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

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

AREZ...

 

  Hide contents

 

ARES...

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Oh yeah look, branding ASUS used in the past for AMD before GPP ever existed.

You mean to say that brands have come and gone before without something as "damaging" as GPP causing it?

[AlwaysFSX]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You mean to say that brands have come and gone before without something as "damaging" as GPP causing it?

I think I do.

[leadeater]

39 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Oh yeah look, branding ASUS used in the past for AMD before GPP ever existed.

Yea because this is totally the same thing right . Brands usually get retired after being used not before. Still the Arez product links are still alive on the site so it's not like it's actually gone yet.

 

Not to state the obvious either but there is also a slight difference between a product name like Ares and a product range brand name like Arez and ROG. Not that Ares isn't the clear and obvious inspiration for Arez though, which basically everyone has already pointed out anyway.

[f22luke]

38 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yea because this is totally the same thing right . Brands usually get retired after being used not before. Still the Arez product links are still alive on the site so it's not like it's actually gone yet.

 

Not to state the obvious either but there is also a slight difference between a product name like Ares and a product range brand name like Arez and ROG. Not that Ares isn't the clear and obvious inspiration for Arez though, which basically everyone has already pointed out anyway.

Ares was a pinnacle product back when AMD was the only company doing two dies on one PCB.  I was hoping that meant we were going to see a new line of GPUs coming from AMD that would be like Threadripper and combine two dies with the infinity fabric.  That would be awesome to see a new pinnacle like that and why not bring back Ares to celibate.  

 

But no, we were just getting the same old cards with new stickers because AMD users don't like nice things right?

[leadeater]

47 minutes ago, f22luke said:

But no, we were just getting the same old cards with new stickers because AMD users don't like nice things right?

The equivalent Nvidia product Mars was better though, have your cake and eat it too.

 

https://rog.asus.com/articles/gaming-graphics-cards/the-all-new-mars-iii/

[AlwaysFSX]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Yea because this is totally the same thing right . Brands usually get retired after being used not before. Still the Arez product links are still alive on the site so it's not like it's actually gone yet.

 

Not to state the obvious either but there is also a slight difference between a product name like Ares and a product range brand name like Arez and ROG. Not that Ares isn't the clear and obvious inspiration for Arez though, which basically everyone has already pointed out anyway.

The problem is people complaining that Nvidia is forcing different branding for AMD when AIB companies have made separate product lines in the past. This isn't quite new.

[Dabombinable]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

You mean to say that brands have come and gone before without something as "damaging" as GPP causing it?

Those brands didn't appear and disappear within the space of 6 months though...

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Those brands didn't appear and disappear within the space of 6 months though...

We haven't seen arez disappear yet, but even if it does what have we had that indicates it was a major release?  There was no fanfare just an update to the Asus website and some stickers on pre-existing cards.   

 

I get why some people are mad with nvidia, but the reality is it is a major storm in a tea cup. 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, AlwaysFSX said:

The problem is people complaining that Nvidia is forcing different branding for AMD when AIB companies have made separate product lines in the past. This isn't quite new.

 

51 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Those brands didn't appear and disappear within the space of 6 months though...

 

And the product was still branded as ROG Ares as well (as shown in the picture you posted), it's not like Ares was it's own thing devoid of everything else. To use marketing speak Ares never had a "brand identity" where ROG very much does have a "brand identity".

 

I have no problems with Nvidia forcing branding requirements on their products I just draw the line at forcing changes to products that are not your own, the AIBs bear a large amount of responsibility for this too. However while I'm disappointed with AIBs for their decisions they made (or were in the process of as for some I can only go on indication) I blame Nvidia for the way in which it was handled, had they gone down their own creative process path then I simply wouldn't care. I also wouldn't have cared if AIBs made two new brands and changed both Nvidia and AMD e.g. Mars for Nvidia and Arez for AMD.

 

It's a very rare thing to get good sentiments out of forced actions and for a program which had partnership in it's name their appears to be very little partnership in it and a lot of do as we say.

 

Edit: Also lets not forget AIBs are not the only partners with Nvidia that were covered by GPP or were intended to be. GPP is not the only program with brand requirements equally as strict that effects competitors, like Intel and Ultrabook, however that was handled in the way I can agree with i.e. new and did not effect existing products from competitors. Intel gets a gold star for that.

[Notional]

5 hours ago, f22luke said:

I was hoping that meant we were going to see a new line of GPUs coming from AMD that would be like Threadripper and combine two dies with the infinity fabric.

That is the rumour going about Navi.

---

 

As for Ares, that was a specific model name ASUS used exclusively for DUAL GPU AMD graphics cards. It was still branded as ROG. AREZ was clearly based on that, but never the same. The mere fact they are reverting back to ROG without releasing any AREZ products, right after NVidia pulls their scummy GPP, is proof enough of the usurping point of GPP.

