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

[mr moose]

24 minutes ago, leadeater said:

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 keep saying that because that is all we know, the rest is opinion.  Your objection is founded on what you find distasteful. 

 

24 minutes ago, leadeater said:

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.

Why? I am not going to address your opinion or what you disagree with.  That's your opinion and your disagreement.  I can no more take you to task for not liking it as I can take you to task for not liking the color purple.  You can base that on anything you please, it appears you have based it upon your perception of Nvidia's motives based on the outcomes you have seen.  That's fine.  All I am saying is that will remain an opinion until actual evidence is forth coming to say otherwise.

 

24 minutes ago, leadeater said:

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.

 

That's why we have anti trust and anti consumer laws (most countries).    If it surfaces that they did use their position to force AMD out of a lucrative market (which under Australian definitions would be hard claim to support becasue by ACCC definitions they barely hold market power, I can't comment about anywhere else), then there are laws that cover that.  Until then it's just opinions based on observations.  

 

You'll note in all these discussions I have not said GPP is a good thing or was going to be.  I have illustrated a few scenarios where it could have been good for AMD and where it seems less likely to be market/money grab.  But to claim those as fact is as stupid as claiming the "damage" is done.    I do not care for opinions, it's purely claims that cannot be substantiated that I despise and will address.  

[leadeater]

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You can base that on anything you please, it appears you have based it upon your perception of Nvidia's motives based on the outcomes you have seen.  That's fine.  All I am saying is that will remain an opinion until actual evidence is forth coming to say otherwise.

No I've based it on a very simply premise, if Nvidia gets exclusive access to ROG for graphics cards. Doesn't really have much to do with motive, that could play a part yes, but the result matters. Motive could only make the situation worse for Nvidia not make it go away.

 

Even if it's by accident and totally unintentional outcome they are still at fault because of the poor way it was handled, I say poor because if that was unintentional then that is nothing but poor management by Nvidia. Nvidia expects AIBs to create new branding for Nvidia without Nvidia's input and funding, that ain't going to happen and if they expected that then poor handling.

 

Really doesn't matter to me how much you point to branding literature or explain it's within Nvidia right to act within their best interest that really doesn't need to be stated, no one is going to object to GPP on those specific grounds. All objections stem from more complex reasons than simply Nvidia acting in their best interest as a company, other factors are at play here.

 

37 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I have illustrated a few scenarios where it could have been good for AMD and where it seems less likely to be market/money grab.

And yet AMD was left to carry the can for the financial side of re-branding, something that Nvidia should be paying for for their own new branding. It doesn't matter if it could have been a benefit for AMD it's not for Nvidia to decide if AMD has to go down this endeavor. Nvidia made this a requirement due to their actions and carries no financial burden for it and also profits from all the money AMD/RTG has put in to ROG (and every other company too).

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

No I've based it on a very simply premise, if Nvidia gets exclusive access to ROG for graphics cards. Doesn't really have much to do with motive, that could play a part yes, but the result matters. Motive could only make the situation worse for Nvidia not make it go away.

 

Even if it's by accident and totally unintentional outcome they are still at fault because of the poor way it was handled, I say poor because if that was unintentional then that is nothing but poor management by Nvidia. Nvidia expects AIBs to create new branding for Nvidia without Nvidia's input and funding, that ain't going to happen and if they expected that then poor handling.

 

I dare say they had a good idea what the outcome would be when the they started the whole thing.  Trying to ignore why in order to justify you opinion isn't doing anything to articulate to me a rational reason to assume anything.

 

Quote

Really doesn't matter to me how much you point to branding literature or explain it's within Nvidia right to act within their best interest that really doesn't need to be stated, no one is going to object to GPP on those specific grounds. All objections stem from more complex reasons than simply Nvidia acting in their best interest as a company, other factors are at play here.

Many objections stem from a lack of understanding and assumption that we know more than we do.   Not sure why it is important to be so adamant about something that literally has multiple possible explanations (all of which are beyond our ability to conclusively resolve into a fact).

 

Quote

And yet AMD was left to carry the can for the financial side of re-branding, something that Nvidia should be paying for for their own new branding. It doesn't matter if it could have been a benefit for AMD it's not for Nvidia to decide if AMD has to go down this endeavor. Nvidia made this a requirement due to their actions and carries no financial burden for it and also profits from all the money AMD/RTG has put in to ROG (and every other company too).

What cost of rebranding did AMD have to cover?  As far as I know it cost Asus some stickers and a blurb on their website.

 

I'm not sure why you think a company should not to do something on grounds it might cost their competition money.  That's business. So long as a company doesn't break the law, this is essentially what all business do.  AMD included.

 

 

 

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I dare say they had a good idea what the outcome would be when the they started the whole thing.  Trying to ignore why in order to justify you opinion isn't doing anything to articulate to me a rational reason to assume anything.

