Friday, March 9th 2018

NVIDIA's New GPP Program Reportedly Engages in Monopolistic Practices

A report from HardOCP's Kyle Bennet aims to shake NVIDIA's foundations, with allegations of anti-competitive business practices under its new GeForce Partner Program (GPP). In his report, which started with an AMD approach that pushed him to look a little closer into GPP, Bennet says that he has found evidence that NVIDIA's new program aims to push partners towards shunning products from other hardware manufacturers - mainly AMD, with a shoot across the bow for Intel.

After following the breadcrumb trail and speaking with NVIDIA AIBs and OEM partners ("The ones that did speak to us have done so anonymously, in fear of losing their jobs, or having retribution placed upon them or their companies by NVIDIA," Bennett says), the picture is painted of an industry behemoth that aims to abuse its currently dominant market position. NVIDIA controls around 70% of the discrete GPU market share, and its industrious size is apparently being put to use to outmuscle its competitors' offerings by, essentially, putting partners between the proverbial rock and a hard place. According to Bennet, industry players unanimously brought about three consequences from Nvidia's GPP, saying that "They think that it has terms that are likely illegal; GPP is likely going to tremendously hurt consumers' choices; It will disrupt business with the companies that they are currently doing business with, namely AMD and Intel."
The crux of the issue seems to be in that NVIDIA, while publicly touting transparency, is hiding some not so transparent clauses from the public's view. Namely, the fact that in order to become a part of NVIDIA's GPP program, partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." Bennet says that he has read NVIDIA papers, and these very words, in internal documents meant for NVIDIA's partners only; however, none of these have been made available as of time of writing, though that may be an effort to protect sources.

But what does this "exclusivity" mean? That partners would have to forego products from other brands (case in point, AMD) in order to be granted the GeForce partner status. And what do companies who achieve GPP status receive? Well, enough that it would make competition from other NVIDIA AIBs that didn't make the partner program extremely difficult - if not unfeasible. This is because GPP-branded companies would receive perks such as: high-effort engineering engagements (likely, aids to custom designs); early tech engagement; launch partner status (as in, being able to sell GeForce-branded products at launch date); game bundling; sales rebate programs; social media and PR support; marketing reports; and the ultimate kicker, Marketing Development Funds (MDF). This last one may be known to our more attentive readers, as it was part of Intel's "Intel Inside" marketing program which spurred... a pretty incredible anti-trust movement against the company.

As a result of covering this story, HardOCP's Kyle Bennet says he expects the website to be shunned from now on when it comes to NVIDIA or NVIDIA partner graphics cards being offered for review purposes. Whether or not that will happen, I guess time will time; as time will tell whether or not there is indeed any sort of less... transparent plays taking place here.
Sources: HardOCP, NVIDIA GeForce Partner Program
Add your own comment

317 Comments on NVIDIA's New GPP Program Reportedly Engages in Monopolistic Practices

#301
bug
HTCApparently, nVidia noticed enough that it dropped it altogether ... not worth the negative publicity, i'm guessing.
That doesn't even make sense. I was (rhetorically) asking what would have happened in the absence of HardOCP's article, not in the wake of it.
Posted on Reply
#302
Xzibit
I find it interesting that rather be transparent about the program they choose not to be.
Posted on Reply
#303
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
bugTo this day, the only detectable "harm" in GPP was separate gaming lines for AMD and Nvidia cards.
Which was NVIDIA's intent.
HTCApparently, nVidia noticed enough that it dropped it altogether ... not worth the negative publicity, i'm guessing.
NVIDIA already got what they wanted out of it: the most valuable graphics card brands are now exclusively NVIDIA.
bugThat doesn't even make sense. I was (rhetorically) asking what would have happened in the absence of HardOCP's article, not in the wake of it.
NVIDIA would have got their way and no one would be the wiser except a tiny group of executives.
XzibitI find it interesting that rather be transparent about the program they choose not to be.
Because they knew it likely wasn't legal so they flew the program under the RADAR. Luckily someone caught a glimpse of it and investigated.
Posted on Reply
#304
bug
FordGT90ConceptNVIDIA already got what they wanted out of it: the most valuable graphics card brands are now exclusively NVIDIA.
Valuable to whom? Cause I certainly don't give a rat's ass what's written on the box.
Posted on Reply
#305
Xzibit
bugValuable to whom? Cause I certainly don't give a rat's ass what's written on the box.
To Nvidia.
Posted on Reply
#306
Fluffmeister
Let's just all be thankful it is over, some like freedom of choice, others pretend to care about the freedom of choice.