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

WHAT. THAT WAS AN OFFICIAL APRIL FOOLS SHITPOST?! ( >_(\

Yep lol. Actual product though.

[Voids]

I honestly think:

 

GPP had a large affect has some suspected.

 

Worryingly enough I still see users trying to damage control it by bringing up retired brands.

 

Outline below.

 

GPP announced --> ROG becomes Arez --> GPP is cancelled --> Arez stopped and ROG resurfaces almost immediately.

 

This is a monthly timescale compared to yearly timescale some members are citing evidence from.

 

Honestly the tech community can sometimes be so dense that you could fit them on a PCB.

 

Its pretty clear that GPP was indeed a devil in the clothes of a sheep.

[mr moose]

On 5/17/2018 at 7:15 AM, Voids said:

I honestly think:

 

GPP had a large affect has some suspected.

 

Worryingly enough I still see users trying to damage control it by bringing up retired brands.

 

Outline below.

 

GPP announced --> ROG becomes Arez --> GPP is cancelled --> Arez stopped and ROG resurfaces almost immediately.

 

This is a monthly timescale compared to yearly timescale some members are citing evidence from.

 

Honestly the tech community can sometimes be so dense that you could fit them on a PCB.

 

Its pretty clear that GPP was indeed a devil in the clothes of a sheep.

Ironic.  Many would argue calling a whole subset of a community dense for having a different opinion to be dense. 

[Voids]

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

Ironic.  Many would argue calling a whole subset of a community dense for having a different opinion to be dense. 

Don't think it works like that. I'm not trying to make it personal but some people would defend silly things for the sake of it, think its a part of human nature or built into our genes to be stubborn. 

[crystal6tak]

Asus! Paint those already produced AREZ cards in gold and sell them as limited edition cards! Get those supplies gone and make some money back in the meantime.

[dtaflorida]

I liked alternative branding. Video cards are a lot easier with AMD not purposely able to mess with their chip naming to confuse consumers. And to be honest, AMD screwed themselves a bit too by making their mobo chipsets harder to distinguish from Intel's. I didn't think it mattered much cuz you can usually filter down AMD/Intel, but I was checking Toms hardware Deals section and saw a mobo deal... and didn't know just by looking at the name if it was an Intel or an AMD mobo. Way to go AMD.

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, dtaflorida said:

I liked alternative branding. Video cards are a lot easier with AMD not purposely able to mess with their chip naming to confuse consumers. And to be honest, AMD screwed themselves a bit too by making their mobo chipsets harder to distinguish from Intel's. I didn't think it mattered much cuz you can usually filter down AMD/Intel, but I was checking Toms hardware Deals section and saw a mobo deal... and didn't know just by looking at the name if it was an Intel or an AMD mobo. Way to go AMD.

This comment makes no sense in the context of this topic. Besides, GeForce and Radeon are very easily distinguishable.

[mr moose]

15 hours ago, Voids said:

Don't think it works like that. I'm not trying to make it personal but some people would defend silly things for the sake of it, think its a part of human nature or built into our genes to be stubborn. 

Why not?  If you can assume GPP would have had a large impact or that it was a massive undertaking with only one article and some hearsay as evidence then it would also be reasonable to assume on the same lack of evidence that it was no more aggressive or impacting than any other branding contract.   It's not exactly defending nvidia, it's just that some people really don't see it as being the be all and end all of business dealings. 

 

 

[Voids]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Why not?  If you can assume GPP would have had a large impact or that it was a massive undertaking with only one article and some hearsay as evidence then it would also be reasonable to assume on the same lack of evidence that it was no more aggressive or impacting than any other branding contract.   It's not exactly defending nvidia, it's just that some people really don't see it as being the be all and end all of business dealings. 

 

 

But is the whole premise that a large company like NVidia could dictate in a sense the branding of completely separate companies.

 

Is that not a scary thing to even consider? I think its crazy that a company can have that much power and say over an industry that they could do that.

 

But maybe I'm the silly one.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Voids said:

But is the whole premise that a large company like NVidia could dictate in a sense the branding of completely separate companies.

 

Yes that exactly what it is.

10 hours ago, Voids said:

Is that not a scary thing to even consider? I think its crazy that a company can have that much power and say over an industry that they could do that.

 

It happens all the time in every industry already.  Sometimes it's bad for competition and sometimes it's good, but so far the practice hasn't run anyone out of business and at worst it's the reason you have to go to specific shops for specific brands.   I.E why some petrol stations only sell coke and others only sell Pepsi, they have stuck a deal with the distro for fridges. 

 

10 hours ago, Voids said:

But maybe I'm the silly one.

No, you are engaging the discussion and reacting based on what information you have.  That is not silly.

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

why some petrol stations only sell coke and others only sell Pepsi, they have stuck a deal with the distro for fridges. 