This comment shows you literally do not understand anything I have said and have not taken the time to read any of my comments as to why. I have very rationally explained why, it is your own inability to actually take the time read what has been said and I base this off the replies you have given thus far and the refusal or lack of response to the parts where I have actually explained myself.

 

If you can take only one thing away from this then let it be this, if someone asks you to actually read their point and reply to it them maybe that is an indicator to you that you have missed something or are not having the same discussion that the other person is.

 

In summary of my points since you missed them or refuse to reply to them, it is improper for Nvidia to gain from other companies financial contributions without their consent, one not given by AMD a contributor of ROG. You cannot explain this away with Nvidia's right to do best for their business. If Nvidia wants exclusive branding they must create it or suck it up and live with ROG as it is.

 

There is no justification you can give for the taking of other companies resources.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Many objections stem from a lack of understanding and assumption that we know more than we do.   Not sure why it is important to be so adamant about something that literally has multiple possible explanations (all of which are beyond our ability to conclusively resolve into a fact).

Because you are trying to explain why Nvidia wanted to do GPP in the first place and that is NOT the discussion I am having.

 

Just felt this was really important to state as it frames everything I have been saying and why you keep missing the point.

[pas008]

@leadeaterwell nvidia can easily have the argument that rog was first branded on their chipset plus all the nvidia products with rog naming is prolly greater than the rest combined but that is speculation like the rest

 

fyi we see many companies kill, acquire, leverage brands and logos all the time

is it our business how it happens oh wait people were enraged about corsairs lol

[leadeater]

29 minutes ago, pas008 said:

@leadeaterwell nvidia can easily have the argument that rog was first branded on their chipset plus all the nvidia products with rog naming is prolly greater than the rest combined but that is speculation like the rest

 

fyi we see many companies kill, acquire, leverage brands and logos all the time

is it our business how it happens oh wait people were enraged about corsairs lol

You'll find Intel has the largest share by far not Nvidia, and a chipset woopty doo you know that was on an AMD motherboard designed by Asus + AMD for an AMD CPU. A chipset, a replaceable part from many options at the time. Talking up the significance of a single component there I have to say.

[pas008]

15 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You'll find Intel has the largest share by far not Nvidia, and a chipset woopty doo you know that was on an AMD motherboard designed by Asus + AMD for an AMD CPU. A chipset, a replaceable part from many options at the time. Talking up the significance of a single component there I have to say.

what options were there for sli? hmm what were they going to replace that with?

their wouldnt have been a rog design without that chipset

and it had the rog logo directly on the chipset

with nvidia lan too

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, pas008 said:

what options were there for sli? hmm what were they going to replace that with?

their wouldnt have been a rog design without that chipset

and it had the rog logo directly on the chipset

with nvidia lan too

Of course they could have still done ROG without SLI, it was choice to use nForce not a requirement. Also where else do you find a flat raised surface on a motherboard to place a sticker, the same place that is used to this day. Think you're reading way too far in to where stickers are placed. The board was made by Asus and Asus wanted to create ROG.

 

Nvidia also had to follow AMD's specifications when creating the chipset for it to even work so that's a thing as well. Chipsets are worthless without CPUs and the companies that make those.

 

If you go read the 10 year history of ROG and you read the section on that first motherboard you'll find zero mention of nForce at all, must be so critical to it...

 

P.S. SLI worked on VIA K8T900 chipset if you wanted to put the effort in to getting it to.

[pas008]

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Of course they could have still done ROG without SLI, it was choice to use nForce not a requirement. Also where else do you find a flat raised surface on a motherboard to place a sticker, the same place that is used to this day. Think you're reading way too far in to where stickers are placed. The board was made by Asus and Asus wanted to create ROG.

 

Nvidia also had to follow AMD's specifications when creating the chipset for it to even work so that's a thing as well. Chipsets are worthless without CPUs and the companies that make those.

 

If you go read the 10 year history of ROG and you read the section on that first motherboard you'll find zero mention of nForce at all, must be so critical to it...

 

P.S. SLI worked on VIA K8T900 chipset if you wanted to put the effort in to getting it to.

8x 8x not 16x 16x which is what attracted the gamer and enthusiast

 

fyi I can see both sides to all this but then again I'm not sold on a co brand or petty fanboyism

 

 

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, pas008 said:

8x 8x not 16x 16x which is what attracted the gamer and enthusiast

I was expecting "VIA is trash" comment, because they really were lol. From memory SIS was slightly better, Intel was hit and miss a bit and only worked with Intel CPUs of course. I think ATI wanted to get in to the chipset game at one point, right before 3rd party chipsets died off. Classic ATI, too late to the party .