We need a fair fight after all, it's great Nvidia offered the GTX 1080 back in May 2016, what we don't need is AMD offering GTX 1080 performance a year and a half later.
Posted on Reply
#307
kruk
bugValuable to whom? Cause I certainly don't give a rat's ass what's written on the box.
It's obviously valuable to hundreds of millions of other PC users. Why else would nVidia waste money on this? Come on ...
Posted on Reply
#308
sith'ari
FluffmeisterLet's just all be thankful it is over, some like freedom of choice, others pretend to care about the freedom of choice.

We need a fair fight after all, it's great Nvidia offered the GTX 1080 back in May 2016, what we don't need is AMD offering GTX 1080 performance a year and a half later.
Indeed, i've had great freedom of choice all these past months where the "mining-inflation" has driven GPU prices to sky-high, and for months we couldn't even buy a mid-range GPU without paying a fortune !!
But nevertheless, ..... thank God that this GPProgram was abandoned and now my i can finally feel that my consumer-rights are protected and safeguarded !! ..... :rolleyes:
So now , with the end of GPP, i can finally say that : "my consumer choices are not impacted anymore":clap: (*or just like Kyle said: "WE won" !!! :clap:hardforum.com/threads/nvidia-pulling-plug-on-gpp.1959889/ )
Posted on Reply
#309
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Actually, it is until those that bent over backwards for NVIDIA course correct. Hopefully when the FTC catches up, they'll order NVIDIA to pay damages to those companies that signed on because they felt they had no choice.
Posted on Reply
#310
sith'ari
The point here is that this hole "GPP grand-campaign" started in order to protect from nVidia the ...."consumer choices that were being impacted by GPP" ( www.hardocp.com/article/2018/03/07/geforce_partner_program_impacts_consumer_choice )
UNLIKE... AMD whose primary goal is to always "protect consumer choices" ;) :

So, as i said at my previous post, now with the end of GPP, i can finally say that : "my consumer choices are not impacted anymore":clap:
Posted on Reply
#311
bug
krukIt's obviously valuable to hundreds of millions of other PC users. Why else would nVidia waste money on this? Come on ...
Ah, GPP is bad because Nvidia was some brands for themselves and the brands are vaulable because Nvidia wants them.
Circular reasoning, but I'll take it if that the best you can come up with.
Posted on Reply
#312
Prince Valiant
FluffmeisterLet's just all be thankful it is over, some like freedom of choice, others pretend to care about the freedom of choice.

We need a fair fight after all, it's great Nvidia offered the GTX 1080 back in May 2016, what we don't need is AMD offering GTX 1080 performance a year and a half later.
Not that it matters when we're still sitting at that performance two years later.
Posted on Reply
#313
Fluffmeister
Yeah sadly a lack of competition slows things down, hey ho.
Posted on Reply
#314
Xzibit
Hardware Unboxed: Gamers Win! Nvidia GPP Abandoned

Posted on Reply
#315
kruk
bugAh, GPP is bad because Nvidia was some brands for themselves and the brands are vaulable because Nvidia wants them.
Circular reasoning, but I'll take it if that the best you can come up with.
Well, still better than constant regurgitating that GPP is (was) something good :toast:.
Posted on Reply
#316
bug
krukWell, still better than constant regurgitating that GPP is (was) something good :toast:.
So you don't think AMD can sell as many cards if they're branded separately?

Edit: Also, if you can please show me where I (or anyone else) said GPP was good, that would be much appreciated. Because the crux of this matter is GPP wasn't public (then again, so are other commercial agreements, but let's not let that stand in the way of a good hating). To conlcude something you don't have access to is either good or bad, requires quite a bit of bias on one's side. Because logic tells us, whether that thing is good or bad, you can't actually tell.
Posted on Reply
#317
kruk
bugEdit: Also, if you can please show me where I (or anyone else) said GPP was good, that would be much appreciated.
Sorry, a non native speaker mistake. With "good" I meant => fine, ok, non-problematic, harmless, etc. I think I don't need to provide quotes for that ...

Additionally, you can find the answer to your first question in my post history. I said everything that has to be said about GPP and now that it's finally dead (or at least looks that way) it's time to move on ...
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Mar 15th, 2025 22:18 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts