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

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

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 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.

No one has forced a name change of another companies product though.   There is a difference between saying "choose us or them for your brand" and "make a new brand for them".   No one has forced any of the AIB to change the name of their products, they were givent he same option that coke gave retailers,  sell ours or theirs in your store but not both.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No one has forced a name change of another companies product though.   There is a difference between saying "choose us or them for your brand" and "make a new brand for them".   No one has forced any of the AIB to change the name of their products, they were givent he same option that coke gave retailers,  sell ours or theirs in your store but not both.

There has, otherwise the AIB would not be in compliance and would be a breach of contract. To comply you must instate branding changes. This is why I've said before I blame Nvidia and am disappointed with AIBs. Without GPP the most likely situation would be business as usual no branding changes for anyone.

 

Nvidia knew what they were doing and what would happen, that is what I object to. I have no objections to an Nvidia "Intel Ultrabook" situation, I do object to this.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

There has, otherwise the AIB would not be in compliance and would be a breach of contract. To comply you must instate branding changes. This is why I've said before I blame Nvidia and am disappointed with AIBs. Without GPP the most likely situation would be business as usual no branding changes for anyone.

 

Nvidia knew what they were doing and what would happen, that is what I object to. I have no objections to an Nvidia "Intel Ultrabook" situation, I do object to this.

Object all you like, it's still common practice and optional. Unless you have evidence that GPP was forcing AIB's to ditch AMD on specific brands and not simply a one or the other contract. 

[leadeater]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Object all you like, it's still common practice and optional. Unless you have evidence that GPP was forcing AIB's to ditch AMD on specific brands and not simply a one or the other contract. 

Except I do not agree it's common practice because I do not agree those retail examples are applicable examples as they are entirely different types of contracts and apply to different areas of the industry.

 

If you can give an example that is not a retail example then I'd like to hear it.

 

Edit:

If it's so common then surely one must exist other than GPP.

[mr moose]

19 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Except I do not agree it's common practice because I do not agree those retail examples are applicable examples as they are entirely different types of contracts and apply to different areas of the industry.

 

If you can give an example that is not a retail example then I'd like to hear it.

 

Edit:

If it's so common then surely one must exist other than GPP.

There does, you just won't accept anything that retails.

[leadeater]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There does, you just won't accept anything that retails.

No because how does the retail and sale of a product have anything to do with the creation and manufacturing of it? We're not talking about the sale of AMD GPUs are we so how do those types of examples apply?

 

So no I won't accept retail examples so give me non retail examples if you want to make the claim this is common in the industry.

[mr moose]

Just now, leadeater said:

No because how does the retail and sale of a product have anything to do with the creation an manufacturing of it? We're not talking about the sale of AMD GPUs are we so how do those types of examples apply?

 

So no I won't accept retail examples so give me non retail examples if you want to make the claim this is common in the industry.

Because GPP doesn't force anyone to not make or change  AMD hardware. It simply states (as far as we know) that AIB's had to choose between AMD or Nvidia for each brand they wanted to sell.    I know it seems like a moot difference but it isn't.   Just becasue Asus decided to recreate arez doesn't mean they were forced to, for all we know they could have had the option to relegate arez to nvidia and keep ROG for AMD. 

 

 

[leadeater]

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Because GPP doesn't force anyone to not make or change  AMD hardware. It simply states (as far as we know) that AIB's had to choose between AMD or Nvidia for each brand they wanted to sell.    I know it seems like a moot difference but it isn't.   Just becasue Asus decided to recreate arez doesn't mean they were forced to, for all we know they could have had the option to relegate arez to nvidia and keep ROG for AMD. 

Yes I know and I have acknowledged this already, however as I've stated I blame Nvidia. I blame Nvidia because knowing the outcome is important to the action. If everything was exactly the same but Arez was applied to Nvidia then that is also fine as they themselves asked for branding restrictions in the contract, reap what you sow.

 

You think Nvidia didn't know full well how it would play out? You think Nvidia doesn't see those existing brands such as ROG as having value? If they have no value then it wouldn't really matter how the cards are branded and they would have just made up new branding in partnership with the AIBs to achieve the brand separation they wanted. Even if they have no value I still do not agree with Nvidia putting those branding requirements in in the manor it was done knowing how it would play out.

 

Companies are not our friends and customers shouldn't be companies friends either, if someone does something that you feel is not appropriate then it is within your right to say so. You'll either be listened to or you won't.

 

There are a lot of things GPP could have been or wasn't and the people objecting to it could have been completely wrong and the only party responsible for clearing that up is Nvidia. If the reporting so was incorrect and so far off base then it should have been easy and in Nvidia's best interested to head it off and clearly explain it rather than staying silent then having to cancel the program due to the misinformation then complain about it in their press release about the program cancellation.

 

If it was all for the consumers best interest then they can still try and put those changes through some other way or with a new program that is more clearly explained from the get go. Nothing is preventing Nvidia from doing good for their consumers as was stated they were trying to do you just have to actually show that is what it is for.

 

If the intent was for AIBs to make new brands for Nvidia and this was not done and Nvidia had also said that then I wouldn't be blaming Nvidia I would be blaming only the AIBs. I don't think Nvidia would have left it up to AIBs if this was supposed to happen it would have been clearly written.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yes I know and I have acknowledged this already, however as I've stated I blame Nvidia. I blame Nvidia because knowing the outcome is important to the action. If everything was exactly the same but Arez was applied to Nvidia then that is also fine as they themselves asked for branding restrictions in the contract, reap what you sow.

 

You think Nvidia didn't know full well how it would play out? You think Nvidia doesn't see those existing brands such as ROG as having value? If they have no value then it wouldn't really matter how the cards are branded and they would have just made up new branding in partnership with the AIBs to achieve the brand separation they wanted. Even if they have no value I still do not agree with Nvidia putting those branding requirements in in the manor it was done knowing how it would play out.

 

Companies are not our friends and customers shouldn't be companies friends either, if someone does something that you feel is not appropriate then it is within your right to say so. You'll either be listened to or you won't.

 

There are a lot of things GPP could have been or wasn't and the people objecting to it could have been completely wrong and the only party responsible for clearing that up is Nvidia. If the reporting so was incorrect and so far off base then it should have been easy and in Nvidia's best interested to head it off and clearly explain it rather than staying silent then having to cancel the program due to the misinformation then complain about it in their press release about the program cancellation.

 

If it was all for the consumers best interest then they can still try and put those changes through some other way or with a new program that is more clearly explained from the get go. Nothing is preventing Nvidia from doing good for their consumers as was stated they were trying to do you just have to actually show that is what it is for.

 

If the intent was for AIBs to make new brands for Nvidia and this was not done and Nvidia had also said that then I wouldn't be blaming Nvidia I would be blaming only the AIBs. I don't think Nvidia would have left it up to AIBs if this was supposed to happen it would have been clearly written.

 

I don't want to detract too far from the core issue here.  However this is a good read as it explains ingredient branding and how the process flips (consider Nvidia and AIBs when reading it and GPP makes lot more sense).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwiX8Nnc4pPbAhXMzLwKHQdzDkMQFghAMAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2Fcda%2Fcontent%2Fdocument%2Fcda_downloaddocument%2F9783642042133-c1.pdf%3FSGWID%3D0-0-45-932642-p173937529&usg=AOvVaw3oLtTZnuUuwD6A7bgdIYET

 

 

[leadeater]

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't want to detract too far from the core issue here.  However this is a good read as it explains ingredient branding and how the process flips (consider Nvidia and AIBs when reading it and GPP makes lot more sense).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwiX8Nnc4pPbAhXMzLwKHQdzDkMQFghAMAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2Fcda%2Fcontent%2Fdocument%2Fcda_downloaddocument%2F9783642042133-c1.pdf%3FSGWID%3D0-0-45-932642-p173937529&usg=AOvVaw3oLtTZnuUuwD6A7bgdIYET

Damn that needs a TL;DR . Only at page 18 FYI. Wouldn't the use of GeForce in the product name already be InBranding?

[mr moose]

Just now, leadeater said:

Damn that needs a TL;DR . Only at page 18 FYI. Wouldn't the use of GeForce in the product name already be InBranding?

Yes it is,  Just like using Vega or RX *** . 

 

Nvidia is now entering the Fiesco-Efect stage.  Basically nvidia is too big and control both push and pull mechanism of brand marketing (not bad thing in itself, just nature of the beast).  AIB's have by virtue of the market become unintentional contract manufacturers of sorts.    GPP was a way of controlling the way it's products are branded and marketed.  I am sure if the tables were turned AMD would have done the same (assuming they haven't already), not because companies wish to be evil or controlling, but because market economics means they all must strive for absolutes.  Stack em high and watch em fly!  as the saying goes.

[Trixanity]

As nice as it is to compare to other industries it often isn't really applicable. There are common laws, then there are specific laws and finally we have these gentleman agreements and by extension how the industry actually operates. No one has been able to prove that Nvidia didn't try to set a precedent. 

The GPU business has been perfectly fine until now but Nvidia had to rock the boat because the opportunity to fuck with the GPU business arose. 

Nvidia didn't have to do this so there really isn't any reason to defend or help Nvidia. It's like getting stabbed in the back and telling your attacker he missed a spot. Nvidia did not have good intentions either. It was bad for everyone but Nvidia hence the backpedaling we see.

 

So can we just put this to rest and enjoy our victory instead of rationalizing that the defeated weren't all that bad like it's some Scooby Doo villain?

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

As nice as it is to compare to other industries it often isn't really applicable. There are common laws, then there are specific laws and finally we have these gentleman agreements and by extension how the industry actually operates. No one has been able to prove that Nvidia didn't try to set a precedent. 

There is no evidence you didn't try to steal lollies,  therefore I am going to assume you did.

Burden of proof rest on those who make the claim, not others to disprove it.

 

2 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

The GPU business has been perfectly fine until now but Nvidia had to rock the boat because the opportunity to fuck with the GPU business arose. 

Nvidia didn't have to do this so there really isn't any reason to defend or help Nvidia. It's like getting stabbed in the back and telling your attacker he missed a spot. Nvidia did not have good intentions either. It was bad for everyone but Nvidia hence the backpedaling we see.

It's a really long read and kinda boring if you're not into this business practices and marketing etc, but the link I posted above goes into great detail about branding and in branding why ingredient manufacturers (nvidia) operate the way they do. 

 

 

[Trixanity]

52 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There is no evidence you didn't try to steal lollies,  therefore I am going to assume you did.

Burden of proof rest on those who make the claim, not others to disprove it.

 

It's a really long read and kinda boring if you're not into this business practices and marketing etc, but the link I posted above goes into great detail about branding and in branding why ingredient manufacturers (nvidia) operate the way they do. 

 

 

The gpp is over yet you still speak as if it wasn't that bad and as if we lost something valuable. There is no reason to trudge around in it if we agree that it was good riddance. Apparently it wasn't salvageable for Nvidia so if Nvidia didn't want to keep it why would you still favor it with platitudes?

 

I haven't read the document. Just glanced. I'm familiar with some of it. However just because someone does something in general doesn't mean it's good or it fits everywhere. We've had AIB branding for a while. That's how it's been. Nvidia wanted to take control back which is against market interests and how it has worked wonderfully for years. AIBs should control their own branding, not Nvidia. There has yet to be an argument against this that isn't solely for the benefit of Nvidia alone. Benefiting Nvidia alone is terrible for everyone else.

 

[dtaflorida]

On 5/18/2018 at 1:53 PM, Trixanity said:

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

They're easily distinguishable NOW. But you trust AMD not to mess around with the naming to confuse consumers? 

[Trixanity]

26 minutes ago, dtaflorida said:

They're easily distinguishable NOW. But you trust AMD not to mess around with the naming to confuse consumers? 

Are you honestly saying they'll retire the Radeon branding of 20 years? That's ridiculous.

Model numbers aren't following Nvidia either. There is no chance that what you're suggesting will come to pass. The earliest opportunity will be in 2020 with the next generation arch where it's likely they'll change models numbers but not the Radeon brand. It's still unlikely they'll use model numbers close to Nvidia's.

 

The only thing AMD has done recently is follow the naming scheme of Intel's chipsets which is a double-edged sword:

it's easier to see where the product fits in the stack in relation to Intel but they're close enough to Intel's that they're essentially overlapping which becomes incredibly stupid very quickly and it has already. So the way to circumvent that is sort by socket. However it mostly pertains to the HEDT and budget chipsets (ie Xx99 series and Bx50 series).

They kinda did the same with the CPUs themselves (3/5/7) but they're very distinguishable despite that due to model numbers and Ryzen branding. I do hope that with Zen2 they shuffle the chipset naming but until then: sort by socket. 

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, Trixanity said:

The gpp is over yet you still speak as if it wasn't that bad and as if we lost something valuable.

 

huh?

11 hours ago, Trixanity said:

There is no reason to trudge around in it if we agree that it was good riddance. Apparently it wasn't salvageable for Nvidia so if Nvidia didn't want to keep it why would you still favor it with platitudes?

Where did I do that?  I am merely pointing out it is not an uncommon business practice and we have no evidence it was the devil incarnate. 

 

11 hours ago, Trixanity said:

I haven't read the document. Just glanced. I'm familiar with some of it. However just because someone does something in general doesn't mean it's good or it fits everywhere.

No you need to judge it case by it's own merits.  Sadly a skill lacking in many people these days.  We know next to nothing about GPP other than some superficial commentary and people like your self are so enraged with it when someone like me points out the lack of evidence and the reasoning behind it (with relevant industry documentation) you assume I am making out to be something better than it was.  Absolutely not, my point has always been that we don;t know the full implication so making claims about it being one thing or the other is disingenuous at best.

11 hours ago, Trixanity said:

 

We've had AIB branding for a while. That's how it's been. Nvidia wanted to take control back which is against market interests and how it has worked wonderfully for years. AIBs should control their own branding, not Nvidia. There has yet to be an argument against this that isn't solely for the benefit of Nvidia alone. Benefiting Nvidia alone is terrible for everyone else.

 

I really suggest you rad that article I linked. 

