVIDIA but obviously in the GPU sector they are depending mostly on them.

 

Anyway, I believe it would be a misconception to think that ASUS is without fault here nor do I believe they were bullied. 

 

I'm more inclined to picture the situation like this: two insanely rich guys sitting in a cigar room, drinking whisky and debating how they could quid-pro-quo the shit out of their priviledged situation.

[laminutederire]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 This is basic science methodology.

Please, do basic science methodology on that situation, I'm listening.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Please, do basic science methodology on that situation, I'm listening.

It's pretty self evident that you can't conclude causality from an outcome alone. Especially when, as I have said several times, there are multiple hypothesis that explain said outcome.

[Carclis]

7 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Lol yeah cause i believe in  innocent til proven guilty

Assumptions mean shit to me

Actually have simple saying for assumptions

I do too but I think there's too much coincidence to discount and I don't like what I'm seeing. I don't think those moves are healthy for the industry. It sounds like that has been the general consensus given the outcome.

9 minutes ago, pas008 said:

And another point is if amd was being victimized wouldn't they counter suit right away instead of telling the biggest anti nvidia hate boy

Why didn't they report to bigger and better tech sites?

I have no idea but I can't say I've heard Kyle Bennett called an Nvidia hate boy. I do know that he had a go at AMD as a company and singled out Raja and Lisa some time in the past 18 months so I can't see him siding with AMD for no reason.

[laminutederire]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

It's pretty self evident that you can't conclude causality from an outcome alone. Especially when, as I have said several times, there are multiple hypothesis that explain said outcome.

Every obvious is better said than left out of the conversation.

You can't conclude with certainty what happened from that outcome. You never can.

What some people are doing is still scientifically viable though. As long as you place your hypothesis and you follow what logically comes from that hypothesis, it is basic science.

After that being said, yeah there may be multiple hypothesis explaining one outcome, but just like classical mechanics are perfectly fine for a lot of things, it is superseded by another theory which explain both the same things, and additional outcomes.

In this case people like @leadeater and me just point out that our hypothesis on GPP explains the branding changes, as well as the apparent secret around it, as much as it explains why it was cancelled, which makes it a good theory, and a better hypothesis than the ones that only explain the branding change.

[pas008]

5 minutes ago, Carclis said:

I do too but I think there's too much coincidence to discount and I don't like what I'm seeing. I don't think those moves are healthy for the industry. It sounds like that has been the general consensus given the outcome.

I have no idea but I can't say I've heard Kyle Bennett called an Nvidia hate boy. I do know that he had a go at AMD as a company and singled out Raja and Lisa some time in the past 18 months so I can't see him siding with AMD for no reason.

Read his shit from 2008 plus lol

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

Every obvious is better said than left out of the conversation.

You can't conclude with certainty what happened from that outcome. You never can.

What some people are doing is still scientifically viable though. As long as you place your hypothesis and you follow what logically comes from that hypothesis, it is basic science.

After that being said, yeah there may be multiple hypothesis explaining one outcome, but just like classical mechanics are perfectly fine for a lot of things, it is superseded by another theory which explain both the same things, and additional outcomes.

In this case people like @leadeater and me just point out that our hypothesis on GPP explains the branding changes, as well as the apparent secret around it, as much as it explains why it was cancelled, which makes it a good theory, and a better hypothesis than the ones that only explain the branding change.

nope. You can't just claim you have a better hypothesis when you have no way to validate it.

[pas008]

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

Every obvious is better said than left out of the conversation.

You can't conclude with certainty what happened from that outcome. You never can.

What some people are doing is still scientifically viable though. As long as you place your hypothesis and you follow what logically comes from that hypothesis, it is basic science.

After that being said, yeah there may be multiple hypothesis explaining one outcome, but just like classical mechanics are perfectly fine for a lot of things, it is superseded by another theory which explain both the same things, and additional outcomes.

In this case people like @leadeater and me just point out that our hypothesis on GPP explains the branding changes, as well as the apparent secret around it, as much as it explains why it was cancelled, which makes it a good theory, and a better hypothesis than the ones that only explain the branding change.

Hypothesis needs stable facts which there is none

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

nope. You can't just claim you have a better hypothesis when you have no way to validate it.

Did anyone here take calculus lol 

You can have the answer but it must be proven with evidence lol

[Lathlaer]

Facts:

1. GPP existed.

2. NVIDIA wants a brand for only their own GPUs

 

Outcome: 

Asus removes AMD cards from their ROG brand, creating AREZ instead

 

Possible hypothesis #1

Nvidia made Asus choose between them and AMD for ROG brand incentivizing that choice with some good shit. As such, the ROG brand is mentioned in GPP contract and Asus must comply if they don't want to be sentenced to irrelevance in the GPU market.

 

Possible hypothesis #2

Nvidia made Asus distinguish their own cards from AMD with clear branding. Asus understands that there is a heavy extra contractual implication that they want ROG brand. They are not obligated to give ROG to Nvidia under GPP but do so regardless because they don't want to risk potential irritation with their relationship with Nvidia. Or maybe they made the decision themselves without Nvidia having to ask since, like I said, Asus is a big boy with about 50% more revenue than Nvidia so they saw it as better business opportunity.

