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

[leadeater]

22 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Simple question would you pay for marketing/advertising/showcasing for a cobrand that your competitor uses?

You don't really want to, this is why Nvidia wanted branding requirements in GPP and for more than just AIBs graphics cards it was for anything that has an Nvidia product in it while also possibly having a competitor's product option, laptops fit this directly as well.

 

Thing is this is not what people are objecting to, Nvida can very rightly move to it's own branding if that is what they wish, in a similar fashion to Intel Ultrabook. You really think that's what we are actually talking about?

 

Not putting forward the funding and the plans to develop a new brand is the issue for the AIB side of the discussion, nothing else. Purposefully or not putting the entire burden on to the AIBs and making them sort it out is the problem. AIBs compete with each other and their value add is their custom designs and brands so will not take actions that may hurt their business such as re-brand their highest selling graphics cards without the direct support from Nvidia.

 

If Nvidia had any plans to introduce new branding why did they not start with this, why did they not say this was planned when asked.

 

Here's your chance to address the issue, up to you if you want to take it or not. Don't expect another reply if you don't.

[pas008]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You don't really want to, this is why Nvidia wanted branding requirements in GPP and for more than just AIBs graphics cards it was for anything that has an Nvidia product in it while also possibly having a competitor's product option, laptops fit this directly as well.

 

Thing is this is not what people are objecting to, Nvida can very rightly move to it's own branding if that is what they wish, in a similar fashion to Intel Ultrabook. You really think that's what we are actually talking about?

 

Not putting forward the funding and the plans to develop a new brand is the issue for the AIB side of the discussion, nothing else. Purposefully or not putting the entire burden on to the AIBs and making them sort it out is the problem. AIBs compete with each other and their value add is their custom designs and brands so will not take actions that may hurt their business such as re-brand their highest selling graphics cards without the direct support from Nvidia.

 

If Nvidia had any plans to introduce new branding why did they not start with this, why did they not say this was planned when asked.

 

Here's your chance to address the issue, up to you if you want to take it or not. Don't expect another reply if you don't.

Maybe that is what their new plan will be is making new co brand for each partner we don't know but acquiring existing brands is common practice

we are all just speculating anyways

My speculation is 

I believe nvidia would love to release 3rd party gaming brands on release

Brings in more money instantly instead of people waiting and more work for them and keeping their initial product review about them not their co brands that they share with their competitor

Plus cross engineering would help in so many ways if that is what i got from their press release

 

[leadeater]

10 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Maybe that is what their new plan will be is making new co brand for each partner we don't know but acquiring existing brands is common practice

If new branding was on the cards then it's very simple to say so. Acquiring brands is fine when it's done correctly, acquiring ROG was not done correctly. For why it was not done correctly you can see my past posts where that was explained. The short version is other partners with the AIB are also directly funding that brand and have current products under it, the taking of that brand is jointly taking resources from other companies without their expressed consent.

 

14 minutes ago, pas008 said:

I believe nvidia would love to release 3rd party gaming brands on release

Nothing stops them from doing that under the current model.

 

14 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Plus cross engineering would help in so many ways if that is what i got from their press release

This is already offered, not signing on to GPP means you lose this. You can't gain something which you already have but you can lose it.

[pas008]

27 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If new branding was on the cards then it's very simple to say so. Acquiring brands is fine when it's done correctly, acquiring ROG was not done correctly. For why it was not done correctly you can see my past posts where that was explained. The short version is other partners with the AIB are also directly funding that brand and have current products under it, the taking of that brand is jointly taking resources from other companies without their expressed consent.

 

Nothing stops them from doing that under the current model.

 

This is already offered, not signing on to GPP means you lose this. You can't gain something which you already have but you can lose it.

 Its asus brand to do what they wish with

And like i said current model allows competition to get free marketing etc on the co brand

 

Cross engineering from nvidia and its partner only we don't know if the software side would lead to a universal gpu tweak software from nvidia themselves with all partners input like ryzen master utility and possibly on hardware side with pcb and components

[Carclis]

32 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Its asus brand to do what they wish with

Just like it was Dell's brand when they sold out to Intel, right? That's why they faced litigation and lost, is it? You can't use your market power to force lesser companies you deal with to force out your competitors. You can ask for things to be however you want on your end, but the moment you say that you want x company to have nothing to do with y brand, it's way too far.

37 minutes ago, pas008 said:

And like i said current model allows competition to get free marketing etc on the co brand

Then Nvidia should advertise their own cards specifically. Why can't they just say "buy GeForce from these brands"? Why couldn't Nvidia tell AIB partners to start a NEW brand and pay for it themselves, instead of pushing them around and expecting AIBs to foot the bill. The answer is very simple. They never wanted their own brand. They wanted to take AIB partner brands who had already garnered a significant reputation over the years.

