birdieIf I were in the administration of this forum, I'd delete most of the replies in this discussion. People keep on speculating that the GPP was anticompetitive without any real data. All I see is, "NVIDIA is bad, the GPP is bad". Such a "constructive" discussion, guys. More like a BS discussion.

One of the reasons the GPP was ended is because it's a PR disaster even if there was nothing anticompetive about it.

You want W1zz to delete most of the posts in this discussion?
I have no horse in this race, (I'll go with whatever gives me the most bang for the buck) and I'm still wondering just how much you get paid to post.
Send W1zz a PM concerning that and tell me how it works out, please.

birdieIf I were in the administration of this forum, I'd delete most of the replies in this discussion. People keep on speculating that the GPP was anticompetitive without any real data. All I see is, "NVIDIA is bad, the GPP is bad". Such a "constructive" discussion, guys. More like a BS discussion.

One of the reasons the GPP was ended is because it's a PR disaster even if there was nothing anticompetive about it.

What are you talking about speculating Asus, a multibillion dollar company had to launch a new brand to continue selling AMD products. What isn't anti-competitive about forcing a AIB to change its name to sell your product?

cdawallWhat are you talking about speculating Asus, a multibillion dollar company had to launch a new brand to continue selling AMD products. What isn't anti-competitive about forcing a AIB to change its name to sell your product?

What i've underlined from your quote is exactly what i'd call : "speculation".
Can you prove that claim? Has any AIB stated something like that ? IF the AIBs feel that they were being forced to do anything they can speak for themselves (*through their lawyers of course). Has any directly-involved side of GPP (*AIBs) stated anything ? As far as i know, the answer is No. So what you claimed (*forcing an AIB) can be considered as speculation.
-----------------------
[ At the basic highschool-economic teachings there is an economic term called : "Opportunity Cost"
"Opportunity Cost" is the tools/means that i have to sacrifice in order to produce something/get something in return (*products, services, whatever you can think of, "opportunity cost" is a term that can apply on every field of our life)
This GPProgram was also based on "opportunity cost": The AIBs want the money and privilages that nVidia can provide them, but in order to get this , -the opportunity cost for this deal- , nVidia wanted them to make changes at their brand names (*just like you, i'm also speculating here:D, based on what Kyle has claimed at his article) . They had to sacrifice something in order to get something else, pure definition of "opportunity cost".
Now, ... whether this deal is legal or illegal, that's an entirely different matter, and that's not my job (*or yours , or Kyle's or whomever..... ) to judge that. It's only Court's job. ]

sith'ariIF the AIBs feel that they were being forced to do anything

sith'ariThe AIBs want the money and privilages that nVidia can provide them, but in order to get this , -the opportunity cost for this deal

Nvidia shouldn't 'sell' privileges to AIBs on these kind of deals ... for example, it would be totally ok and competitive for nvidia to ask certain level of pcb quality and vrm array quality and vrm temp ranges for their program.

BiggieShadyNvidia shouldn't 'sell' privileges to AIBs on these kind of deals ... for example, it would be totally ok and competitive for nvidia to ask certain level of pcb quality and vrm array quality and vrm temp ranges for their program.

Quite possibly you're correct, but i can't say that i know how the industry works . These kind of tactics could likely be used from all the players of the industry.
For example, at Gamer'sNexus last video (Xzibit has already posted this at previous page:) ) it was implied that one of the reasons that some of the big-laptop "industry-gamers" have denied GPP, was that they might already had similar deals with other ones (Intel), and this was causing a conflict of interest. ( give a look at16:00m of that video)
Anyway, i would advise anyone to give a look at GN's video since i consider it as an quite objective and thorough one.

Fixed it.

out with their shitty automated-like responses (like how all companies are now doing, sadly), in with the dark truth behind those lies they fabricate/spin just so they can play the victim.

sith'ariQuite possibly you're correct, but i can't say that i know how the industry works . These kind of tactics could likely be used from all the players of the industry.
For example, at Gamer'sNexus last video (Xzibit has already posted this at previous page:) ) it was implied that one of the reasons that some of the big-laptop "industry-gamers" have denied GPP, was that they might already had similar deals with other ones (Intel), and this was causing a conflict of interest. ( give a look at16:00m of that video)
Anyway, i would advise anyone to give a look at GN's video since i consider it as an quite objective and thorough one.