But neither Pepsi nor Coke can make each other have to rename their own existing products. Sure they can't infringe on trademarked names so that does apply but when is the last time you saw a deal between a distributor and a retail store force a product naming change for some other 3rd party product? I've never heard of such a thing ever.

 

This is why I say retail/distribution contracts are not like this situation, they seem similar as they have forms of branding requirements and restrictions but GPP was not effecting this side of the industry directly. When AIBs, the companies actually making the products (so Pepsi and Coke very roughly), can no longer name another product they make already, not directly related to a contract they have signed with another different company, this is an actual concern.

 

If Newegg signs an agreement to only sell Nvidia GPUs go for it, up to them. Neither Newegg, Nvidia or anyone else other than AMD and the AIB making the actual product should be able to force a rebrand of existing product lines with the one exception being trademark infringement.

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

But neither Pepsi nor Coke can make each other have to rename their own existing products. Sure they can't infringe on trademarked names so that does apply but when is the last time you saw a deal between a distributor and a retail store force a product naming change for some other 3rd party product? I've never heard of such a thing ever.

Another thing is that the deal between Coke/Pepsi and distributor is that the agreement is mutual. It's not made by force, and the distributor doesn't get shafted in terms of supply if they don't sign on.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Another thing is that the deal between Coke/Pepsi and distributor is that the agreement is mutual. It's not made by force, and the distributor doesn't get shafted in terms of supply if they don't sign on.

Have to be aware that part of it was more implied than written in contract, not that Nvidia didn't get it's reputation for a reason though. But if we have to stick to observable things then we don't actually have a lot but what is there for me is rather telling. I just don't like this whole sentiment that it happens all the time and is common when I don't know of many examples of companies interfering directly with the manufacturing and branding processes like this, not legally anyway.

 

I know of many willing examples due to an over arching parent company and utilizing those resources and trademarks and altering branding to local markets, like Holden Commodore/Monaro being sold in Europe under the Vauxhall brand but that was an internal intentional choice.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

But neither Pepsi nor Coke can make each other have to rename their own existing products. Sure they can't infringe on trademarked names so that does apply but when is the last time you saw a deal between a distributor and a retail store force a product naming change for some other 3rd party product? I've never heard of such a thing ever.

 

This is why I say retail/distribution contracts are not like this situation, they seem similar as they have forms of branding requirements and restrictions but GPP was not effecting this side of the industry directly. When AIBs, the companies actually making the products (so Pepsi and Coke very roughly), can no longer name another product they make already, not directly related to a contract they have signed with another different company, this is an actual concern.

 

If Newegg signs an agreement to only sell Nvidia GPUs go for it, up to them. Neither Newegg, Nvidia or anyone else other than AMD and the AIB making the actual product should be able to force a rebrand of existing product lines with the one exception being trademark infringement.

 

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Another thing is that the deal between Coke/Pepsi and distributor is that the agreement is mutual. It's not made by force, and the distributor doesn't get shafted in terms of supply if they don't sign on.

 

As someone who started their working career in a shop that was only allowed to sell coke I can assure you their are contracts that prevent retailers from advertising or selling the other brand. Just like GPP prevented AIB's from selling AMD on the same branding.   Nvidia aren't making AMD rebrand, it is purely a supply/manufacturing contract, so coke telling retailers and food chains not to stock or advertise pepsi in stores they sell coke in is the same thing.  And this was well before the companies that own pepsi and coke brought into the fast food chains.  (Pepsi owned pizza hut and KFC before they created yum brands)

 

It's an age old business practice. They call them exclusive contracts, that is, the seller (be it nvidia or coke) create a contract that states they will only supply X amount of goods + benefits on the condition that sourcing GPU's or soft drinks meet  exclusive conditions that exclude their competition.  It can be illegal but has to be considered on a case by case basis, there is no general overarching law or rule that defines it.

 

 

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

As someone who started their working career in a shop that was only allowed to sell coke I can assure you their are contracts that prevent retailers from advertising or selling the other brand. Just like GPP prevented AIB's from selling AMD on the same branding.   Nvidia aren't making AMD rebrand, it is purely a supply/manufacturing contract, so coke telling retailers and food chains not to stock or advertise pepsi in stores they sell coke in is the same thing.  And this was well before the companies that own pepsi and coke brought into the fast food chains.  (Pepsi owned pizza hut and KFC before they created yum brands)

And yet in all these examples you gave none of them are the equivalent to an AIB, you're talking the retail aspect of it and those are examples are true. Can you name any examples on the manufacturing side at all, the product creation side. I can't, only trademark restrictions preventing naming of new things or post discovered infringement.

 

To make it clear an AIB is not a retailer so no retail examples applies. If GPP was between Amazon and Nvidia then we have an applicable example.

 

Not once have I ever seen Coke's contract with McDonalds put in to effect a name change of Pepsi products at KFC.