45 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Cross engineering from nvidia and its partner only we don't know if the software side would lead to a universal gpu tweak software from nvidia themselves with all partners input like ryzen master utility and possibly on hardware side with pcb and components

No. The push from Nvidia, as I already have said has homogenised GPU's. Just look at one of their most recent releases; the GTX 1070Ti which all cards had to meet the same clock speeds on, no factory OC allowed. In fact non-custom cards from Nvidia and their partners have always had less OC headroom to play with and that's why the power limit slider caps at 120%, compared to my custom card that goes up to 150%. Jeez, even voltage has been locked down entirely on ALL Nvidia cards.They don't want users to have the ability to tweak their video card settings and it's very clear. We've seen similar moves from other market leaders such as Intel, who went on record saying "don't overclock our unlocked CPUs".

[leadeater]

38 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Its asus brand to do what they wish with

Not if there are other contracts in place, unfortunately for AMD they obviously didn't have anything in their contracts to prevent this. When other companies are involved and co funding things aren't always simple. Asus would of had to check their contracts they have signed with other partners to make sure they didn't violate them.

 

Nor is it as simple as saying it's Asus brand to do with as they wish, what if they did not want to change the branding at all. They must comply with the contract terms so there is little choice and when it's re-brand the best selling vs worst selling it's clear which is the one to pick.

 

End result is the taking of company resources without consent, the movable point is just who gets how much blame.

 

Now AMD has to do further planning on what to do for other non graphics cards product, re-brand those or continue funding a marketing program that directly benefits their competitor in a sector they will not get a return for as well.

 

No one should ever support a company taking resource of another company without consent, legal or not.

 

54 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Cross engineering from nvidia and its partner only we don't know if the software side would lead to a universal gpu tweak software from nvidia themselves with all partners input like ryzen master utility and possibly on hardware side with pcb and components

AIBs may not want this at all. They are competing with each other so they want to differentiate themselves from the competition, one of the best ways is in the VRM and board design. Software side Nvidia already has their software suites, if there is a feature missing they can already just add it. Everyone needs to have it installed for the graphics card to work so there is already universal coverage of it so that is totally on Nvidia to deal with, not so much AIBs (like Ryzen Master).

[pas008]

9 hours ago, Carclis said:

Just like it was Dell's brand when they sold out to Intel, right? That's why they faced litigation and lost, is it? You can't use your market power to force lesser companies you deal with to force out your competitors. You can ask for things to be however you want on your end, but the moment you say that you want x company to have nothing to do with y brand, it's way too far.

Then Nvidia should advertise their own cards specifically. Why can't they just say "buy GeForce from these brands"? Why couldn't Nvidia tell AIB partners to start a NEW brand and pay for it themselves, instead of pushing them around and expecting AIBs to foot the bill. The answer is very simple. They never wanted their own brand. They wanted to take AIB partner brands who had already garnered a significant reputation over the years.

No. The push from Nvidia, as I already have said has homogenised GPU's. Just look at one of their most recent releases; the GTX 1070Ti which all cards had to meet the same clock speeds on, no factory OC allowed. In fact non-custom cards from Nvidia and their partners have always had less OC headroom to play with and that's why the power limit slider caps at 120%, compared to my custom card that goes up to 150%. Jeez, even voltage has been locked down entirely on ALL Nvidia cards.They don't want users to have the ability to tweak their video card settings and it's very clear. We've seen similar moves from other market leaders such as Intel, who went on record saying "don't overclock our unlocked CPUs".

what? at bolded

[pas008]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

Not if there are other contracts in place, unfortunately for AMD they obviously didn't have anything in their contracts to prevent this. When other companies are involved and co funding things aren't always simple. Asus would of had to check their contracts they have signed with other partners to make sure they didn't violate them.

 

Nor is it as simple as saying it's Asus brand to do with as they wish, what if they did not want to change the branding at all. They must comply with the contract terms so there is little choice and when it's re-brand the best selling vs worst selling it's clear which is the one to pick.

 

End result is the taking of company resources without consent, the movable point is just who gets how much blame.

 

Now AMD has to do further planning on what to do for other non graphics cards product, re-brand those or continue funding a marketing program that directly benefits their competitor in a sector they will not get a return for as well.

 

No one should ever support a company taking resource of another company without consent, legal or not.

 

AIBs may not want this at all. They are competing with each other so they want to differentiate themselves from the competition, one of the best ways is in the VRM and board design. Software side Nvidia already has their software suites, if there is a feature missing they can already just add it. Everyone needs to have it installed for the graphics card to work so there is already universal coverage of it so that is totally on Nvidia to deal with, not so much AIBs (like Ryzen Master).

but they did consent (love how you have some tendency to bring up contract obligations when this was covered in the many topics on gpp)

asus signed on and thats how business works at times, you have something I want and I have something you need

lol wow

yes aics may not want hardware or software side of cross engineering its just a perk just like mdf,etc prolly wouldnt be forced on that aspect

all these companies are using their own software for gpu utility now days I use evga and msi, but if I want to change rgb on my sli bridge or gpu which options do I have so I need multiple unless i buy same aic shit

 

 

[leadeater]

7 hours ago, pas008 said:

but they did consent (love how you have some tendency to bring up contract obligations when this was covered in the many topics on gpp)

Nice how you ignore context as to why they had to sign on to GPP. Explain why Asus wouldn't sign on to GPP given what they would lose if not doing so, things they already had. You have never covered this issue you just keep ignoring it.

 

All you're doing is deflecting the issue. Nvidia is taking other companies resources by the actions they took period, there is nothing to confuse there unless you're saying AMD wasn't at the time an Asus partner giving MDF in to ROG (and still are). Good luck denying that one.

 

Nvidia could have achieve all their claims with no issues from tech media and consumers if they had created a new brand, worked with partners to implement it and actually been transparent about it (not that they would of needed to taking this course of actions). They didn't do this and you're never going to make me sorry for their own ineptitude.

[pas008]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Nice how you ignore context as to why they had to sign on to GPP. Explain why Asus wouldn't sign on to GPP given what they would lose if not doing so, things they already had. You have never covered this issue you just keep ignoring it.

 

All you're doing is deflecting the issue, not going to work. Nvidia is taking other companies resources by the actions they took period, there is nothing to confuse there unless you're saying AMD wasn't at the time an Asus partner giving MDF in to ROG. Good luck denying that one.

amd does do mdf but do we know its purposely for rog? same goes to nvidia

plz where is this info that amd or nvidia feeds rog?

 

and again asus signed off

wow I have seen 10 plus allegations on nvidia wrong doing but no proof

besides their fucked up model numbers which I do believe is anticonsumer and should be punished for especially when the performance is greater than 10%

 

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

amd does do mdf but do we know its purposely for rog? same goes to nvidia

plz where is this info that amd or nvidia feeds rog?

All the ROG branded products that they both have and both help market. MDF isn't blank cheqeues of money with no conditions.

 

6 minutes ago, pas008 said:

and again asus signed off

And? So what, doesn't address the issue. Say it much as you like it will never answer the problem.

 

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

All the ROG branded products that they both have and both help market. MDF isn't blank cheqeues of money with no conditions.

 

And? So what, doesn't address the issue. Say it much as you like it will never answer the problem.

 

yes conditions on ASUS products

show me info that amd, nvidia, or intel intentionally fund rog and its not in house budgeting from their resources using profits/mdf/writeoffs/etc

 

on that note do they get extra for asus then for rog

does evga get extra for sc/ftw/kingpin/etc?

 

[mr moose]

On 5/23/2018 at 9:42 AM, leadeater said:

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 that's the way you look at it then everyone who manufactures parts that go into a ROG product have a stake in it and Asus shoudln't be allowed to do anything without everyone's permission.   Asus is the only brand with ownership of ROG. Period.  They are the only ones who can decide what to do with it.

 

On 5/23/2018 at 9:42 AM, leadeater said:

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.

 

That doesn't even come close to what has happened here.  You are literally trying to conclude that AMD has ownership of ROG somehow.

 

On 5/23/2018 at 9:42 AM, leadeater said:

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.

Yes they do.  Don't confuse normal practice with regular practice.   Printing more money in a recession is normal practice but it is quite rare.  There is a distinct difference in this situation between normal and common/regular, and to understand you have to delve into the why's rather than fixate on the perceived outcome as a function of motive. 

 

On 5/23/2018 at 9:42 AM, leadeater said:

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.

Now you are voicing an opinion as if it trumps other people opinions.  You now no longer care about their reasoning except you think it can only be bad because you don't like what you saw.  It's fine to have whichever opinion you want, but an opinion by itself does is not an argument as to why someone else is wrong. 

 

On 5/23/2018 at 9:42 AM, leadeater said:

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.

No, I have already accepted that several times,  you believe it's wrong and that's fine.  I don't believe it is anything without further proof.  And I won't accept that it is bad or good without something other than opinions to support such a claim.  

 

On 5/23/2018 at 9:42 AM, leadeater said:

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.

I can agree with that 100%,  in this situation it appears AMD was trying to rely on public opinion (and maybe insinuated laws, not that we saw any evidence of lawsuits) to protect them from Nvidia demanding insular branding.   They were lucky it worked for them,  Intel actually did something wrong and they are still in the courts. 

 

On 5/23/2018 at 9:57 AM, 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.

Your assuming people actually think GPP was only a good thing and have concluded as such.

 

On 5/24/2018 at 12:27 AM, Trixanity said:

Like the chapter you linked: a whole lot of fluff without saying much.

You're free to not respond. This isn't exactly an interrogation.

 

It's basically you shutting down debate and being more vague than Mark Zuckerberg at his hearings.

 

Your posts are a lesson in contradiction but let's leave that be. I can already imagine the impotent fury.

 

We're arguing based on leaked information, Nvidia's public statements, actions and statements from board vendors and AMD, the articles written by tech journalists and their talks with sources and finally actions by Nvidia. If this isn't good enough, nothing ever will be because that's all we're gonna get. There has been a refusal to publish the GPP details in full and that's because of the risk of being exposed for leaking information. If the documents were leaked in full Nvidia will know who did it. It's very likely the documents signed by each are unique in some form making it identifiable in some way (if not just straight up watermarked). You're arguing based on the idea that all that information is untrustworthy, inaccurate or even wrong.

 

If you dismiss all the evidence just like that then it's pointless to carry on. Otherwise it'll be like arguing with a flat-earther: no matter what I say it'll never be enough. Leadeater also brought a lot of valid points but it's also dismissed.

 

That's it for me. You do you. Enough of figuratively playing chess with a pigeon.

 

So you are now arguing me and not actually adding anything to the conversation.  And on top of that you have the audacity to tell me to stop responding.   I think the issue here is you don't understand what evidence is. and you don't understand the difference between personal opinion and fact. Saying you don't like it or you think it is (insert condition here) is fine, however claiming it as absolute based on little more than hearsay and circumstantial happenings is not fact, it is not an absolute conclusion drawn on evidence.  What you have and what leadeater has is an opinion based on observation (one I have never dismissed mind you). It appears you have an issue with other people being different as you have several times now accused me of many things I have not said, things I have in fact said the exact opposite about.   You may as well claim you know what crime someone committed and why because you saw the police chasing them. 

 

 

[Carclis]

16 hours ago, pas008 said:

what? at bolded

You claimed that ROG is an Asus brand for them to do as they wish with and I gave you evidence to counter the accuracy of that. The Dell-Intel case is an example of a situation where Dell has to take the offer from Intel because not doing it would be financially irresponsible. IIRC the exact amount of money that Dell made from that deal was greater in one quarter alone than a year of their companies normal operating revenue. I'm comparing this GPP situation to that because Asus is under pressure to stay on Nvidias good side in order to not have its supply cut and receive engineering samples late. This is exacerbated by the fact that Nvidia has around 75-80% market share and makes the decision to refuse the GPP even more financially irresponsible. Take into account other AIBs who are completely Nvidia exclusive such as Galax or EVGA and you have companies who have nothing to lose from signing the GPP. 

So Asus is essentially left with the decision to refuse the GPP which nets them nothing or sign on which will ensure that they don't get screwed by Nvidia in terms of supply and screwed by other partners who receive both monetary incentives and early samples enabling them to get their product to the market earlier. Nvidia knows they have the market cornered and have chosen to abuse their power. It's that simple.

As for my other arguments, you have continuously ignored and/or provided insufficient claims to oppose them, just like the one I'm replying to. So here it is again:

On 24/05/2018 at 12:33 PM, pas008 said:

And like i said current model allows competition to get free marketing etc on the co brand

On 24/05/2018 at 1:30 PM, Carclis said:

Then Nvidia should advertise their own cards specifically. Why can't they just say "buy GeForce from these brands"? Why couldn't Nvidia tell AIB partners to start a NEW brand and pay for it themselves, instead of pushing them around and expecting AIBs to foot the bill. The answer is very simple. They never wanted their own brand. They wanted to take AIB partner brands who had already garnered a significant reputation over the years.

 

On 24/05/2018 at 12:33 PM, pas008 said:

Cross engineering from nvidia and its partner only we don't know if the software side would lead to a universal gpu tweak software from nvidia themselves with all partners input like ryzen master utility and possibly on hardware side with pcb and components

On 24/05/2018 at 1:30 PM, Carclis said:

No. The push from Nvidia, as I already have said has homogenised GPU's. Just look at one of their most recent releases; the GTX 1070Ti which all cards had to meet the same clock speeds on, no factory OC allowed. In fact non-custom cards from Nvidia and their partners have always had less OC headroom to play with and that's why the power limit slider caps at 120%, compared to my custom card that goes up to 150%. Jeez, even voltage has been locked down entirely on ALL Nvidia cards.They don't want users to have the ability to tweak their video card settings and it's very clear. We've seen similar moves from other market leaders such as Intel, who went on record saying "don't overclock our unlocked CPUs".

 

You entered the thread with your main claim being that GPP cannot be considered good or bad and didn't specify if you meant for consumers, Nvidia or other AIBs. Despite the evidence and examples provided by Leadeater and I of how the GPP will result in a worse situation for both consumers and AIBs you claim they don't apply. Yet when you pull examples out of thin air of things that Nvidia could do that would result in GPP being a good thing, there is nothing preventing those from happening currently. Here is an example:

On 24/05/2018 at 12:33 PM, pas008 said:

Cross engineering from nvidia and its partner only we don't know if the software side would lead to a universal gpu tweak software from nvidia themselves with all partners input like ryzen master utility and possibly on hardware side with pcb and components

There is currently nothing preventing Nvidia from developing a universal GPU tweak software and saying you need brands to exclusively use your product to achieve that is fucking absurd. Asus ROG sells Intel and AMD motherboards and we still have Ryzen Master. It's clearly no object. In fact AMD has offered overclocking from within their Radeon drivers from quite some time now and Nvidia doesn't, despite the immense lead in R&D budget. As for PCB components, Nvidia has for quite some time now given us inferior PCBs and it has been up to AIBs to correct that in their custom boards. There is evidence that shows you the poor quality of Nvidias own products such as the $1200 Titan Xp here, which Buildzoid has also criticised numerous times and then there is also the 780Ti/980Ti/Titan X which recently came under fire from Buildzoid right here. What's truly sad here is that the build quality is inferior to AMDs reference products despite them retailing for over twice as much. There is absolutely no excuse for this, nor is there any reason why Nvidia would need a brand exclusivity deal to enable them to do what AMD already does with only 20% market share. It's pathetic.

[leadeater]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

If that's the way you look at it then everyone who manufactures parts that go into a ROG product have a stake in it and Asus shoudln't be allowed to do anything without everyone's permission.   Asus is the only brand with ownership of ROG. Period.  They are the only ones who can decide what to do with it.

Unless there is a contract in place with terms that would effect any decisions they want to make with that brand. Asus does indeed have the controlling interest and the trademark rights to ROG but they may not always have total freedom with which to do what they like with it.

 

You may want to do something but you may be contractually bound so you can't do it.

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

That doesn't even come close to what has happened here.  You are literally trying to conclude that AMD has ownership of ROG somehow.

Well of course it doesn't compare, maybe there was a point to show it in absurdity. Finding a way to do something doesn't make it justified or normal practice.

 

And no the point was AMD had active contracts and funds in ROG which makes in improper to take a controlling interest in those funds even if it's through a third party.

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

Yes they do.  Don't confuse normal practice with regular practice.   Printing more money in a recession is normal practice but it is quite rare.  There is a distinct difference in this situation between normal and common/regular, and to understand you have to delve into the why's rather than fixate on the perceived outcome as a function of motive.

Yea no, I'm not going to be deflected away when you very well know what the point was. We know and accept the desire of Nvidia to have it's own brand, you're confusing the outcome as been shown which is wrong to be my reasoning for their motive which is not the case.

 

I completely disagree with the outcome, that I have mad clear. I have also made it abundantly clear that no motivations or desires or anything effect this it a pure outcome issue on that point. Any gaining of control over ROG while another company has active contracts and funds in it is a hard no, AMD did fail to put terms in their contracts to prevent this sure.

 

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

Now you are voicing an opinion as if it trumps other people opinions.  You now no longer care about their reasoning except you think it can only be bad because you don't like what you saw.  It's fine to have whichever opinion you want, but an opinion by itself does is not an argument as to why someone else is wrong. 

That isn't the case, the point is you showing why a company wants it's own branding does nothing to show that the actions taken to achieve it are proper or normal. Nvidia's reasons for wanting an exclusive brand is normal for sure, that isn't the issue. It's a factor in the situation it's just not one for me that changes the issue, continuously putting it forward to me as if it justifies the actions that were taken and the outcome gets really old fast. There just isn't any combinations of words that can be put together for why Nvidia wants exclusive branding that will show what happened as proper or normal.

 

 

[mr moose]

47 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Unless there is a contract in place with terms that would effect any decisions they want to make with that brand. Asus does indeed have the controlling interest and the trademark rights to ROG but they may not always have total freedom with which to do what they like with it.

 

You may want to do something but you may be contractually bound so you can't do it.

 

Well of course it doesn't compare, maybe there was a point to show it in absurdity. Finding a way to do something doesn't make it justified or normal practice.

 

And no the point was AMD had active contracts and funds in ROG which makes in improper to take a controlling interest in those funds even if it's through a third party.

 

Yea no, I'm not going to be deflected away when you very well know what the point was. We know and accept the desire of Nvidia to have it's own brand, you're confusing the outcome as been shown which is wrong to be my reasoning for their motive which is not the case.

 

I completely disagree with the outcome, that I have mad clear. I have also made it abundantly clear that no motivations or desires or anything effect this it a pure outcome issue on that point. Any gaining of control over ROG while another company has active contracts and funds in it is a hard no, AMD did fail to put terms in their contracts to prevent this sure.

 

That isn't the case, the point is you showing why a company wants it's own branding does nothing to show that the actions taken to achieve it are proper or normal. Nvidia's reasons for wanting an exclusive brand is normal for sure, that isn't the issue. It's a factor in the situation it's just not one for me that changes the issue, continuously putting it forward to me as if it justifies the actions that were taken and the outcome gets really old fast. There just isn't any combinations of words that can be put together for why Nvidia wants exclusive branding that will show what happened as proper or normal.

 

 

All I am saying is what one person perceives as proper and normal another may not.  And given the information/evidence we have on the topic it is only ever going to be personal opinion.

 

I'll keep saying it over and over and over.  It doesn't matter whether people think GPP is the devil incarnate , the best thing since sliced bread or something in middle.   Without seeing contracts or having a crystal ball, absolute claims about it being anything are simply founded on emotion and not fact.      

[leadeater]

35 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Without seeing contracts or having a crystal ball, absolute claims about it being anything are simply founded on emotion and not fact.

True, but specifically what happened to ROG, the outcome itself does not require any of the above since it did happen. We may not know the complete full details around it but fact is it happened.

 

We know GPP existed, Nvidia confirmed it. We know beyond reasonable doubt that there were branding requirements in GPP. We know AMD did not agree to have it's graphics cards products removed from ROG branding, they lacked any legal recourse to stop it it seems. It doesn't take extraordinary logic leaps to conclude that GPP was the cause for the removal of AMD products from ROG and that was to comply with terms in GPP.

 

If this particular take over of a brand like this, when other competing companies are also partnering and funding that brand, is normal business "that happens all the time" then I'm going to need a lot more direct and applicable evidence similar to this to show it as this.