 

Neither hypothesis is better than the other and more likely than the other. My personal beliefs lie with hypothesis #2 but I have no way of proving that.

 

It's just speculation until we really get to see the contract.

 

Speaking of which, where are WikiLeaks when you need them

[pas008]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

nope. You can't just claim you have a better hypothesis when you have no way to validate it.

Funny thing is i don't care about nvidia amd or intel

I buy the best for me at the time of purchase 

Love eyefinity but with cross fire no

Sli surround wins

Amd gaming close but majority of games i play are mmo

Single threaded wins

Cad work Intel wins cause i don't need simulations 

I would love to push amd again miss black edition days especially calico and unlocking dual to quad and pushing or trying 4ghz

[laminutederire]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

nope. You can't just claim you have a better hypothesis when you have no way to validate it.

We validate it with the objective facts that are present. Nvidia botched it. It was inconsistent with their internal policies on branding. There was very few informations going to the rest of the world, and there were some factual change on the branding of and products across 3 AIBs.

Those are facts to validate upon.

If you can predict more of those facts, your hypothesis is seemingly better to explain the situation. If it's not better, it'd be because of other facts we don't have access to that it doesn't explain.

15 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Hypothesis needs stable facts which there is none

No it doesn't.  An hypothesis does not require any fact in it. It only requires facts for its validation. 

 

13 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Did anyone here take calculus lol 

You can have the answer but it must be proven with evidence lol

You can work under different work hypothesis from the same equation and end up with different results at the end. The hypothesis can be arbitrary, it doesn't really matter. Only thing that matters is what logically can be derived from the hypothesis, let it be true or not. A theorem A implies B does not need A to be always true for the theorem itself to be true. (It doesn't even need A to be true once. If it is it's just a true but useless theorem)

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

We validate it with the objective facts that are present. Nvidia botched it. It was inconsistent with their internal policies on branding. There was very few informations going to the rest of the world, and there were some factual change on the branding of and products across 3 AIBs.

Those are facts to validate upon.

If you can predict more of those facts, your hypothesis is seemingly better to explain the situation. If it's not better, it'd be because of other facts we don't have access to that it doesn't explain.

what facts?  Please link me to the evidence that makes your appraisal a fact.

1 minute ago, laminutederire said:

No it doesn't.  An hypothesis does not require any fact in it. It only requires facts for its validation. 

 

 

Exactly, you require facts to validate your hypothesis. Given we don't have any facts, you cant validate and thus you can't claim one is better than the other.

[pas008]

8 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

We validate it with the objective facts that are present. Nvidia botched it. It was inconsistent with their internal policies on branding. There was very few informations going to the rest of the world, and there were some factual change on the branding of and products across 3 AIBs.

Those are facts to validate upon.

If you can predict more of those facts, your hypothesis is seemingly better to explain the situation. If it's not better, it'd be because of other facts we don't have access to that it doesn't explain.

No it doesn't.  An hypothesis does not require any fact in it. It only requires facts for its validation. 

 

You can work under different work hypothesis from the same equation and end up with different results at the end. The hypothesis can be arbitrary, it doesn't really matter. Only thing that matters is what logically can be derived from the hypothesis, let it be true or not. A theorem A implies B does not need A to be always true for the theorem itself to be true. (It doesn't even need A to be true once. If it is it's just a true but useless theorem)

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/hypothesis.html

Ok

Then

Like i said guilty til proven innocent

Your eyes

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Every obvious is better said than left out of the conversation.

You can't conclude with certainty what happened from that outcome. You never can.

What some people are doing is still scientifically viable though. As long as you place your hypothesis and you follow what logically comes from that hypothesis, it is basic science.

After that being said, yeah there may be multiple hypothesis explaining one outcome, but just like classical mechanics are perfectly fine for a lot of things, it is superseded by another theory which explain both the same things, and additional outcomes.

In this case people like @leadeater and me just point out that our hypothesis on GPP explains the branding changes, as well as the apparent secret around it, as much as it explains why it was cancelled, which makes it a good theory, and a better hypothesis than the ones that only explain the branding change.

What we all should have done is said nothing, no one should have reported on and and AMD shouldn't have brought it up until there was enough evidence to satisfy everyone. We should also feel sorry for Nvidia for having to cancel the program.

 

Well unlike science and math where you have the luxury to take your time to perfect your hypothesis and to do the proof for it I don't subscribe to the "Let a business do what is currently observable to be wrong", give them a right of reply which Nvidia got which they did not utilize.

 

Science and math is built upon the freedom of access to information where the confines of business are not. To require that we conduct everything in a scientific manor when we are not under scientific conditions will lead to nothing, there is no way to prove a hypothesis when the required information is behind company trade secrets which they are not willing to release.

 

I'm all for science but business is not science, if it were science we'd have all the information freely accessible.