[Trixanity]

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

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

 

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. 

 

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

 

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. 

 

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.

 

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

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?

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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. 

 

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.

I am reading what you're saying but it's a ridiculous notion that based on the lack of information you can draw conclusions but others cannot. Either your entire post is invalidated or it isn't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

I actually did read (some of) your hilarious attempt at sabotaging the thread through linking a chapter and saying it's gospel. You don't seem to understand the thing you read in college. Nvidia already has inbranding. GPP isn't inbranding. It's capturing the brand of a business partner but you don't seem to understand the difference. I don't believe Intel has ever done something quite like that. Intel Inside was everywhere but that didn't mean AMD couldn't be in a similar machine under the same vendor brand. Indeed, today we have Ultrabooks that are Intel exclusive but guess what? That's because it's an Intel program that they own and extend to vendors - not the other way around. That's the key difference that you're missing entirely.

 

I clearly stated I understand Nvidia's motivations but I don't subscribe to r/hailcorporate so I don't put on a blind fold and accept what's happening. Growing a business does not mean it's good for consumers. And we're really referencing other threads as footnotes to this one, then you'll know I'm always siding with consumers. And even the most benign version of GPP would not be consumer friendly and really I'm stretching my imagination here.

 

There simply isn't much of a chance it's good. Why? Then why would AMD protest it? Out of spite? Or maybe it's simply harmful to their business and potentially to Intel's business. What's harmful to them is harmful to the consumer. Why? Nvidia dominates the market. A more competitive market is better for the consumer. It's quite simple.

 

I'm simply saying you're a masochist or a glutton for punishment if you're dismissing GPP as either neutral or good or trying to quell discussion about the harm it can cause.

 

It goes beyond a simple branding contract. If this was par for the course in the industry it wouldn't have made the waves it did. 

 

As I said, Nvidia has had plenty opportunity to remedy the situation without cancelling it yet they did not. If they cancelled a program; that would mean it exists. And if it exists and relevant parties speak out or act on it then it stands to reason that things aren't business as usual.

 

You can argue all day about this and that and dismiss it all you want. The fact remains that we've just seen shakeup that didn't just come out of nowhere. 

 

Edit: since this guy would clearly make for an awful pairing in a study group, can anyone else go through the tedium of reading this chapter too and confirm that it has little to no bearing on this discussion? It would be funny if someone could. 

[pas008]

29 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

I am reading what you're saying but it's a ridiculous notion that based on the lack of information you can draw conclusions but others cannot. Either your entire post is invalidated or it isn't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

I actually did read (some of) your hilarious attempt at sabotaging the thread through linking a chapter and saying it's gospel. You don't seem to understand the thing you read in college. Nvidia already has inbranding. GPP isn't inbranding. It's capturing the brand of a business partner but you don't seem to understand the difference. I don't believe Intel has ever done something quite like that. Intel Inside was everywhere but that didn't mean AMD couldn't be in a similar machine under the same vendor brand. Indeed, today we have Ultrabooks that are Intel exclusive but guess what? That's because it's an Intel program that they own and extend to vendors - not the other way around. That's the key difference that you're missing entirely.

 

I clearly stated I understand Nvidia's motivations but I don't subscribe to r/hailcorporate so I don't put on a blind fold and accept what's happening. Growing a business does not mean it's good for consumers. And we're really referencing other threads as footnotes to this one, then you'll know I'm always siding with consumers. And even the most benign version of GPP would not be consumer friendly and really I'm stretching my imagination here.

 

There simply isn't much of a chance it's good. Why? Then why would AMD protest it? Out of spite? Or maybe it's simply harmful to their business and potentially to Intel's business. What's harmful to them is harmful to the consumer. Why? Nvidia dominates the market. A more competitive market is better for the consumer. It's quite simple.

 

I'm simply saying you're a masochist or a glutton for punishment if you're dismissing GPP as either neutral or good or trying to quell discussion about the harm it can cause.

 

It goes beyond a simple branding contract. If this was par for the course in the industry it wouldn't have made the waves it did. 

 

As I said, Nvidia has had plenty opportunity to remedy the situation without cancelling it yet they did not. If they cancelled a program; that would mean it exists. And if it exists and relevant parties speak out or act on it then it stands to reason that things aren't business as usual.

 

You can argue all day about this and that and dismiss it all you want. The fact remains that we've just seen shakeup that didn't just come out of nowhere. 

lol corsair logo change made huge waves because of the liberal fanboy whine and didnt corsair revert from bad pr

 

like I said I can see both sides of this argument here but its ridiculous you think just cuz a company protested it that piggybacks marketing on same subbrand is a reason to say anything when we have no documentation or confirmation from anyone on this really bad side of gpp besides another whining rant from a guy that has done it multiple times

especially a guy that said 5 yrs ago gpus are going to die off?