"Everyone does it, so why shouldn't I?" is a kindergarten-level excuse. Don't be daft.

sith'ariThis GPProgram was also based on "opportunity cost": The AIBs want the money and privilages that nVidia can provide them, but in order to get this , -the opportunity cost for this deal- , nVidia wanted them to make changes at their brand names (*just like you, i'm also speculating here:D, based on what Kyle has claimed at his article) . They had to sacrifice something in order to get something else, pure definition of "opportunity cost".

What you're outlining here is blatantly anticompetitive. It really isn't hard to tell:
-if the deal is "you do these nice things for us, you'll get something extra nice back", that's perfectly fine.
-if the deal is "you do something nice for us (by screwing over our competition), you'll get something extra nice back", that's anticompetitive business practices at the very core.

The GPP, from what has been reported (which Nvidia has had so much time to refute! So much! But have they even tried? Nope. They just cry "fake news" and "misinformation" and "we love gamers" and hope people are distracted.), effectively forces AIB partners to make their premium gaming brands Nvidia-exclusive. Given that these brands are all established on the industry-wide practice of differentiating products by features and not by GPU brand (i.e. "Asus" GPUs are entry-level, run-of-the-mill, kinda loud and all that, but might still be a 1080Ti, while the "ROG" version of the Ti will have RGB, a fancy cooler, dual BIOS, improved VRM and a bunch of bonus features), this is clearly a case of Nvidia enforcing a drastic change in how GPUs are branded and marketed, in a way that's clearly designed to disadvantage their competition and create anything but a level playing field.

Add to that the threat of pulling existing financial support (marketing support and all the other "nice things the GPP gives AIB partners" all exist already, before and without the GPP. As such, requiring GPP adherence to continue is a clear threat of pulling that support), and you have something that's wildly unethical at best, and a clear abuse of a dominant market position. This, by the way, is what makes this a case of Nvidia forcing AIBs to do what they want - they're not incentivizing, they're threatening. And when you're the proverbial 800lb gorilla in the room, threats carry weight.

All this speculation and misinformation could have been avoided if someone from Nvidia had come out and explained what it meant. They could have just released the terms and conditions of being a GPP member and the public would not have to speculate.

Numerous sources said that what was conveyed verbally went well beyond what was conveyed in literature; ergo, "releasing the terms and conditions" would only paint a partial picture of the scope of the program. This is also why they could issue a retraction via a blog post rather than investor relations. Intel was equally shady offering Intel exclusivity rebates in the 2000s.

Valantar"1)Everyone does it, so why shouldn't I?" is a kindergarten-level excuse. Don't be daft.

2)What you're outlining here is blatantly anticompetitive. It really isn't hard to tell:
-if the deal is "you do these nice things for us, you'll get something extra nice back", that's perfectly fine.
-if the deal is "you do something nice for us (by screwing over our competition), you'll get something extra nice back", that's anticompetitive business practices at the very core.

The GPP, from what has been reported (which Nvidia has had so much time to refute! So much! But have they even tried? Nope. They just cry "fake news" and "misinformation" and "we love gamers" and hope people are distracted.), effectively forces AIB partners to make their premium gaming brands Nvidia-exclusive. Given that these brands are all established on the industry-wide practice of differentiating products by features and not by GPU brand (i.e. "Asus" GPUs are entry-level, run-of-the-mill, kinda loud and all that, but might still be a 1080Ti, while the "ROG" version of the Ti will have RGB, a fancy cooler, dual BIOS, improved VRM and a bunch of bonus features), this is clearly a case of Nvidia enforcing a drastic change in how GPUs are branded and marketed, in a way that's clearly designed to disadvantage their competition and create anything but a level playing field.

Add to that the threat of pulling existing financial support (marketing support and all the other "nice things the GPP gives AIB partners" all exist already, before and without the GPP. As such, requiring GPP adherence to continue is a clear threat of pulling that support), and you have something that's wildly unethical at best, and a clear abuse of a dominant market position. This, by the way, is what makes this a case of Nvidia forcing AIBs to do what they want - they're not incentivizing, they're threatening. And when you're the proverbial 800lb gorilla in the room, threats carry weight.