 

The best one I can think of so far is the Intel Ultrabook but that wasn't a brand take over that was a brand creation, it denies any non Intel laptops from being sold using the name Ultrabook and is an exclusive branding for Intel. You won't see any AMD laptops with Ultrabook wording anywhere, there are however HP Envy laptops that meet the Ultrabook requirements being sold with AMD processors and are the same basically in every other way. The HP Envy Intel powered laptops are sold with Ultrabook branding on them.

 

Maybe there are other non PC examples like this out there, it's pretty rare outside of PC market to have products with different core components being sold as the same product name and the same branding. Things tend to get different product names when they are actually different products, an HP Envy x360 Intel laptop really is a different product to an HP Envy x360 AMD laptop and we shouldn't have to rely on the product codes to show that level of difference but hey that's just how it is, one day that might change.

[pas008]

6 hours ago, Carclis said:

You claimed that ROG is an Asus brand for them to do as they wish with and I gave you evidence to counter the accuracy of that. The Dell-Intel case is an example of a situation where Dell has to take the offer from Intel because not doing it would be financially irresponsible. IIRC the exact amount of money that Dell made from that deal was greater in one quarter alone than a year of their companies normal operating revenue. I'm comparing this GPP situation to that because Asus is under pressure to stay on Nvidias good side in order to not have its supply cut and receive engineering samples late. This is exacerbated by the fact that Nvidia has around 75-80% market share and makes the decision to refuse the GPP even more financially irresponsible. Take into account other AIBs who are completely Nvidia exclusive such as Galax or EVGA and you have companies who have nothing to lose from signing the GPP. 

So Asus is essentially left with the decision to refuse the GPP which nets them nothing or sign on which will ensure that they don't get screwed by Nvidia in terms of supply and screwed by other partners who receive both monetary incentives and early samples enabling them to get their product to the market earlier. Nvidia knows they have the market cornered and have chosen to abuse their power. It's that simple.

As for my other arguments, you have continuously ignored and/or provided insufficient claims to oppose them, just like the one I'm replying to. So here it is again:

 

 

You entered the thread with your main claim being that GPP cannot be considered good or bad and didn't specify if you meant for consumers, Nvidia or other AIBs. Despite the evidence and examples provided by Leadeater and I of how the GPP will result in a worse situation for both consumers and AIBs you claim they don't apply. Yet when you pull examples out of thin air of things that Nvidia could do that would result in GPP being a good thing, there is nothing preventing those from happening currently. Here is an example:

There is currently nothing preventing Nvidia from developing a universal GPU tweak software and saying you need brands to exclusively use your product to achieve that is fucking absurd. Asus ROG sells Intel and AMD motherboards and we still have Ryzen Master. It's clearly no object. In fact AMD has offered overclocking from within their Radeon drivers from quite some time now and Nvidia doesn't, despite the immense lead in R&D budget. As for PCB components, Nvidia has for quite some time now given us inferior PCBs and it has been up to AIBs to correct that in their custom boards. There is evidence that shows you the poor quality of Nvidias own products such as the $1200 Titan Xp here, which Buildzoid has also criticised numerous times and then there is also the 780Ti/980Ti/Titan X which recently came under fire from Buildzoid right here. What's truly sad here is that the build quality is inferior to AMDs reference products despite them retailing for over twice as much. There is absolutely no excuse for this, nor is there any reason why Nvidia would need a brand exclusivity deal to enable them to do what AMD already does with only 20% market share. It's pathetic.

Lol 75 80 % Market share oh good you can't even get that right

https://www.google.com/search?q=gpu+market+share+2018&client=ms-android-sprint-us-revc&prmd=nisv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj41szn5qDbAhWL54MKHVYmAZEQ_AUIEigC&biw=360&bih=517#imgrc=3vR-U9hyLjFX5M:

 

 

Asus isn't bigger than nvidia? But cant negotiate or live with out nvidia supposedly when they barely make anything from gpus lol

 

You never provided evidence

 

 

Plus Intel blocked amd sales in that deal

 

I guess you have no clue what you are talking about

 

Ty come again

[Carclis]

7 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Lol 75 80 % Market share oh good you can't even get that right

https://www.google.com/search?q=gpu+market+share+2018&client=ms-android-sprint-us-revc&prmd=nisv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj41szn5qDbAhWL54MKHVYmAZEQ_AUIEigC&biw=360&bih=517#imgrc=3vR-U9hyLjFX5M:

You do realise that those numbers are:

1) From John Peddie research who are of dubious quality.
2) Quarter to quarter sales.

3) Heavily influenced by mining which has died down significantly.

4) Unreliable because mining as mentioned but also because graphics cards have been suffering for shortages for a long time.

13 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Asus isn't bigger than nvidia? But cant negotiate or live with out nvidia supposedly when they barely make anything from gpus lol

Asus may or not be bigger than Nvidia, but that is irrelevant. The Asus graphics division is sure as hell smaller than Nvidia is, which is also not important. You can be as big as you want but that doesn't change shit when Nvidia has the lions share of the market and has done so for a significant period of time. If you were to sell one brand of cards only the decision would be obvious, wouldn't it?

17 minutes ago, pas008 said:

You never provided evidence

Evidence has been provided countless times. whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you, just like refusing to address the majority of my arguments is up to you.

