Jump to content

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

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:

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

Yes they did, in lots of threads.

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:
  • 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 saying it isn't (I don;t know the pertinent details), and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:
  • Not enraged but it's tedious to argue with someone deliberately playing devil's advocate with no good reason

Call it playing devils advocate if you wan't (I don;t consider it that), but if you find discussing these things tedious then stay off the forums.

 

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:
  • No textbook you read 10 years ago back in school will exonerate Nvidia

Not if you don't read them and educate yourself.

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:
  • It's detrimental to consumers and AIBs

Personal opinion based on superficial information.

 

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:
  • Nvidia has its branding. It's called GeForce. Claiming AIB branding is a dick move.

Again failing to educate yourself on market branding (in-brand and co-brand) will only result in thinking with emotions rather than facts.

 

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:
  • Nvidia's power move may be the most brilliant ever but it doesn't help anyone else

Read the damn link and you'll understand why the power is their in the first place and why they can't always just sit idle.

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:
  • If we all know so little, how can you argue either way?

You aren't reading my posts if you think I am arguing either way, I have already stated clearly that I am not arguing a conclusion other than their is not sufficient evidence to lay such absolute claims as people are.

 

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:
  • The Asus debacle is proof enough something was up
  • The Asus debacle does not prove everything levied against Nvidia

??  either it is or it isn't,  or perchance what I have been saying since the start holds true.  there isn't enough evidence to make this thing absolute in one direction or another.

 

 

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:
  • Profit

 

All companies aim for profit, those that don't are either nonprofit organisations or get brought out buy a larger company seeking to make profit.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

Yes they did, in lots of threads.

Not saying it isn't (I don;t know the pertinent details), and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

Call it playing devils advocate if you wan't (I don;t consider it that), but if you find discussing these things tedious then stay off the forums.

 

Not if you don't read them and educate yourself.

Personal opinion based on superficial information.

 

Again failing to educate yourself on market branding (in-brand and co-brand) will only result in thinking with emotions rather than facts.

 

Read the damn link and you'll understand why the power is their in the first place and why they can't always just sit idle.

You aren't reading my posts if you think I am arguing either way, I have already stated clearly that I am not arguing a conclusion other than their is not sufficient evidence to lay such absolute claims as people are.

 

??  either it is or it isn't,  or perchance what I have been saying since the start holds true.  there isn't enough evidence to make this thing absolute in one direction or another.

 

 

 

All companies aim for profit, those that don't are either nonprofit organisations or get brought out buy a larger company seeking to make profit.

Yes, but we're not married so it isn't pertinent to refer to previous threads. And sure, I may have missed some in this thread. 

 

You're misunderstanding me, bro. The forum isn't tedious. You're tedious. There's a difference. Taking a contrary position just for the sake of doing it is tedious to most people.

 

You're essentially pulling a Patrick: he used to either post no sources or when he did he'd refer to obscure things and asking you to read his textbooks - essentially making the whole thing moot. If I wanted to continue studying business, I wouldn't have changed courses. Especially American books. They spent 40 pages on what could be done in 10. As I said, I glanced through it. If you really want to post your college textbooks then pull out the important bits instead of giving me fluff. I hate unnecessary fluff. It's so easy to say educate yourself: I could hand you my textbooks and ask you to read them as well. But no, I'd give you the necessary bits instead. That's what any decent person would do and would ease debating instead of pushing your college marketing curriculum as prerequisite to participation. Also, I can only find one book referring to the subject you keep bringing up - pretty much all the links on the first page of Google lead to the author of the book you're linking. I find that highly dubious. . So we should just trust one source? I'd expect multiple sources if the terminology you insist on using was so widespread. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean the concept doesn't exist or that it's new. More like the author just wants to coin a term for something already known.

 

Nvidia pulled the plug on this thing. They wouldn't if they had a case to move forward. Any decent negotiator (read The Art of the Deal - it's explained in there or so I heard) would have been able to keep the program if they really wanted to. There are so many ways to play this that could overcome negative sentiment. I mean have you seen how politicians push through policies that are unpopular? They have a playbook to get shit done. So Nvidia pulling the plug at the slightest resistance pretty much puts a bullet through any notion that GPP was benign or workable all things considered. 