1) So, you don't have a problem if other companies apply the same tactics, as long as it's not.... nVidia ? I see. On the other hand, i do tend to have a "small" problem when i hear these kind of things ...;)
-------------------------
2) I have already said several times now, that i'm not a lawyer nor a judge in order for me to state which deal is inside legal boundaries or outside of them (*Especially since nor me or you have read this deal!! ).
If you are so certain about something you haven't even read, you can do what no AIB has done so far , nor even AMD which started this story!!, and you can go sue nVidia !!!;)
Doesn't the fact that none of the directly (*or even indirectly)-involved sides haven't done anything so far, thus, making you have any second-thoughts about why they aren't doing anything about something which is so clearly -(*according to your opinion)- illegal ?;)

FordGT90ConceptNumerous sources said that what was conveyed verbally went well beyond what was conveyed in literature; ergo, "releasing the terms and conditions" would only paint a partial picture of the scope of the program. This is also why they could issue a retraction via a blog post rather than investor relations. Intel was equally shady offering Intel exclusivity rebates in the 2000s.

Yup, The MDFs pay offs were hidden in cost

SECFrom 2002 to 2006, Dell failed to disclose the significant benefits it received from large payments from Intel and materially misrepresented the basis for its improving profitability

When measured as a percentage of Dell's operating income, these payments grew from about 10% in fiscal year 2003 ("FY03") to 38%in FY06, peaking at 76% in the first quarter offiscal 2007 ("QIFY07"). While almost all of the Intel funds were incorporated into Dell's component costs, Dell did not disclose the existence, much less the magnitude, of the Intel exclusivity payments.

sith'ari1) So, you don't have a problem if other companies apply the same tactics, as long as it's not.... nVidia ? I see. On the other hand, i do tend to have a "small" problem when i hear these kind of things ...;)
-------------------------
2) I have already said several times now, that i'm not a lawyer nor a judge in order for me to state which deal is inside legal boundaries or outside of them (*Especially since nor me or you have read this deal!! ).
If you are so certain about something you haven't even read, you can do what no AIB has done so far , nor even AMD which started this story!!, and you can go sue nVidia !!!;)
Doesn't the fact that none of the directly (*or even indirectly)-involved sides haven't done anything so far, thus, making you have any second-thoughts about why they aren't doing anything about something which is so clearly -(*according to your opinion)- illegal ?;)

You seem to be misunderstanding on purpose here. And that faux-righteous "I'm not a lawyer, so my opinions can't contain conclusions" stuff is a pretty nonsensical excuse.

1: OF COURSE I have a problem with that. Have I said anything to indicate otherwise? I also have a problem with people using the fact that businesses are often corrupt as some sort of excuse for other/more companies also being corrupt. This "logic" is absurd on its face. There is no contradiction whatsoever between having issues with both of these things - in fact, they go very well together. The entire point of calling out a company when it's shown to take part in anticompetitive business practices is to take a stand saying that this is not okay, and not how business should work. As having a dominant market position is a requirement for the abuse of one, that makes large companies "vulnerable" to this. This does of course not mean that smaller companies can't be anticompetitive, but it's a lot harder for them to be so. Abuse of power is more difficult the less power you have.

2: Kyle had his story confirmed by quite a few sources. None of them could go on the record out of fear for personal repercussions - getting fired for leaking information like this is a good way of never again getting a job in the electronics manufacturing industry. If you're a specialized GPU engineer, good luck getting into a job in a different engineering field without a very significant effort to reeducate yourself. This is entirely reasonable, and doesn't damage the credibility of the story significantly (although on-the-record sources would of course make it more believable). Also, Kyle had (and continues to have) zero incentive to make up this story or any aspect of it. It might drive a minor increase in traffic to HardOCP in the short term, but the long-term consequences are extremely likely to be damaging to both the site and Kyle personally/professionally. The best case scenario is pretty much that Nvidia refuses to deal with them directly whatsoever in the future. There are many possible worse scenarios, from Nvidia pressuring its AIB partners to not provide cards for review (which would pretty much kill the site outright due to loss of traffic) to other companies being scared of being "outed" by Kyle and not wanting to talk to him - while this has cemented Kyle as a serious journalist for a number of people, that doesn't pay anyone's bills these days in the tech world.