[laminutederire]

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

Object all you like, it's still common practice and optional. Unless you have evidence that GPP was forcing AIB's to ditch AMD on specific brands and not simply a one or the other contract. 

Object all you like but Nvidia is still shady as hell. Case in point their whole argument for GPP was to clarify choices for consumer with their current gen plagued of confusing names. That's 3 product name confusion just this gen.

From this, without questioning legality, GPP seems like a clear intention to harm AMD directly, as the given motives are just false since they create themselves confusion happily.

 

So you get a company in dominance trying to harm the only other company of their market. Just from this you can gather that affecting changes can lead to just a few cases: either it's an illegal contract, in which case it's won, or it's not an illegal contract, but it may arguably be considered as illegal for anti competitive reasons, which are more fluid than contracts law because of the fact that the appreciation of market dominance etc is a bit ambiguous sometimes.

 

In all cases, without knowing the contract itself, the intent itself is arguably well defined by what you can guess from the outside. That intent being anti-competitive in itself.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Object all you like but Nvidia is still shady as hell. Case in point their whole argument for GPP was to clarify choices for consumer with their current gen plagued of confusing names. That's 3 product name confusion just this gen.

From this, without questioning legality, GPP seems like a clear intention to harm AMD directly, as the given motives are just false since they create themselves confusion happily.

I never said anything about it being consumer driven, in fact if anyone would bother treading the link I posted it would be quite clear this type of business practice has nothing to do with consumer communication.  There is a huge difference between something being shady, wrong, illegal or just plan misunderstood.  You can be displeased all you want, but that doesn't suddenly make one of those possabilities any more real than the others.

 

5 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

So you get a company in dominance trying to harm the only other company of their market. Just from this you can gather that affecting changes can lead to just a few cases: either it's an illegal contract, in which case it's won, or it's not an illegal contract, but it may arguably be considered as illegal for anti competitive reasons, which are more fluid than contracts law because of the fact that the appreciation of market dominance etc is a bit ambiguous sometimes.

 

In all cases, without knowing the contract itself, the intent itself is arguably well defined by what you can guess from the outside. That intent being anti-competitive in itself.

Again, please read the article I linked above.  Everyone thinks they understand what constitutes illegal, abnormal and anti consumer. The reality is though that no one here has any real idea,  yet they most are happy to jump headlong into the assumption of worst case scenario.

[laminutederire]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

It has more to do with the fact that laws differ a lot on those matter between countries!

[mr moose]

Just now, laminutederire said:

It has more to do with the fact that laws differ a lot on those matter between countries!

I argue it has more to do with people not understanding law.   Case in point,  if the laws vary so much between countries yet majority of people on these forums believe GPP contravenes laws, then either the laws do not vary that much or people just think because they don't like something it must be illegal.    My experience of forums like this is that it is the later.

[aezakmi]

Be like MSI, use the same heatsink covers for nvidia and AMD cards

 

They'd need to produce a couple more covers and backplates for nvidia cards and then kill the brand without triggering anyone

[laminutederire]

59 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I argue it has more to do with people not understanding law.   Case in point,  if the laws vary so much between countries yet majority of people on these forums believe GPP contravenes laws, then either the laws do not vary that much or people just think because they don't like something it must be illegal.    My experience of forums like this is that it is the later.

Good thing is that one thing is always true: consumers always will lose, And will lose their minds over everything else than the fact they lose.

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I never said anything about it being consumer driven, in fact if anyone would bother treading the link I posted it would be quite clear this type of business practice has nothing to do with consumer communication.  There is a huge difference between something being shady, wrong, illegal or just plan misunderstood.  You can be displeased all you want, but that doesn't suddenly make one of those possabilities any more real than the others.

 

Again, please read the article I linked above.  Everyone thinks they understand what constitutes illegal, abnormal and anti consumer. The reality is though that no one here has any real idea,  yet they most are happy to jump headlong into the assumption of worst case scenario.

Entire post got deleted so I'm not gonna bother too much so you'll get the Cliff's notes:

 

• No one said it's illegal
• A dick move is still a dick move whether it's legal or not and whether it can be proven in court or not
• Not enraged but it's tedious to argue with someone deliberately playing devil's advocate with no good reason
• No textbook you read 10 years ago back in school will exonerate Nvidia
• It's detrimental to consumers and AIBs
• Nvidia has its branding. It's called GeForce. Claiming AIB branding is a dick move.
• Nvidia's power move may be the most brilliant ever but it doesn't help anyone else
• If we all know so little, how can you argue either way?
• The Asus debacle is proof enough something was up
• The Asus debacle does not prove everything levied against Nvidia
• ??
• Profit

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, Trixanity said:

The only thing AMD has done recently is follow the naming scheme of Intel's chipsets which is a double-edged sword:

What about the R5, R7 and R9 GPU naming which is also like Intel i series naming. Guess AMD only likes to copy Intel and not Nvidia.