I mean unless you're pulling the OJ defense on Nvidia's behalf except in this case the glove does seem to fit. Can you argue it doesn't? From what you're saying no because there is no info or no info that is accurate enough for your taste. So isn't this entire thing moot? Are we just arguing unnecessarily? Or is what you're about just knocking down any discussion of GPP because 'no info'. If so, why? 

 

However, so many things have been leaked or dug up. A lot of it may be fake but do you really think every single thing revealed has been fabricated? It would be so easy for Nvidia to either disprove falsehoods or rework the program (and by rework I mean they could simply change the wording but accomplish the same thing or they could actually change it) to keep it going. You're the only one saying there is merit in Nvidia keeping it going and that it's not so bad. Do you really think putting restraints on AIBs and limiting the strength of AMD's market position is good for consumers? We need competition. This would very likely reduce it further than it already is. Nvidia isn't idle by any means. That's something you've made up. Nvidia is spearheading a lot of things right now.

 

Would Nvidia benefit from this program? Yes. No one is saying they aren't. It seems what you're trying to say is that it also creates value for AIBs and for consumers. And Nvidia are already doing the god damn thing you're saying. GeForce is their brand and what creates demand. It's the push and pull you're describing. What GPP is isn't that. It's capturing AIB branding so that it becomes synonymous with Nvidia. So that Nvidia becomes more ingrained with each AIB so that ROG means Nvidia, MSI Gaming means Nvidia, Gigabyte Aorus means Nvidia. But that's fucking stupid. Intel, which is referenced in your book as a prime example, has as far as I know not done the same. They did what Nvidia has done for the past 20 years: pushed the AIBs to market their products heavily with Intel Inside and stickers all over the damn laptop. That's how the industry has done things so far and Nvidia has (allegedly) tried to change that. Intel Inside was what consumers wanted and what companies wanted. 

 

If this new program created so much value why would Asus backpedal on AREZ? They had already spent money and other resources on creating the brand only to trash it at the first opportunity. It's supposed to be a positive thing to associate your best products with Nvidia, right?

It seems to me the industry wanted the status quo of AIBs choosing (with limitations) how to market their products. No one likes handcuffs (well, some are into that sort of thing - I don't judge).

 

Even now people flock towards anything with GeForce or Nvidia in it, so yes this move was unnecessary. Nvidia owns the mind share of practically everyone. "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" won that battle over 10 years ago. The Nvidia brand has never been stronger than it is now but of course it's never enough so Nvidia tried and failed to further cement that strength - with intentions to make it irreparable for their competitors especially with Intel making moves in the GPU business. It would have been brilliant if they had pulled it off. Of course all this is allegedly. Wouldn't want to step on anyone's toes.

 

Also, the last part was all meme so don't know why you're taking that seriously.

 

All text in this post is hypothetical and of course all alleged things. GPP is of course a hoax meant to slander Nvidia with no basis in fact and of course has no merit. All hail our graphical overlords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

Well, shit. I was only thinking of AMD CPUs to Intel CPUs and likewise AMD GPUs to Nvidia GPUs.

But honestly, I wouldn't expect anyone confuse an R5 GPU for an i5 CPU but of course nothing should surprise me at this point.

 

Really though, I'm quite sure the AMD marketing teams for each segment are quite independent in that regard so I don't think there is a concerted effort to subvert their competitor's naming schemes. The only effort I can see is the chipset names which are a little too close for comfort. They really should backpedal on it. A lot of backpedaling is needed these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why Asus spent a lot of money to make a new brand, just to kill it off the second GPP is cancelled. It's almost as if Asus was forced to do it by GPP. 