As for your blatant derailing techniques: please stop. This discussion isn't about me (or any other individual forum user) and what we can or cannot do, and bringing stuff like that up has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. We have every right to call out a company for bad practices without wanting or intending to take personal action against them. Suggesting otherwise makes you look really silly, and undermines whatever points you otherwise have. This is not an issue affecting individual users, this is an issue regarding systemic and large-scale actors - and should be treated as such. Suggesting that this removes individuals' right to call out the companies for clear wrongdoings (yes, this is clear-cut, even if it might technically not be illegal) is an absurd leap that makes no logical sense.

Oh, and to the "Kyle can sue Nvidia for loss of profits/whatever" (this isn't only directed at you, sith'ari): that's just plain stupid. Nvidia can afford to engage major regulatory bodies in decade-long legal battles. They could easily make any suit brought by a smaller party into such a protracted and time-consuming battle that the opposing party would be bankrupted by their legal fees well before the end of litigation, even if they couldn't actually win the case.

ValantarYou seem to be misunderstanding on purpose here. And that faux-righteous "I'm not a lawyer, so my opinions can't contain conclusions" stuff is a pretty nonsensical excuse.

1) OF COURSE I have a problem with that.
...........................
2)Oh, and to the "Kyle can sue Nvidia for loss of profits/whatever" (this isn't only directed at you, sith'ari): that's just plain stupid. Nvidia can afford to engage major regulatory bodies in decade-long legal battles. They could easily make any suit brought by a smaller party into such a protracted and time-consuming battle that the opposing party would be bankrupted by their legal fees well before the end of litigation, even if they couldn't actually win the case.

1) If you have a problem with that, such as myself, then in my opinion, you should state what other companies are doing as well, just as i have during my posts at [H] and here as well.
If you paid any attention at my comments, you would have seen that all this time i've been asking why noone protected my "consumer choices" back when nForce chipsets were completely cut-off from the market, when the mining-inflasion prevented me for months to buy a GPU without paying a fortune, when Microsoft have already been dominating for decades gaming market at the OS sector but in this case noone seems to care, when Intel used illegal practices during the past (*i posted video from AdoredTV about that), etc etc.
I know how corporations work (*i've already said it many times) and i know that if they have a leverage to maximize their profits, they will exploit it, regardless if this company is Intel, nVidia, AMD, Microsoft, ASUS, MSI, ...whatever!!
So i can't stand the logic when someone says that he wants to "protect my consumer choices" starting a campaign only against nVidia !! Excuse me but i'll never believe that !!
No, my consumer choices are being impacted all the time, as i explained, so i won't let anyone to implicate me -as a consumer- into legal matters that involve companies .
If they feel threatened, then let them sue each other and go to courts like they have done in the past!! Don't try to manipulate me (*not you, general comment;) ) to believe that some multinational companies care for me and others not., because my next thought will be that you have an interest for doing this. Period !!!

2)Also , i'll never understand the argument that all these AIBs aren't doing anything because they are afraid of the consequences !!
Dell said NO, HP said NO, so i'm pretty sure that ASUS, MSI, GIGABYTE and i don't know who else... , could also have said NO and combined ,altogether, they could go nVidia to courts if they feel that nVidia threatens them with illegal practices !!!
So, just Dell & HP refused, they could also refuse because, guess what... the program is voluntary (just like nVidia was saying at their announcement) and their refusal have proven that they DO have a choice!!
P.S. With this kind of "being afraid logic" AMD should have never gone to courts in the past against a giant like Intel, but guess what : they did go, and they won as well !! And also guess what: Intel is much stronger company than nVidia, so forgive me if i don't believe this all "fear" argument.

I am proud of Dell for not giving in like the other companies did. Makes me more proud of my Dell monitor every time I see the logo. :D

lynx29I am proud of Dell for not giving in like the other companies did. Makes me more proud of my Dell monitor every time I see the logo. :D

Nvidia must not have offered enough money :pimp:.

BiggieShadyNvidia shouldn't 'sell' privileges to AIBs on these kind of deals ... for example, it would be totally ok and competitive for nvidia to ask certain level of pcb quality and vrm array quality and vrm temp ranges for their program.

So Nvidias asks AIBs to use Super Alloy Power III and Military Class 5 exclusively for Geforce. HJW will riot.

sith'ariP.S. With this kind of "being afraid logic" AMD should have never gone to courts in the past against a giant like Intel, but guess what : they did go, and they won as well !! And also guess what: Intel is much stronger company than nVidia, so forgive me if i don't believe this all "fear" argument.