 

[Trixanity]

24 minutes ago, pas008 said:

lol corsair logo change made huge waves because of the liberal fanboy whine and didnt corsair revert from bad pr

 

like I said I can see both sides of this argument here but its ridiculous you think just cuz a company protested it that piggybacks marketing on same subbrand is a reason to say anything when we have no documentation or confirmation from anyone on this really bad side of gpp besides another whining rant from a guy that has done it multiple times

especially a guy that said 5 yrs ago gpus are going to die off?

 

I don't think you can compare fanboys circle jerking about a gaming peripheral logo.

 

I also don't just take what Kyle Bennett (which I assume is the one you're referring to) as gospel but multiple outlets picked it up and the rest is history. I don't think I need to give a summary of it. 

 

I think AMD's protest is a strong indication. While there is certainly room for embellishment on their part, I think it unwise to assume it was fabricated. At best blown out of proportion. It would be incredibly simple for Nvidia or board vendors to come out and deny the existence. That never happened. On the contrary Nvidia has said it exists. From there board partners started to replace branding. Context matters but that action alone is bad enough. Even if we assume there were no threats of repercussions and it was an invite to be a part of the Nvidia family (going full corporate speak here) and partners signed up with no strings attached, I'd still be against it. It's bad for consumers to relegate AMD especially given their precarious position. We need strong competition.

 

And just using the word piggybacking is ridiculous and speaks volumes. These brands go beyond graphics cards. As has been stated before these brands are everything gaming and/or everything high end. Everyone's benefitting from being part of this club. Ousting the only competition (for now) from the graphics card side of the brand, whether the program used positive or negative reinforcement to get partners to sign, is bad for consumers.

 

I've yet to see anyone properly clarify how AMD, Intel or consumers benefit from removing AMD (and potentially Intel in the future) from premium branding and do so in clear concise terms. You can even make a PowerPoint presentation if you want to.

 

And yes, you can even explain how this benefits us if we assume for argument's sake that GPP isn't a thing and that board vendors did this on their own initiative. I'd have criticised it even if that was the case.

[pas008]

20 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

I don't think you can compare fanboys circle jerking about a gaming peripheral logo.

 

I also don't just take what Kyle Bennett (which I assume is the one you're referring to) as gospel but multiple outlets picked it up and the rest is history. I don't think I need to give a summary of it. 

 

I think AMD's protest is a strong indication. While there is certainly room for embellishment on their part, I think it unwise to assume it was fabricated. At best blown out of proportion. It would be incredibly simple for Nvidia or board vendors to come out and deny the existence. That never happened. On the contrary Nvidia has said it exists. From there board partners started to replace branding. Context matters but that action alone is bad enough. Even if we assume there were no threats of repercussions and it was an invite to be a part of the Nvidia family (going full corporate speak here) and partners signed up with no strings attached, I'd still be against it. It's bad for consumers to relegate AMD especially given their precarious position. We need strong competition.

 

And just using the word piggybacking is ridiculous and speaks volumes. These brands go beyond graphics cards. As has been stated before these brands are everything gaming and/or everything high end. Everyone's benefitting from being part of this club. Ousting the only competition (for now) from the graphics card side of the brand, whether the program used positive or negative reinforcement to get partners to sign, is bad for consumers.

 

I've yet to see anyone properly clarify how AMD, Intel or consumers benefit from removing AMD (and potentially Intel in the future) from premium branding and do so in clear concise terms. You can even make a PowerPoint presentation if you want to.

 

And yes, you can even explain how this benefits us if we assume for argument's sake that GPP isn't a thing and that board vendors did this on their own initiative. I'd have criticised it even if that was the case.

lol good for us? how? giving me side jobs on just installing and fixing  gpu shit? there are many help topics  when people are trying to install the wrong gpu drivers cause they have rog

just because you are enthusiast really a minority  less than 5% there are 95% of the other that are just plain gamers which have no clue they only know rog not if nvidia or amd just like razer fanboys

which is pure example of piggybacking

 

remember before you could tell the difference between a gpu and motherboard but now these aib got cheap themselves and copy paste gen to gen and from competitors so yes they should be the ones paying for it

 

 

 

[Trixanity]

54 minutes ago, pas008 said:

lol good for us? how? giving me side jobs on just installing and fixing  gpu shit? there are many help topics  when people are trying to install the wrong gpu drivers cause they have rog

just because you are enthusiast really a minority  less than 5% there are 95% of the other that are just plain gamers which have no clue they only know rog not if nvidia or amd just like razer fanboys

which is pure example of piggybacking

 

remember before you could tell the difference between a gpu and motherboard but now these aib got cheap themselves and copy paste gen to gen and from competitors so yes they should be the ones paying for it

 

 

 

I don't understand half of what you just said but I'll try anyway.

 

What side jobs? The driver is generic, any other software is optional. The disc the product ships with contains the software you need and it can auto update after that. If you buy a laptop or desktop your machine ships with auto update software. When you go onto either Nvidia or AMD's website it can auto detect what software you need. If you look up your model number it'll also find what you need. If you don't know what you're doing you shouldn't build your own PC. This isn't gatekeeping but simple truth. In that case you can buy a great PC from Asus or MSI or whatever you want and it'll have everything you need. I personally never installed the wrong driver even before I became an enthusiast. Today there are so many resources available it's almost impossible to mess up. In fact Windows installs the driver for you so you don't even have to do anything.

 

What piggybacking are you referring to? You're a bit all over the place without being concise.

 

The last paragraph I don't understand at all? Do you mean the designs on motherboards and graphics cards are the same? If so, that's the point. And it's difficult to reinvent something that can only have one form factor. An ATX board or a x16 graphics card can only look so different while vendors want to maintain a uniform look across their brand. Who is paying for what? 

[pas008]

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

I don't understand half of what you just said but I'll try anyway.

 

What side jobs? The driver is generic, any other software is optional. The disc the product ships with contains the software you need and it can auto update after that. If you buy a laptop or desktop your machine ships with auto update software. When you go onto either Nvidia or AMD's website it can auto detect what software you need. If you look up your model number it'll also find what you need. If you don't know what you're doing you shouldn't build your own PC. This isn't gatekeeping but simple truth. In that case you can buy a great PC from Asus or MSI or whatever you want and it'll have everything you need. I personally never installed the wrong driver even before I became an enthusiast. Today there are so many resources available it's almost impossible to mess up. In fact Windows installs the driver for you so you don't even have to do anything.

 

What piggybacking are you referring to? You're a bit all over the place without being concise.

 

The last paragraph I don't understand at all? Do you mean the designs on motherboards and graphics cards are the same? If so, that's the point. And it's difficult to reinvent something that can only have one form factor. An ATX board or a x16 graphics card can only look so different while vendors want to maintain a uniform look across their brand. Who is paying for what? 

lol was talking about my side jobs and teaching them how to install shit and from where its the only way it helps me

doesnt matter what you knew before becoming enthusiast you are interested in pc components 99% of the world could care less of about pc components, so these products should be labeled more broader then just fucking rog/aurous/etc to separate them from their competition

there are many topics on amd and nvidia sites with people confused on what card they actually have but they know they bought rog

there are many topics on many sites with this same problem and you know this

 

show me copy and paste designs before recently to last couple of yrs, 2 decades of this not happening dating back to the 1990s but its fine now lol?

and didnt a couple companies release cards where some of the heatsink pipes werent even touching but that is fine cause its uniform across the brand lol

 

and for piggybacking how is that not understandable

if nvidia advertises msi gaming x it also advertises it for amd that is piggy backing same goes to purchases/reviews/etc

 

 

[Trixanity]

40 minutes ago, pas008 said:

lol was talking about my side jobs and teaching them how to install shit and from where its the only way it helps me

doesnt matter what you knew before becoming enthusiast you are interested in pc components 99% of the world could care less of about pc components, so these products should be labeled more broader then just fucking rog/aurous/etc to separate them from their competition

there are many topics on amd and nvidia sites with people confused on what card they actually have but they know they bought rog

there are many topics on many sites with this same problem and you know this

 

show me copy and paste designs before recently to last couple of yrs, 2 decades of this not happening dating back to the 1990s but its fine now lol?

and didnt a couple companies release cards where some of the heatsink pipes werent even touching but that is fine cause its uniform across the brand lol

 

and for piggybacking how is that not understandable

if nvidia advertises msi gaming x it also advertises it for amd that is piggy backing same goes to purchases/reviews/etc

 

 

There are other products than graphics cards with the same branding but the point remains: the market today caters to everyone. It installs everything for you and updates itself. If you need to do something yourself it's an active decision to mess with your system and if you do that it's at your own discretion and therefore problem. You don't try to repair your car's engine with no prior knowledge. They are by the way also named more than just ROG. Otherwise you couldn't distinguish a 1060 from a 1080 let alone a Vega 64 or even a motherboard or a monitor. It's in the product name. It sounds to me like the kind of people that would fill up their diesel car with petrol because they didn't bother to make a conscious effort. And I can't stress enough that I did install drivers correctly before any interest in PC components. That was the whole point of that. It's just a matter of getting your bearings and finding what you need. 95% people aren't messing with drivers anyway if we're really going there. Besides, you're only seeing the few with problems because people don't post in forums or call tech support because they installed a driver successfully. It's when things go wrong that they complain or ask for help.