Watching Intel have competition is like watching a headless chicken trying to get out of a mine field

CPU: Intel I7 4790K@4.6 with NZXT X31 AIO; MOTHERBOARD: ASUS Z97 Maximus VII Ranger; RAM: 8 GB Kingston HyperX 1600 DDR3; GFX: ASUS R9 290 4GB; CASE: Lian Li v700wx; STORAGE: Corsair Force 3 120GB SSD; Samsung 850 500GB SSD; Various old Seagates; PSU: Corsair RM650; MONITOR: 2x 20" Dell IPS; KEYBOARD/MOUSE: Logitech K810/ MX Master; OS: Windows 10 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Notional said:

I wonder why Asus spent a lot of money to make a new brand, just to kill it off the second GPP is cancelled. It's almost as if Asus was forced to do it by GPP. 

How dare you! We know Asus was only doing for lulz, you have no proof this has anything do with NVIDIA.

5950X | NH D15S | 64GB 3200Mhz | RTX 3090 | ASUS PG348Q+MG278Q

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Yes, but we're not married so it isn't pertinent to refer to previous threads. And sure, I may have missed some in this thread. 

???  then don't tell people they are wrong if you haven;t bothered checking to see.

 

8 hours ago, Trixanity said:

You're misunderstanding me, bro. The forum isn't tedious. You're tedious. There's a difference. Taking a contrary position just for the sake of doing it is tedious to most people.

If you think I am tedious why bother discussing?  why bother with the wall of text to prove a point that is tedious prove?   Leave the personal attacks at the door please.  Either discuss or don't.  your attitude is borderline trolling. 

 

8 hours ago, Trixanity said:

You're essentially pulling a Patrick: he used to either post no sources or when he did he'd refer to obscure things and asking you to read his textbooks - essentially making the whole thing moot. If I wanted to continue studying business, I wouldn't have changed courses. Especially American books. They spent 40 pages on what could be done in 10. As I said, I glanced through it. If you really want to post your college textbooks then pull out the important bits instead of giving me fluff. I hate unnecessary fluff. It's so easy to say educate yourself: I could hand you my textbooks and ask you to read them as well. But no, I'd give you the necessary bits instead. That's what any decent person would do and would ease debating instead of pushing your college marketing curriculum as prerequisite to participation. Also, I can only find one book referring to the subject you keep bringing up - pretty much all the links on the first page of Google lead to the author of the book you're linking. I find that highly dubious. . So we should just trust one source? I'd expect multiple sources if the terminology you insist on using was so widespread. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean the concept doesn't exist or that it's new. More like the author just wants to coin a term for something already known.

Your desire not to read the information given is not a reflection on my understanding nor on the relevance of my  posts.

 

8 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Nvidia pulled the plug on this thing. They wouldn't if they had a case to move forward. Any decent negotiator (read The Art of the Deal - it's explained in there or so I heard) would have been able to keep the program if they really wanted to. There are so many ways to play this that could overcome negative sentiment. I mean have you seen how politicians push through policies that are unpopular? They have a playbook to get shit done. So Nvidia pulling the plug at the slightest resistance pretty much puts a bullet through any notion that GPP was benign or workable all things considered. 

Clearly they decided it wasn't worth all the hubbub.  You do realise that giving up that easily is also an indicator that the whole program was not worth the PR.  That means it is just as likely (if not more) that the whole arrangement of GPP was not going to bring in enough revenue to justify the PR costs. 

 

8 hours ago, Trixanity said:

I mean unless you're pulling the OJ defense on Nvidia's behalf except in this case the glove does seem to fit. Can you argue it doesn't? From what you're saying no because there is no info or no info that is accurate enough for your taste. So isn't this entire thing moot? Are we just arguing unnecessarily? Or is what you're about just knocking down any discussion of GPP because 'no info'. If so, why? 

Again, you are trying to insinuate a conclusion based on perceived evidence.  All I am saying is you can't do that while you are hell bent on assuming I am.

 

8 hours ago, Trixanity said:

However, so many things have been leaked or dug up. A lot of it may be fake but do you really think every single thing revealed has been fabricated?

No,  I don't. Because I don't waste time trying to draw conclusions from gossip.   

8 hours ago, Trixanity said:

It would be so easy for Nvidia to either disprove falsehoods or rework the program (and by rework I mean they could simply change the wording but accomplish the same thing or they could actually change it) to keep it going.