First, Intel gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers – Dell, HP, NEC, Lenovo on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 CPUs from Intel. Intel also made direct payments to Europe's largest PC retailer – Media Saturn Holding (MSH) on condition that it stocked only computers with Intel x86 CPUs.

Second, Intel made direct payments to computer manufacturers – HP, Acer, Lenovo - to stop or delay the launch of specific products containing a competitor's x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products.

Stop selling AMD's stuff at all != sell AMD's stuff under different naming.

Nvidia is totally right about fake rumors, conjecture and mistrusts about GPP. Because you know who you are said that GPP forces AIBs to stop selling AMD cards at all, they must stop making AMD motherboards.

Prince ValiantNvidia must not have offered enough money :pimp:.

I would wager it had more to do with how much bad press they received when they did the backdoor deals with Intel.

sith'ariNow, ... whether this deal is legal or illegal, that's an entirely different matter, and that's not my job (*or yours , or Kyle's or whomever..... ) to judge that. It's only Court's job. ]

Actually as a consumer of a free market I can judge a company on whatever practices and belief system I feel. This is not a government owned and operated company inside of a communist country. I don't have to do anything with it.

All the court decides is if there is a penance that nvidia must pay for whatever shenanigans they pull. I as a consumer have every right under the sun to just not buy their products.

RecusStop selling AMD's stuff at all != sell AMD's stuff under different naming.

While technically true, that is a very nice way of saying "make your established, well known and respected gaming brands (with a lot of brand appeal) Nvidia exclusive, and make up something new for AMD." The first sounds acceptable, but that's only due to leaving out the details in the second.

RecusNvidia is totally right about fake rumors, conjecture and mistrusts about GPP. Because you know who you are said that GPP forces AIBs to stop selling AMD cards at all, they must stop making AMD motherboards.

If people said that, that is indeed too wide an interpretation of what has been reported. What seems entirely accurate, though, is that the GPP forces AIBs to stop selling AMD cards under their established premium gaming brands.

Thought experiment: if Qualcomm pressured Samsung into selling its Exynos-powered variants of the S8/S9 under a different brand than Galaxy, would you deem that as anticompetitive?


sith'ari: I'll have to do this point by point, so bear with me please.

sith'ari1) If you have a problem with that, such as myself, then in my opinion, you should state what other companies are doing as well, just as i have during my posts at [H] and here as well.

No. That is a distraction, and nothing else. This is a discussion based on revelations that Nvidia has been engaged in potentially serious anti-competitive practices. As such, it is a discussion of one specific example. I'll gladly take part in a second discussion that takes on the subject more in general, but that does in no way belong here. The only result of bringing this up here is either to say "all major corporations are corrupt" (which I believe is largely true, and thus not really worth discussing over this one specific example), to distract people from discussing Nvidia's specific ("alleged", though at this point largely proven) wrongdoing, or to make it seem like less of a big deal due to how common it is.

sith'ariIf you paid any attention at my comments, you would have seen that all this time i've been asking why noone protected my "consumer choices" back when nForce chipsets were completely cut-off from the market, when the mining-inflasion prevented me for months to buy a GPU without paying a fortune, when Microsoft have already been dominating for decades gaming market at the OS sector but in this case noone seems to care, when Intel used illegal practices during the past (*i posted video from AdoredTV about that), etc etc.
I know how corporations work (*i've already said it many times) and i know that if they have a leverage to maximize their profits, they will exploit it, regardless if this company is Intel, nVidia, AMD, Microsoft, ASUS, MSI, ...whatever!!

I completely agree here. The PC tech industry has had, and still has, some major problems with regard to corruption, price fixing, anti-competitive practices, and general corruption. Some of it has been tackled in court (Intel is the most major case, but Qualcomm has also seen some hefty fines, among others), but far too little. Most of this is due to the agencies supposed to be controlling this being grossly underfunded and not given enough resources both in terms of manpower and money. This is a public policy issue both in the EU and US, and can only be solved politically. Making noise about specific, large-scale cases of corruption is one possible way of making the problems known, and pushing for improvements. Sadly, with the right-wing wave of the last decade and the sweeping deregulation and cuts in public spending over the same period, this problem has only gotten worse.

sith'ariSo i can't stand the logic when someone says that he wants to "protect my consumer choices" starting a campaign only against nVidia !! Excuse me but i'll never believe that !!
No, my consumer choices are being impacted all the time, as i explained, so i won't let anyone to implicate me -as a consumer- into legal matters that involve companies .
If they feel threatened, then let them sue each other and go to courts like they have done in the past!! Don't try to manipulate me (*not you, general comment;) ) to believe that some multinational companies care for me and others not., because my next thought will be that you have an interest for doing this. Period !!!