 

They reuse coolers and designs because they cost money to make and they're usually good enough. I'm not really in the business of defending shoddy business practices though, so I would advise steering clear of poor product validation. However that wouldn't change with new branding. It'd just be different colors and stickers mostly. There are only so many ways to do coolers without larger R&D pushes hence rehashing the same. Designs are converging because we've reached a point where the diminishing returns are pretty big. For example Noctua just spent a ton of money to make fans out of new materials to improve cooling some percent because they had hit a limit of what they felt could be achieved with conventional materials. Not many would spend money on something like that to gain what many would consider miniscule benefits.

 

Technically the piggybacking goes both ways and it goes across products. ROG, for example, spans so many products. Nvidia is one link in the chain. That's the nature of the business. Nvidia already have exclusive partners. If it didn't sit well with them, they could pull out. However with the exception of their fight with xfx they've been content doing business with everyone for so long.

 

It's a two way street. Asus wants GeForce and Nvidia wants ROG. There are pros and cons. One of those are that it's not exclusive to a single company or product. Should Asus be pissed that when Nvidia advertises GeForce 1080s that MSI and Gigabyte pops up too? I mean MSI and Gigabyte are piggybacking off Asus. You see how silly it becomes when you turn it into a zero sum game?

[pas008]

39 minutes ago, Trixanity said:

There are other products than graphics cards with the same branding but the point remains: the market today caters to everyone. It installs everything for you and updates itself. If you need to do something yourself it's an active decision to mess with your system and if you do that it's at your own discretion and therefore problem. You don't try to repair your car's engine with no prior knowledge. They are by the way also named more than just ROG. Otherwise you couldn't distinguish a 1060 from a 1080 let alone a Vega 64 or even a motherboard or a monitor. It's in the product name. It sounds to me like the kind of people that would fill up their diesel car with petrol because they didn't bother to make a conscious effort. And I can't stress enough that I did install drivers correctly before any interest in PC components. That was the whole point of that. It's just a matter of getting your bearings and finding what you need. 95% people aren't messing with drivers anyway if we're really going there. Besides, you're only seeing the few with problems because people don't post in forums or call tech support because they installed a driver successfully. It's when things go wrong that they complain or ask for help.

 

They reuse coolers and designs because they cost money to make and they're usually good enough. I'm not really in the business of defending shoddy business practices though, so I would advise steering clear of poor product validation. However that wouldn't change with new branding. It'd just be different colors and stickers mostly. There are only so many ways to do coolers without larger R&D pushes hence rehashing the same. Designs are converging because we've reached a point where the diminishing returns are pretty big. For example Noctua just spent a ton of money to make fans out of new materials to improve cooling some percent because they had hit a limit of what they felt could be achieved with conventional materials. Not many would spend money on something like that to gain what many would consider miniscule benefits.

 

Technically the piggybacking goes both ways and it goes across products. ROG, for example, spans so many products. Nvidia is one link in the chain. That's the nature of the business. Nvidia already have exclusive partners. If it didn't sit well with them, they could pull out. However with the exception of their fight with xfx they've been content doing business with everyone for so long.

 

It's a two way street. Asus wants GeForce and Nvidia wants ROG. There are pros and cons. One of those are that it's not exclusive to a single company or product. Should Asus be pissed that when Nvidia advertises GeForce 1080s that MSI and Gigabyte pops up too? I mean MSI and Gigabyte are piggybacking off Asus. You see how silly it becomes when you turn it into a zero sum game?

so before recently they could make distinguishing mobo and gpu products but now they cant?

sounds like you have never done tech support, cause I can tell you many gamers dont have a clue what they have they just play and know they have "gamer"

you know I could link many gamer/tech sites where people are having issues not knowing what they have but know they bought some gamer brand

you dont have the concept of piggypacking from competitor stand point

review comes out of asus rog strix 1080 is the best card out there 2yrs ago

rog strix amd gamer cards get that recognition also which is the piggyback how hard is that to understand

 

now if nvidia wants to show case rog strix product or gaming x product

amd gets the gamer brand showcase also

sounds like piggybacking to me

hence what sounded like what gpp was intenting to me for 3rd party day one releases but nope liberal whine on a sub brand that really doesnt mean shit if they so easily sounded off on the sub brand

but the bad whine also was enough for people to give bad pr to cancel gpp

 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

This comment shows you literally do not understand anything I have said and have not taken the time to read any of my comments as to why. I have very rationally explained why, it is your own inability to actually take the time read what has been said and I base this off the replies you have given thus far and the refusal or lack of response to the parts where I have actually explained myself.

 

If you can take only one thing away from this then let it be this, if someone asks you to actually read their point and reply to it them maybe that is an indicator to you that you have missed something or are not having the same discussion that the other person is.