Or it's just as easy to can the program because it was never as big of a thing for Nvidia as people are making out.  Many possibilities, why are you hell bent on concluding only a few possibilities and dismissing the rest? All possible reasons have equal evidence to support them?

8 hours ago, Trixanity said:

You're the only one saying there is merit in Nvidia keeping it going and that it's not so bad.

 

No, For the 3rd time (in this thread), I am saying the branding contracts are not abnormal business practice and there isn't any evidence to conclude it's all bad.  There is a difference here. I am not saying it's good, I'm just saying there is no evidence it's bad.  Why can't you understand this?

 

8 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Do you really think putting restraints on AIBs and limiting the strength of AMD's market position is good for consumers? We need competition. This would very likely reduce it further than it already is. Nvidia isn't idle by any means. That's something you've made up. Nvidia is spearheading a lot of things right now.

 

Would Nvidia benefit from this program? Yes. No one is saying they aren't. It seems what you're trying to say is that it also creates value for AIBs and for consumers. And Nvidia are already doing the god damn thing you're saying. GeForce is their brand and what creates demand. It's the push and pull you're describing. What GPP is isn't that. It's capturing AIB branding so that it becomes synonymous with Nvidia. So that Nvidia becomes more ingrained with each AIB so that ROG means Nvidia, MSI Gaming means Nvidia, Gigabyte Aorus means Nvidia. But that's fucking stupid. Intel, which is referenced in your book as a prime example, has as far as I know not done the same. They did what Nvidia has done for the past 20 years: pushed the AIBs to market their products heavily with Intel Inside and stickers all over the damn laptop. That's how the industry has done things so far and Nvidia has (allegedly) tried to change that. Intel Inside was what consumers wanted and what companies wanted. 

Again if you are not going to read the article I linked and apply yourself to understanding what it is I am talking about then stop responding to me.  You keep assuming I am saying something thing that is wrong but you are missing the point entirely.    Intel is even mentioned quite heavily in the article as an example of in-brand and co-brand contracts.

 

8 hours ago, Trixanity said:

If this new program created so much value why would Asus backpedal on AREZ? They had already spent money and other resources on creating the brand only to trash it at the first opportunity. It's supposed to be a positive thing to associate your best products with Nvidia, right?

You have to ask Asus that.  If they ditch it as quickly ass they made it it's not likely they invested that much into it, half a web page and some stickers by the sound of it.

 

8 hours ago, Trixanity said:

It seems to me the industry wanted the status quo of AIBs choosing (with limitations) how to market their products. No one likes handcuffs (well, some are into that sort of thing - I don't judge).

 

Even now people flock towards anything with GeForce or Nvidia in it, so yes this move was unnecessary. Nvidia owns the mind share of practically everyone. "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" won that battle over 10 years ago. The Nvidia brand has never been stronger than it is now but of course it's never enough so Nvidia tried and failed to further cement that strength - with intentions to make it irreparable for their competitors especially with Intel making moves in the GPU business. It would have been brilliant if they had pulled it off. Of course all this is allegedly. Wouldn't want to step on anyone's toes.

You clearly do not understand business.  Sorry, I know you are trying hard to make your point relevant but the reality is it doesn't matter how strong a product is in any market, all companies work harder and market harder to keep them there.    Resting on your laurels ends in lost revenue and crap returns, especially in an industry that evolves as fast as this. 

 

8 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Also, the last part was all meme so don't know why you're taking that seriously.

 

All text in this post is hypothetical and of course all alleged things. GPP is of course a hoax meant to slander Nvidia with no basis in fact and of course has no merit. All hail our graphical overlords.

A word is not a meme, it made just as much sense as the rest of your post so there is no reason to assume it was anything different.  

 

Your very last line indicates you lack of reading comprehension.  If you truly believe any of what you posted then you are not reading what I am posting.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

No, For the 3rd time (in this thread), I am saying the branding contracts are not abnormal business practice and there isn't any evidence to conclude it's all bad.  There is a difference here. I am not saying it's good, I'm just saying there is no evidence it's bad.  Why can't you understand this?