That's a rather fatalist view. I entirely agree that believing that major corporations care about any of us beyond our money is naive, but that's not the same as saying "they're all equally bad." There's plenty of nuance left still, and calling out specific cases of corruption is a worthwhile activity, as not doing so is effectively saying "I don't care, do what you want."

sith'ari2) Also , i'll never understand the argument that all these AIBs aren't doing anything because they are afraid of the consequences !!
Dell said NO, HP said NO, so i'm pretty sure that ASUS, MSI, GIGABYTE and i don't know who else... , could also have said NO and combined ,altogether, they could go nVidia to courts if they feel that nVidia threatens them with illegal practices !!!
So, just Dell & HP refused, they could also refuse because, guess what... the program is voluntary (just like nVidia was saying at their announcement) and their refusal have proven that they DO have a choice!!
P.S. With this kind of "being afraid logic" AMD should have never gone to courts in the past against a giant like Intel, but guess what : they did go, and they won as well !! And also guess what: Intel is much stronger company than nVidia, so forgive me if i don't believe this all "fear" argument.

This'll likely be a minor wall of text, but it has to be done in one go:

Firstly: sure, AIB partners could have banded together and sued Nvidia. This is problematic in quite a few ways, though. Firstly, if Nvidia got word that, say, Gigabyte was approaching other AIBs with this goal, Nvidia would cut off Gigabyte's GPU supply immediately. Gigabyte would be bankrupt within months, as they're entirely reliant upon Nvidia's parts to stay in business - long before any lawsuit or criminal case could bring back supply. Nvidia wouldn't really care, as their sales would be affected minimally, shifted to other AIB partners. The same goes for pretty much every AIB partner - even Asus, though they're the most diversified into other large-scale markets like laptops of all Nvidia AIB partners, they're still massively vulnerable due to the major part of their business they do selling AIB GPUs and laptops with dGPUs. This would have to be big for it to actually affect Nvidia's sales noticeably. And Nvidia-only partners like Zotac would never join, as they don't have any other significant business.

Even if they got a plan in place and collectively filed suit - and that would require more or less every AIB partner to join in to be effective, regardless of their size and financial situation - Nvidia could still bankrupt most of them by cutting off GPU supply. Why should Nvidia continue to supply parts to someone who has taken legal action against them? Sure, this might also be of questionable legality, but any criminal investigation and litigation would take years if not decades, leaving AIB partners without components in the meantime. In short: They'd all either go bankrupt or have to face major restructuring. Nvidia would strike manufacturing deals with other companies and get back in their stride within months.

This alone is problematic for publicly traded companies. Why? Because they have a fiscal responsibility to their shareholders. In other words: if they act in a way that they know will damage business, shareholders can, and will, sue - and they would win. Which would further harm the companies, of course. But shareholders care about profits, not about Asus' or Gigabyte's survival. In other words: the boards of any publicly traded companies would immediately be fired if they agreed to sue Nvidia, and the companies would subsequently pull out of the suit, all while seeing massive stock price drops and heaps of shareholder suits. Nobody wants that.

Dell and HP are different, though. Why? Well, firstly, they're not AIB partners, and thus don't rely exclusively on GPU deliveries from Nvidia to ensure a large portion of sales. The might still lose sales, but nowhere near to the same effect as, say Asus. A major portion of the people buying dGPU-equipped PCs from HP or Dell want a "gaming PC", and don't know/care enough to care what GPU is in it. Secondly, and most importantly: they don't make most their money from their consumer business. HP has a massive enterprise arm that would largely be unaffected by this, and which could easily keep the company afloat alone. Dell's enterprise arm really isn't much smaller. For comparison, Asus has near zero presence in the enterprise market. In other words: HP and Dell would both probably be fine with a period of component cut-off from Nvidia. They'd have AMD parts for their gaming PCs (which AMD would gladly sell them, as it'd increase their total sales), and they'd have Intel iGPUs for the remaining 80%+ of their PC revenue.