 

In summary of my points since you missed them or refuse to reply to them, it is improper for Nvidia to gain from other companies financial contributions without their consent, one not given by AMD a contributor of ROG. You cannot explain this away with Nvidia's right to do best for their business. If Nvidia wants exclusive branding they must create it or suck it up and live with ROG as it is.

 

There is no justification you can give for the taking of other companies resources.

I have read everything you have posted.  I am simply saying you have an opinion and that is fine.  But to claim it is anything other than an opinion is not.   You  have gone from the why's to insinuating there is some sort of ownership of ROG by AMD because they invested in it.  Doesn't work that  way, The only company that owns and can decide what to do with the ROG brand is Asus.  So you are either claiming Nvidia did something illegal and used their market power to force Asus to give it to them or you are claiming that Asus had no right to align it with nvidia because feelings about AMD.  Either way it is just an opinion.

 

My opinion (which is just an opinion based on my perception alone) is that Nvidia can demand brand alignment with their product if they want,  they can't force which brands are aligned  (that would be illegal), but they can force an exclusivity clause for their Brand.  

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

Because you are trying to explain why Nvidia wanted to do GPP in the first place and that is NOT the discussion I am having.

 

Just felt this was really important to state as it frames everything I have been saying and why you keep missing the point.

It's not my fault if you want to have a different discussion.  I have and only ever have been discussing the reasons behind such programs as GPP,  why they exist and why it is important to understand these things before making absolute claims about legality, cost or even ethical/moral motivations.   This is the discussion I have been having from the start.

 

 

5 hours ago, Trixanity said:

I am reading what you're saying but it's a ridiculous notion that based on the lack of information you can draw conclusions but others cannot. Either your entire post is invalidated or it isn't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If you are not going to read my posts or even try to understand my postiti9oon then stop posting:

 

For the last time. I am not drawing conclusions.  I have not said it is good or bad, I have simply said there is no evidence to make such claims.

 

 

5 hours ago, Trixanity said:

I actually did read (some of) your hilarious attempt at sabotaging the thread through linking a chapter and saying it's gospel. You don't seem to understand the thing you read in college. Nvidia already has inbranding. GPP isn't inbranding. It's capturing the brand of a business partner but you don't seem to understand the difference. I don't believe Intel has ever done something quite like that. Intel Inside was everywhere but that didn't mean AMD couldn't be in a similar machine under the same vendor brand. Indeed, today we have Ultrabooks that are Intel exclusive but guess what? That's because it's an Intel program that they own and extend to vendors - not the other way around. That's the key difference that you're missing entirely.

I'm sorry you don't understand it.  But it won't change just becasue you don't like it.

 

5 hours ago, Trixanity said:

I clearly stated I understand Nvidia's motivations but I don't subscribe to r/hailcorporate so I don't put on a blind fold and accept what's happening. Growing a business does not mean it's good for consumers.

No one understands their motiviations for this, they backed down so quickly it could have been for many reasons.   FFS again, my point is no one has the information to draw a conclusion or make claims about this.

5 hours ago, Trixanity said:

 

And we're really referencing other threads as footnotes to this one, then you'll know I'm always siding with consumers. And even the most benign version of GPP would not be consumer friendly and really I'm stretching my imagination here.

How do you know that when you don't even know what the contracts stated or what the market would have looked like with it?

 

5 hours ago, Trixanity said:

There simply isn't much of a chance it's good. Why? Then why would AMD protest it? Out of spite? Or maybe it's simply harmful to their business and potentially to Intel's business. What's harmful to them is harmful to the consumer. Why? Nvidia dominates the market. A more competitive market is better for the consumer. It's quite simple.

Too many why's and no actual facts.  You can ask just as many questions that lead to whatever conclusion you want, but without knowing the contracts or understanding how the market would have shifted under those contracts we are all just guessing.

 

5 hours ago, Trixanity said:

I'm simply saying you're a masochist or a glutton for punishment if you're dismissing GPP as either neutral or good or trying to quell discussion about the harm it can cause.

Again I am not dismissing it as anything, I am addressing only what we know and the fact that there is a difference between opinion and fact.   Claiming it cost lots of money, or was going to harm the market irreversibly is as unfounded as claiming it would be good for the market or was going to have no effect. 

 

5 hours ago, Trixanity said:

It goes beyond a simple branding contract. If this was par for the course in the industry it wouldn't have made the waves it did. 

It's only big on forums and amongst enthusiasts like us,  you don't know when it happens in other industries because you don't care about the product or are as involved in said communities. People are up in arms about this sort of thing all the time.   Also what you are claiming here is an argumentum ad populum.  (lots of people disagree therefore it must be wrong)

5 hours ago, Trixanity said:

As I said, Nvidia has had plenty opportunity to remedy the situation without cancelling it yet they did not. If they cancelled a program; that would mean it exists. And if it exists and relevant parties speak out or act on it then it stands to reason that things aren't business as usual.