No one was really saying branding contracts are abnormal, the specifics of how it is being done which is the important part. Specifics matter especially if people are going to go down the legality line, not that I am going down the legal line myself.

 

There actually does need to be a distinction between different types of branding contracts and what is and is not acceptable. We can't very well say all branding contracts are ok can we, some could very well not be.

 

Unlike what was mentioned in that branding literature AIBs also have their own branding which is used across products, from different InBrand suppliers, which is a much more complex situation. Unlike a bicycle with Shimano running gear that creates a singular product and a singular InBranding or CoBranding deal graphics cards are not this.

 

Graphics cards from AIBs currently have a 3 party co-sharing of branding, Nvidia might not like it this way but if they want to change it more care needs to be done in how they do it. It is not acceptable in my view to take over this existing branding which is also being used on non Nvidia products, not just AMD as well. The acceptable way is to work with AIBs to make new exclusive branding. Nvidia evidently was the only party involved that does not like the current way branding is handled so if they want it changed they need to work with AIBs not force their hand.

 

Before you reply to that last sentence keep in mind the confirmation from Asus of the end to Arez, if they or AMD wanted it then it would not have been cancelled. This is not a stretch too far to read in to, you don't end things you want like has transpired, you keep it.

 

It's not a matter of what they want that is bad it's how they went about it, good intentions aren't enough.

 

Edit:

And yes Nvidia products were always going to be given the current branding with the way it was handled, AIBs are businesses too and will not hurt their revenue and creating new branding for Nvidia products would do exactly that. Asus wants ROG on Nvidia GPUs, they also want it on AMD GPUs but if forced to pick it goes to Nvidia. Business is business, root cause still goes to Nvidia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Notional said:

I wonder why Asus spent a lot of money to make a new brand, just to kill it off the second GPP is cancelled. It's almost as if Asus was forced to do it by GPP. 

 

#faketweet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No one was really saying branding contracts are abnormal, the specifics of how it is being done which is the important part. Specifics matter especially if people are going to go down the legality line, not that I am going down the legal line myself.

 

NO, but they are making all manor of claims about legality and concluding the whole thing is evil incarnate based on what?  Personal opinions.   The difference between Me and Trixanity in this thread is I am not accusing other people of saying  things they aren't and I am not telling people their opinions are wrong.  I am telling people there is no evidence to make some of the more absolute claims that have been. 

 

Quote

There actually does need to be a distinction between different types of branding contracts and what is and is not acceptable. We can't very well say all branding contracts are ok can we, some could very well not be.

Exactly, so without knowing the particulars about GPP why are people so sure this one is bad?

 

Quote

Unlike what was mentioned in that branding literature AIBs also have their own branding which is used across products, from different InBrand suppliers, which is a much more complex situation. Unlike a bicycle with Shimano running gear that creates a singular product and a singular InBranding or CoBranding deal graphics cards are not this.

But the premise is the same.  It is a way of dealing with market perception of your brand.  Nvidia's brand is more powerful than Asus or MSI's etc. It is the core component that makes the product what it is.   However their market presence is greatly at the mercy of AIB companies and their products.   

 

Quote

Graphics cards from AIBs currently have a 3 party co-sharing of branding, Nvidia might not like it this way but if they want to change it more care needs to be done in how they do it. It is not acceptable in my view to take over this existing branding which is also being used on non Nvidia products, not just AMD as well. The acceptable way is to work with AIBs to make new exclusive branding. Nvidia evidently was the only party involved that does not like the current way branding is handled so if they want it changed they need to work with AIBs not force their hand.

That is because nvidia have moved into the 4th stage (the feasco stage) where they are in control of everything.   Intel were their a while back and decided to behave in an anti trust manor.  Many component manufacturers in automotive are borderline close and nvidia is there now.  If AMD was in Nvidias shoes you can bet your arse they would be doing exactly the same.  However all of this does not intrinsically lead to proof GPP was evil, that is purely as matter of personal opinion.

 

Quote

 

Before you reply to that last sentence keep in mind the confirmation from Asus of the end to Arez, if they or AMD wanted it then it would not have been cancelled. This is not a stretch too far to read in to, you don't end things you want like has transpired, you keep it.

It is what it is,  without GPP there is no need for it.  Clearly they did not invest enough in it to warrant keeping it, just like Nvidia didn't invest enough in GPP to warrant fighting for it. If we are going to assume they gave up so easily because it wasn't worth their money then you must apply the same reasoning to Nvidia yes?

 

Quote

It's not a matter of what they want that is bad it's how they went about it, good intentions aren't enough.

 

How do you or I know how they went about it was intrinsically bad, No one is talking about it and the consequences we see from it are several stages removed from the actual.  What we perceive is not enough to conclude absolutes.

 

 

EDIT: just to be clear I think people need to learn the difference between a claim and an opinion:

 

opinion:  GPP is bad

Claim: GPP is illegal.

Opinion: GPP seems anti consumer

claim: GPP is anti consumer

 

That's the difference.  One is fine and promotes discussion, the other is an outright claim that either has merit or can be contested.  I see no point in contesting opinions unless they are worded to insinuate facts that aren't evidential.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Is it actually?

 

It is if you don't believe the GPP was a thing or an issue. Everything that possible could signal the GPP or be any sort of way against the GPP is obviously fake news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

If the end result is Nvidia getting exclusive access to the current branding for their GPUs then this is the how it is handled I do no agree with. I do not agree because ROG and many other brands have been built up by those AIBs with contributing products from more than just Nvidia and there are now products under those brands that have nothing to do with Nvidia, AMD or Intel (except for G-sync minitors).

 

There isn't much room to dance around this part of it which is the part I do not agree with, Nvidia either needs to accept sharing that AIB controlled and owned branding or strike a deal for something new, there isn't any other way that I will agree with.

 

Hence the how it was handled point.

 

Edit: corrected no to now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DoctorWho1975 said:

It is if you don't believe the GPP was a thing or an issue. Everything that possible could signal the GPP or be any sort of way against the GPP is obviously fake news.

Well I asked because I checked the account and it's not verified so it very well could be lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, leadeater said:

If the end result is Nvidia getting exclusive access to the current branding for their GPUs then this is the how it is handled I do no agree with. I do not agree because ROG and many other brands have been built up by those AIBs with contributing products from more than just Nvidia and there are no products under those brands that have nothing to do with Nvidia, AMD or Intel (except for G-sync minitors).

 

There isn't much room to dance around this part of it which is the part I do not agree with, Nvidia either needs to accept sharing that AIB controlled and owned branding or strike and deal for something new, there isn't any other way that I will agree with.

 

Hence the how it was handled point.

Except  we have no evidence nvidia demanded access to ROG.  All we know is they want AIB partners to choose between AMD and Nvidia for each of their brands.  Just because asus decided to give ROG to nvidia isn't proof nvidia demanded it. 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DoctorWho1975 said:

 

It is if you don't believe the GPP was a thing or an issue. Everything that possible could signal the GPP or be any sort of way against the GPP is obviously fake news.

You know people can have the opinion GPP wasn't a major issue without being ignorant or blinkered.  As far as I am concerned unless these contracts get subpoenaed or somehow come into the public domain we are never going to know. 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, mr moose said:

Except  we have no evidence nvidia demanded access to ROG.  All we know is they want AIB partners to choose between AMD and Nvidia for each of their brands.  Just because asus decided to give ROG to nvidia isn't proof nvidia demanded it. 

That's not the point, we can see they didn't strike a deal for new branding otherwise we would have seen the announcement and know it's name. Maybe GPP got killed too soon and it was actually in there but if Asus had the time to announce Arez they had the time to announce an Nvidia one if there was one.

 

My claim is not that they asked for ROG my point is Nvidia knew they would get it, it was a certainty so you don't need to ask for it and actually doing so would look much worse as you have it in writing.

 

Nvidia putting in no effort to partner with AIBs and putting marketing money in to new branding is the issue, AIBs won't fund it themselves unless they have to (Arez, Nvidia wont be paying for that will they).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That's not the point, we can see they didn't strike a deal for new branding otherwise we would have seen the announcement and know it's name. Maybe GPP got killed too soon and it was actually in there but if Asus had the time to announce Arez they had the time to announce an Nvidia one if there was one.