20 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Plus Intel blocked amd sales in that deal

And Nvidia is blocking ROG from selling anything that is not Nvidia. How is there any difference there?

[pas008]

43 minutes ago, Carclis said:

You do realise that those numbers are:

1) From John Peddie research who are of dubious quality.
2) Quarter to quarter sales.

3) Heavily influenced by mining which has died down significantly.

4) Unreliable because mining as mentioned but also because graphics cards have been suffering for shortages for a long time.

Asus may or not be bigger than Nvidia, but that is irrelevant. The Asus graphics division is sure as hell smaller than Nvidia is, which is also not important. You can be as big as you want but that doesn't change shit when Nvidia has the lions share of the market and has done so for a significant period of time. If you were to sell one brand of cards only the decision would be obvious, wouldn't it?

Evidence has been provided countless times. whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you, just like refusing to address the majority of my arguments is up to you.

And Nvidia is blocking ROG from selling anything that is not Nvidia. How is there any difference there?

They aren't stopping nvidia from asus selling amd products

This is about branding

Branding is to distinguish your product from competition period

Nvidia in every right can do that it was asus decision to sign on and not negotiate 

 

It's like people bitching at nvidia for a game that uses game works when it was the developers that choose to use it Lol

 

Link a better market share but it's ok to use in other topics

And what evidence have you presented assumptions only

[Carclis]

11 minutes ago, pas008 said:

They aren't stopping nvidia from asus selling amd products

This is about branding

This is the part you don't understand. The terms dictate what Asus can and cannot do with its ROG brand. I'm not sure if you agree with this or not, but it is irrelevant because that is what is happening. The terms say that Asus cannot sell AMD or any other competing products under the ROG brand. Hence Nvidia is taking the ROG brand from Asus and turning it into an Nvidia brand. Just because ROG is part of Asus doesn't mean Nvidia is not restricting the ability of Asus to sell AMD products. For comparisons sake, if the Apple had a similar deal in place preventing Optus from selling or offering Samsung phones under that brand, it would then be left to sell them under Virgin Mobile. Now where I live there are 16 Optus stores and only one Virgin Mobile store so that's clearly a problem and restriction of the sale of Samsung phones. Obviously Apple is not as dominant as Nvidia is and people are still able to buy non-gaming branded GPUs but evidence suggests that they sell far below the gaming branded ones (source: LinusTechTips Amazon affiliate stats).

26 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Branding is to distinguish your product from competition period

Exactly and I have no problem with this. So go make your own brand and don't steal everybody elses property. If Nvidia had in the terms that funding was to go to the creation of a new brand that would be exclusive to them then that would be fine.

29 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Nvidia in every right can do that it was asus decision to sign on and not negotiate 

How about you look at the big picture instead of just one action? This has been pointed out so many times it's not funny. What would you do as the majority shareholder in a company that primarily sells Nvidia branded GPUs in your GPU division? Would you?

 

A) Knock back the GPP making 75-80% of your products late to the market, potentially have your supply cut because you're no longer at the top of Nvidias list, have your advertising budget removed (MDF), access to game bundles removed as well as have your shareholders revolt, devaluing your company.

 

B) Join the GPP and receive the early samples allowing you to get your products out earlier than or at the same time as the competition, receive MDF to allow you to market your product and brand, receive the same supply as you used currently do and have to sell your AMD products under a different brand.

You have to understand that B) is just not an option. No company is stupid enough to choose that and saying that there is still a choice is like saying that you can walk forward into sudden death or turn back.

41 minutes ago, pas008 said:

It's like people bitching at nvidia for a game that uses game works when it was the developers that choose to use it Lol

That's not an argument I want to get into here but all I'll point out is the performance difference between "certain cards" is always far more significant than any other game would show, even within Nvidias products suggesting that planned obsolescence may have a part.

46 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Link a better market share but it's ok to use in other topics

All I'll say is I cannot access the research because it's behind a paywall and I can't find it within my university library. So it's quite likely that it wasn't up to the standard. Even so 70% market share is extremely dominant.

50 minutes ago, pas008 said:

And what evidence have you presented assumptions only

I gave you examples of situations that have happened and told you about what Nvidia has done and the stance it currently has with regards to its products. You have presented only hypotheses about how the GPP could be good using only examples that lack detail and contradict the actions of all companies involved.

[pas008]

9 minutes ago, Carclis said:

This is the part you don't understand. The terms dictate what Asus can and cannot do with its ROG brand. I'm not sure if you agree with this or not, but it is irrelevant because that is what is happening. The terms say that Asus cannot sell AMD or any other competing products under the ROG brand. Hence Nvidia is taking the ROG brand from Asus and turning it into an Nvidia brand. Just because ROG is part of Asus doesn't mean Nvidia is not restricting the ability of Asus to sell AMD products. For comparisons sake, if the Apple had a similar deal in place preventing Optus from selling or offering Samsung phones under that brand, it would then be left to sell them under Virgin Mobile. Now where I live there are 16 Optus stores and only one Virgin Mobile store so that's clearly a problem and restriction of the sale of Samsung phones. Obviously Apple is not as dominant as Nvidia is and people are still able to buy non-gaming branded GPUs but evidence suggests that they sell far below the gaming branded ones (source: LinusTechTips Amazon affiliate stats).

Exactly and I have no problem with this. So go make your own brand and don't steal everybody elses property. If Nvidia had in the terms that funding was to go to the creation of a new brand that would be exclusive to them then that would be fine.

How about you look at the big picture instead of just one action? This has been pointed out so many times it's not funny. What would you do as the majority shareholder in a company that primarily sells Nvidia branded GPUs in your GPU division? Would you?

 

A) Knock back the GPP making 75-80% of your products late to the market, potentially have your supply cut because you're no longer at the top of Nvidias list, have your advertising budget removed (MDF), access to game bundles removed as well as have your shareholders revolt, devaluing your company.

 

B) Join the GPP and receive the early samples allowing you to get your products out earlier than or at the same time as the competition, receive MDF to allow you to market your product and brand, receive the same supply as you used currently do and have to sell your AMD products under a different brand.

You have to understand that B) is just not an option. No company is stupid enough to choose that and saying that there is still a choice is like saying that you can walk forward into sudden death or turn back.

That's not an argument I want to get into here but all I'll point out is the performance difference between "certain cards" is always far more significant than any other game would show, even within Nvidias products suggesting that planned obsolescence may have a part.

All I'll say is I cannot access the research because it's behind a paywall and I can't find it within my university library. So it's quite likely that it wasn't up to the standard. Even so 70% market share is extremely dominant.

I gave you examples of situations that have happened and told you about what Nvidia has done and the stance it currently has with regards to its products. You have presented only hypotheses about how the GPP could be good using only examples that lack detail and contradict the actions of all companies involved.

examples of situations that could be arent evidence its assumptions like pretty much all everyone has said

 

and look you say that they stole the brand when we have no evidence

but asus did sign the contract fyi we dont know what other incentives were included in that contract

hence why non disclosure, all the aics arent getting the same deal

just like any other partnerships

do you know how some partnerships or contracts work?

I have something you want and you have something I want

like I said many times companies acquire brands in many ways sometimes just to kill them off

 

keep assuming or link evidence

hearsay isnt evidence also

 

 

 

[Carclis]

17 minutes ago, pas008 said:

examples of situations that could be arent evidence its assumptions like pretty much all everyone has said

 

and look you say that they stole the brand when we have no evidence

but asus did sign the contract fyi we dont know what other incentives were included in that contract

hence why non disclosure, all the aics arent getting the same deal

just like any other partnerships

do you know how some partnerships or contracts work?

I have something you want and you have something I want

like I said many times companies acquire brands in many ways sometimes just to kill them off

 

keep assuming or link evidence

hearsay isnt evidence also

I don't classify you as everyone or the actions of companies affected by the GPP as non-evidence. It's very obvious to see what has happened and what at least some of the likely terms are just from the changes that have occurred over the past few months and to say that the GPP was not responsible for them would be pure ignorance. I don't see why Asus would willingly give up their ROG brand or why MSI would give up their Gaming X brand and replace it with Armor MK2 ( which is inferior) on the AMD side. As far as I can see there is Asus who has made a pointless change for me, just a waste of money to create a new brand and leave AMD on something unknown and then there is MSI who have made their AMD products worse as a result. So from that all I'm saying is you cannot consider the GPP a good thing for consumers, especially considering the mindshare disparity that already exists.

[pas008]

16 minutes ago, Carclis said:

I don't classify you as everyone or the actions of companies affected by the GPP as non-evidence. It's very obvious to see what has happened and what at least some of the likely terms are just from the changes that have occurred over the past few months and to say that the GPP was not responsible for them would be pure ignorance. I don't see why Asus would willingly give up their ROG brand or why MSI would give up their Gaming X brand and replace it with Armor MK2 ( which is inferior) on the AMD side. As far as I can see there is Asus who has made a pointless change for me, just a waste of money to create a new brand and leave AMD on something unknown and then there is MSI who have made their AMD products worse as a result. So from that all I'm saying is you cannot consider the GPP a good thing for consumers, especially considering the mindshare disparity that already exists.

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

True, but specifically what happened to ROG, the outcome itself does not require any of the above since it did happen. We may not know the complete full details around it but fact is it happened.

But it's still just an opinion.  Other people look at the outcome and simply conclude that Asus made their choice based on information only they have.

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

We know GPP existed, Nvidia confirmed it. We know beyond reasonable doubt that there were branding requirements in GPP. We know AMD did not agree to have it's graphics cards products removed from ROG branding, they lacked any legal recourse to stop it it seems. It doesn't take extraordinary logic leaps to conclude that GPP was the cause for the removal of AMD products from ROG and that was to comply with terms in GPP.

No on has said otherwise.  Being the catalyst and being an undue cause are not the same thing though. 

 

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

If this particular take over of a brand like this, when other competing companies are also partnering and funding that brand, is normal business "that happens all the time" then I'm going to need a lot more direct and applicable evidence similar to this to show it as this.

Again, your opinion.  You see the outcome as being indicative of the motivation and cause specific to one intention.  I see many parallels with other business practices.  The fact is no amount of examples is going to convince you otherwise.