I have already addressed this.  Of course it existed, why would you think it didn't?  what planet have you been on to think the existence of GPP is even up for debate?  They canned it, why? who knows.  bad PR is the first reason that comes to my mind, the second is that it wasn't worth it. Again it's just as likely they canned it because it was of so little consequence that it wasn't worth the bad pr as canning it for any other conceived reason.

 

5 hours ago, Trixanity said:

You can argue all day about this and that and dismiss it all you want. The fact remains that we've just seen shakeup that didn't just come out of nowhere. 

No one said it came out of nowhere.  Why are you starting to argue against things that were never said?

 

5 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Edit: since this guy would clearly make for an awful pairing in a study group, can anyone else go through the tedium of reading this chapter too and confirm that it has little to no bearing on this discussion? It would be funny if someone could. 

if you can;t say anything without ladling in the insults then don't bother saying anything at all, it simply undermines your integrity and calls into question your motivation.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

You  have gone from the why's to insinuating there is some sort of ownership of ROG by AMD because they invested in it.  Doesn't work that  way, The only company that owns and can decide what to do with the ROG brand is Asus.  So you are either claiming Nvidia did something illegal and used their market power to force Asus to give it to them or you are claiming that Asus had no right to align it with nvidia because feelings about AMD. 

AMD most certainly does have a stake in ROG, just like Intel, Nvidia and every other company who have contributed to it. Nvidia finding a legal way to take over that brand doesn't change anything.

 

If I find a legal way to burn your house down without your consent no amount of me saying it was all legal is going to make you accept that explanation will it. You'll still be completely correct in saying it was not justified nor proper for me to do such a thing, the legality of it does not change this.

 

Companies doing legal actions doesn't automatically make what they did normal business practice that happens all the time. Companies don't pay in to marketing programs and brands to lose that investment because another company wants to be a jerk, it may happen on occasion but it is by no means normal practice.

 

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's not my fault if you want to have a different discussion.  I have and only ever have been discussing the reasons behind such programs as GPP,  why they exist and why it is important to understand these things before making absolute claims about legality, cost or even ethical/moral motivations.   This is the discussion I have been having from the start.

And as I have said their reason to do it doesn't change what was wrong with it, why is this so hard to understand. No amount of saying it changes this. We get it, too bad, Nvidia is still in the wrong due to the actions and outcome not the reason why they did it. Why they did it and what they wanted can only make their position worse not correct.

 

So why they want GPP changes nothing. You've said, we've heard, we've agreed with that point but you're missing that part where it has zero bearing as to what was actually wrong.

 

Edit:

Solely relying on the law and regulatory authorities to look after your best interest is a bad thing to do. Laws can fail you, regulation authorities can fail you, you can also fail yourself by doing nothing to protect your own interests.

[DoctorWho1975]

Good lord, we could have a copy of the GPP that condemns NVidia every way possible and it still wouldn't be good enough.

[Carclis]

2 hours ago, DoctorWho1975 said:

Good lord, we could have a copy of the GPP that condemns NVidia every way possible and it still wouldn't be good enough.

I think it would have to get to the point of taking stuff we, not other companies, own for some people to object to it.

[pas008]

2 hours ago, DoctorWho1975 said:

Good lord, we could have a copy of the GPP that condemns NVidia every way possible and it still wouldn't be good enough.

 

1 minute ago, Carclis said:

I think it would have to get to the point of taking stuff we, not other companies, own for some people to object to it.

We don't have anything that says good or bad just a bunch of assumptions from a biased rant that actually compared it to what Intel did which isn't even close

If nvidia wanted to align their products and aibs signed away thats business

But just like the corsair thing liberal whine got its way from bad pr

[Carclis]

34 minutes ago, pas008 said:

 

We don't have anything that says good or bad just a bunch of assumptions from a biased rant that actually compared it to what Intel did which isn't even close

If nvidia wanted to align their products and aibs signed away thats business

But just like the corsair thing liberal whine got its way from bad pr

We've seen two of the big AIB partners change branding entirely at almost exactly the same time and for their AMD cards specifically, which coincided with the announcement of the GPP. News surfaced putting forward some claims that the GPP had some very unpopular practices which were met with silence when brought forward to Nvidia. Finally after two months of burying their heads in the sand Nvidia came out and axed the program in a tantrum that blamed all of us for not being able to have "nice things". To this day we've not received any details about the GPP from Nvidia other than the fact that it was to push for "transparency" and all we know is that Nvidia would rather axe the program than share some information on how it aimed to bring about transparency.

Is that not enough evidence for you? Have you ever heard of occam's razor?