Yet they didn't and we are relegated to maybe's.

 

Quote

My claim is not that they asked for ROG my point is Nvidia knew they would get it, it was a certainty so you don't need to ask for it and actually doing so would look much worse as you have it in writing.

Again so?  this isn't a damning activity by any company.  The resolve is always to strengthen your position.  Just because the likelihood of Asus going with second best GPU in their top tier product is excessively low,  does not make the program intrinsically evil, just market capitalization.  

 

Quote

Nvidia putting in no effort to partner with AIBs and putting marketing money in to new branding is the issue, AIBs won't fund it themselves unless they have to (Arez, Nvidia wont be paying for that will they).

Why should they? their product has more brand power. Like it or not but the thing that sells most of any AIB's cards is the chip not the brand.  therefore, like in all business, if a company wants to succeed they need to invest in their success.  If Asus is sitting waiting for any company to come along and support them then they are dead in the water.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Yet they didn't and we are relegated to maybe's.

 

Again so?  this isn't a damning activity by any company.  The resolve is always to strengthen your position.  Just because the likelihood of Asus going with second best GPU in their top tier product is excessively low,  does not make the program intrinsically evil, just market capitalization.  

 

Why should they? their product has more brand power. Like it or not but the thing that sells most of any AIB's cards is the chip not the brand.  therefore, like in all business, if a company wants to succeed they need to invest in their success.  If Asus is sitting waiting for any company to come along and support them then they are dead in the water.

I'm not saying the program is evil, I'm saying the end result of getting exclusive access to ROG for graphics cards and benefiting from that branding is not acceptable.

 

To repeat my justification of why, Nvidia is not the only contributor to that brand, financially and product wise, so any end result with Nvidia graphics cards having exclusive access to it I won't agree with. That's just the way it is for me. I don't accept companies gaining in such a way from others like that, it's just wrong.

 

Why should Nvidia benefit from the ROG brand when some of that comes from Motherboards, monitors, laptops, keyboard/mice/headsets + accessories, routers. It's not for Nvidia to have, they can share it if they wish but if they want their own then they must make it, even if ultimately is sub branding under ROG if that's what they want but something that is the AIBs and is used on many products is not for Nvidia's to have unless they are the sole contributor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I'm not saying the program is evil, I'm saying the end result of getting exclusive access to ROG for graphics cards and benefiting from that branding is not acceptable.

 

To repeat my justification of why, Nvidia is not the only contributor to that brand, financially and product wise, so any end result with Nvidia graphics cards having exclusive access to it I won't agree with. That's just the way it is for me. I don't accept companies gaining in such a way from others like that, it's just wrong.

 

Why should Nvidia benefit from the ROG brand when some of that comes from Motherboards, monitors, laptops, keyboard/mice/headsets + accessories, routers. It's not for Nvidia to have, they can share it if they wish but if they want their own then they must make it, even if ultimately is sub branding under ROG if that's what they want but something that is the AIBs and is used on many products is not for Nvidia's to have unless they are the sole contributor.

I pointed out long ago i didn't agree on them getting rog for same reasons

But if we knew nvidia bought it out so be it 

we never was given any info on that either and yes mdf is buying it out in some sense 

I don't know why they couldn't just come up with same naming scheme as rog monitors

Swift and strix

Damn these copy and paste gpu and mother boards plus same freaking naming

Everyone got all butthurt like corsair logo crap and corsair reverted too

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, pas008 said:

But if we knew nvidia bought it out so be it 

we never was given any info on that either and yes mdf is buying it out in some sense 

They can't buy it out without buying out every single MDF dollar contributed to ROG by all companies not Nvidia. In this case ROG would only exist on Nvidia graphics cards and no other products.

 

MDF is not buying out anything, it's a contribution to marketing initiative or program and that is completely fine to treat it however they like unless other companies are also contributing.

 

A buyout must be in full otherwise it's improper gain and I do not agree with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'm not saying the program is evil, I'm saying the end result of getting exclusive access to ROG for graphics cards and benefiting from that branding is not acceptable.

 

To repeat my justification of why, Nvidia is not the only contributor to that brand, financially and product wise, so any end result with Nvidia graphics cards having exclusive access to it I won't agree with. That's just the way it is for me. I don't accept companies gaining in such a way from others like that, it's just wrong.

 

Why should Nvidia benefit from the ROG brand when some of that comes from Motherboards, monitors, laptops, keyboard/mice/headsets + accessories, routers. It's not for Nvidia to have, they can share it if they wish but if they want their own then they must make it, even if ultimately is sub branding under ROG if that's what they want but something that is the AIBs and is used on many products is not for Nvidia's to have unless they are the sole contributor.

Why should Nvidia benefit from investing and carrying out business to their advantage? Because they are a company who's end goal is to protect their brand and grow their profit. No one fights by Queensbury rules in the corporate world.  Never have and never will.     I am not disputing anyone's opinion of dislike for it.  I am disputing anyone who wants to turn their opinion in to a factual claim.  If you aren't doing that then I don;t see where the problem is.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well I asked because I checked the account and it's not verified so it very well could be lol.

Keith from Wccftech claims that they didn't report on it because the account is not verified and Twitter account stole their own images.

CPU - Ryzen Threadripper 2950X | Motherboard - X399 GAMING PRO CARBON AC | RAM - G.Skill Trident Z RGB 4x8GB DDR4-3200 14-13-13-21 | GPU - Aorus GTX 1080 Ti Waterforce WB Xtreme Edition | Case - Inwin 909 (Silver) | Storage - Samsung 950 Pro 500GB, Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, Samsung 840 Evo 500GB, HGST DeskStar 6TB, WD Black 2TB | PSU - Corsair AX1600i | Display - DELL ULTRASHARP U3415W |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Why should Nvidia benefit from investing and carrying out business to their advantage? Because they are a company who's end goal is to protect their brand and grow their profit. No one fights by Queensbury rules in the corporate world.  Never have and never will.     I am not disputing anyone's opinion of dislike for it.  I am disputing anyone who wants to turn their opinion in to a factual claim.  If you aren't doing that then I don;t see where the problem is.

You keep coming back with why Nvidia are doing what they are doing, where in anything was I talking did I dispute why or object to the why. I was never arguing the why, why Nvidia did what they did for GPP is utterly irrelevant to my objections it's how they went about it. You can leave the why out of it it doesn't counter or negate my reasoning at all.

 

I'd like that addressed not a continuation of the why Nvidia did it. Rather than repeat myself you can re-read my last two responses then if you wish to discuss what I actually object to then I'll be happy to continue.

 

Edit:

Unless of course the end goal was to get exclusive access to ROG for graphics cards then I dispute both the how and the why. Neither am I saying it's not fair either in case that's what you're thinking I'm meaning, I'm literally saying it is improper conduct for Nvidia to have exclusive access to ROG for graphics cards due to the way that brand has been built and paid for and all the contributing companies and any measures to gain such a thing should result in punishment in some manor, public outcry what ever just slap them down. Same goes for any other AIB brand that has non Nvidia contributors to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Carclis said:

Keith from Wccftech claims that they didn't report on it because the account is not verified and Twitter account stole their own images.

OMG so wccftech fact checked before posting random stuff found on the internet?!?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

OMG so wccftech fact checked before posting random stuff found on the internet?!?!?

Maybe they didn't like it when other people stole their images, like they've been doing for a while xD

CPU - Ryzen Threadripper 2950X | Motherboard - X399 GAMING PRO CARBON AC | RAM - G.Skill Trident Z RGB 4x8GB DDR4-3200 14-13-13-21 | GPU - Aorus GTX 1080 Ti Waterforce WB Xtreme Edition | Case - Inwin 909 (Silver) | Storage - Samsung 950 Pro 500GB, Samsung 970 Evo 500GB, Samsung 840 Evo 500GB, HGST DeskStar 6TB, WD Black 2TB | PSU - Corsair AX1600i | Display - DELL ULTRASHARP U3415W |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×