In other words: Dell and HP were in a drastically different position in "negotiating" (as if this was a negotiation - accepting or declining a contract is not a negotiation) this with Nvidia. AIB partners are pretty much entirely dependent on their parts suppliers, especially in a two-supplier market like GPUs. They could always shop around for DRAM or VRM components, but you're not getting a GPU to sell without working with either Nvidia or AMD - and Nvidia has ~80% of the market, and thus a lot of power. AIB partners are the PC industry's version of tenant farmers, left entirely to the whims of their "landlords". The relation of power here is massively skewed towards the supplier side, and pretending it isn't doesn't help anyone.

Why should the AIBs be forced to create an entirely new brand name for nVidia versus AMD cards?

GPP had a simple goal - ensuring that gamers know what they are buying and can make a clear choice.

Really nVidia? Do you really take us for fools?

We can CLEARLY see that this is an nVidia card.


And we can also CLEARLY see that this is not an nVidia card.


So nVidia, by saying this...

GPP had a simple goal - ensuring that gamers know what they are buying and can make a clear choice.

I can't help but to feel like you are insulting our intelligence here.

Note: Images were modified to make certain parts stand out.

ValantarWhat seems entirely accurate, though, is that the GPP forces AIBs to stop selling AMD cards under their established premium gaming brands.

If they wanted higher tier access to cards. Original reports only stated they would lose earlier access to the product. I'm sure the penalty got harsher the longer they did not comply and considering the volume of GPU's sold now I would say a loss of greater than a million cards s month is a pretty good way to push someone into your back pocket.

Even the blog post is so pretentious... Then again, in corporate world a real admision of failure and fuckup almost never ever happens.

EasoEven the blog post is so pretentious... Then again, in corporate world a real admision of failure and fuckup almost never ever happens.

In the corporate world if they redacted something or fired someone up top it was a failure. That's all the admissions you need

cdawallIf they wanted higher tier access to cards. Original reports only stated they would lose earlier access to the product. I'm sure the penalty got harsher the longer they did not comply and considering the volume of GPU's sold now I would say a loss of greater than a million cards s month is a pretty good way to push someone into your back pocket.

Not unlikely, but the removal of marketing funds is also very likely a major factor (money in/free marketing/zero effective cost, potentially major gains). Some of the people arguing that the GPP wasn't that bad bring this up as if these funds never existed before or that Nvidia isn't taking anything away, just withholding new possible privileges, but it's of quite major importance that this is effectively withholding funds that have up until now been awarded relatively freely (or at least with far fewer requirements than the GPP attached to them). That move isn't far from the "the first hit is on me" of heroin dealers everywhere (although I think AIB partners are far more addicted to (read: dependent on) Nvidia GPUs than the average junkie needs H).

sith'ariDell said NO, HP said NO, so i'm pretty sure that ASUS, MSI, GIGABYTE and i don't know who else... , could also have said NO and combined ,altogether, they could go nVidia to courts if they feel that nVidia threatens them with illegal practices !!!

You clearly do not understand the relationship between what products these companies make and how the market share of companies like AMD/Nvidia affects that. Or you are simply very naive to think it's that simple.

Dell and HP isn't selling stand alone video cards like ASUS , MSI ,etc do. In addition to that in case you haven't noticed AMD has only recently reemerged as a dedicated GPU provider for mobile products , their market share in that area is minuscule at the moment and that makes up a big portion of the products Dell and HP sell to mainstream consumer. (it should be obvious to anyone by now that GPP was only relevant to that segment)

In other words , standalone products from AMD do not make up a significant portion of their portfolio. GPP meant jack shit to them as it didn't really affect their operations in any significant way , companies never make deals like these if it don't benefit them in any way.

Meanwhile companies like ASUS , MSI , GIGABYTE sell millions of video cards to mainstream consumers that rely exclusively on products from AMD/Nvidia. Nvidia currently has more than twice the market share in that segment, they would have never refused a program like GPP because it could have endangered the relationship between them and their biggest provider of GPUs. It would have been enough for just one AIB to sign a deal with Nvidia and it would have screwed everyone else big time , that's why all of them agreed to it. It was an attempt to fearmonger AIBs into being part of this program by leveraging their market share which is vital to their business.