Friday, May 4th 2018
NVIDIA Ends Controversial GeForce Partner Program (GPP)
NVIDIA late Friday announced that it is ending the controversial GeForce Partner Program (GPP). The "program" was a revision in the terms of sale of NVIDIA graphics processors to AIC (add in card) partners (such as EVGA, ASUS, GIGABYTE, etc.), which in regulator-baiting language, called for AIC partners to keep their gaming-centric brands (such as ASUS ROG, GIGABYTE Aorus, MSI Gaming, etc.) exclusive to NVIDIA GeForce GPUs, thereby de-listing AMD Radeon GPUs. Companies like ASUS went as far as stripping its AMD Radeon products of even the "ASUS" brand, relegating them to a new "AREZ" brand.
Apparently the blow-back was harder than expected, and NVIDIA buckled. The main forces behind NVIDIA withdrawing GPP may not be fear of government regulators, but OEMs, such as Dell and HP, refusing to sign up. AMD is known in the OEM circles for great pricing, which is what scores it design wins with giants such as Apple. That's something big OEMs would never want to let go of. Had Dell, for example, signed up for GPP, it would have meant the end of AMD Radeon GPUs in Alienware desktops.
Far from sounding apologetic, NVIDIA's announcement of "pulling the plug" on GPP reads of the company begrudgingly ending the program, defending its "benefits to gamers" to the very end. NVIDIA didn't even give the announcement the dignity of a formal press-release, but a blog post, pasted verbatim:
Apparently the blow-back was harder than expected, and NVIDIA buckled. The main forces behind NVIDIA withdrawing GPP may not be fear of government regulators, but OEMs, such as Dell and HP, refusing to sign up. AMD is known in the OEM circles for great pricing, which is what scores it design wins with giants such as Apple. That's something big OEMs would never want to let go of. Had Dell, for example, signed up for GPP, it would have meant the end of AMD Radeon GPUs in Alienware desktops.
A lot has been said recently about our GeForce Partner Program. The rumors, conjecture and mistruths go far beyond its intent. Rather than battling misinformation, we have decided to cancel the program.No, NVIDIA, this isn't the way it's meant to be played.
GPP had a simple goal - ensuring that gamers know what they are buying and can make a clear choice.
NVIDIA creates cutting-edge technologies for gamers. We have dedicated our lives to it. We do our work at a crazy intense level - investing billions to invent the future and ensure that amazing NVIDIA tech keeps coming. We do this work because we know gamers love it and appreciate it. Gamers want the best GPU tech. GPP was about making sure gamers who want NVIDIA tech get NVIDIA tech.
With GPP, we asked our partners to brand their products in a way that would be crystal clear. The choice of GPU greatly defines a gaming platform. So, the GPU brand should be clearly transparent - no substitute GPUs hidden behind a pile of techno-jargon.
Most partners agreed. They own their brands and GPP didn't change that. They decide how they want to convey their product promise to gamers. Still, today we are pulling the plug on GPP to avoid any distraction from the super exciting work we're doing to bring amazing advances to PC gaming.
This is a great time to be a GeForce partner and be part of the fastest growing gaming platform in the world. The GeForce gaming platform is rich with the most advanced technology. And with GeForce Experience, it is "the way it's meant to be played."
149 Comments on NVIDIA Ends Controversial GeForce Partner Program (GPP)
I want to emphasize on very few things :
-I've said it in the past:
a)We don't have any documents regarding this deal and b)Even if we had, personally, i'm not a lawyer in order to be able to conclude if this deal is inside or outside the legal boundaries (*usually these kind of deals are borderline-legal/illegal, so only someone with expertise on the field could give a relatively accurate info, and this, ONLY if he had the documents , which in this case..... he hasn't!!!
So can you see what Kyle has done here? he flamed an entire community in a matter for which very few people have the expertise to judge properly, and even if they could, they don't have the means (*documents) in order to do it properly!! Based on what we have, all we can do here is .............speculating and flaming !!!
Well personally, i don't like these kind of "games" AT ALL that's why i'm reacting this way.
Just like lot of people take Kyle's word on this matter, i can take another one's word as well:
Elric's for instance, who has said that in all his years of reviewing, ONLY AMD has dictated him how to do his reviews. Or steve , who assumed/speculated that AMD during the mine-inflation has deliberately reduced RX VEGA quantities, prioritizing the much more expensive Frontier Editionin order to maximize their profits on the expense of ....guess who.... US CONSUMERS !!!
No need to tell you how much these kind of tactics can damage my "consumer choices" , which Kyle cares so much to protect !! But nevertheless, i can't remember him (* if anyone remembers differently he can enlighten me) searching any of these matters that i mentioned.
So, myself, as a consumer, when i see titles such as "GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice" , then i expect from the person who says something like that to protect my "consumer choices" in general, not only at a fraction of his choice !!!
-I'm a person who i like to offset my lack of legal knowledge on this matter, with the use of my logic:
So, since Dell & HP as you said, are ""in a drastically different position in "negotiating" this with Nvidia"" , then IF this agreement has any illegal terms inside, then Dell & HP wouldn't have any serious problems to drag nVidia to courts right ? Since it's such an "obvious case" as it is claimed from the community, then what's stopping them? You said that the AIB's are dependent to nVidia, so what about those who are NOT dependent?? :confused:
P.S. And i'll say it once more, AMD has done in the past against Intel, and nVidia has also went to courts in the past, again, against Intel....I just noticed your post: My answer to what you say is the same i gave to @Valantar :
Seriously, you must be voluntarily blind if you cannot see what went on here, why it failed and why people stood up against it. I'm not even going to try and reason with that stance... its just too far off reality to even bother. There is a significant chance that some EU anti trust issue came up and Nvidia got pushed into this decision.
To all those who recognize themselves in my post, read up a bit and learn something
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
/thread
No need for a contract except to use NVIDIA's brands. You know, so an angry AIB doesn't make a GeForce Potato.
If the answer is no, then GPP is still in effect, in the sense that AMD will still be "barred" from established brand name(s), assuming the manufacturers don't stop selling the "alternative" brands.
You basically refuse to understand that GPP was aimed at specific segment and the companies associated with it and not at the industry as a whole. And that's why not everyone responded in the same way or would be willing to forward a legal case.
If you check recent videos, you'll see that Nvidia's goal with this project was mostly focused towards the laptop industry, not the desktop, so Dell and HP were certainly among the aimed companies.
Also,..... "they have no interest on this matter" ??? !! nVidia has threatened them with a deal which according to lot of you guys is surely illegal, and they have NO INTEREST ON THE MATTER ?? !!!:eek: What more a company must do in order to gain someone's interest IF what has been said here is accurate??:p
www.notebookcheck.net/Where-are-all-the-Kaby-Lake-G-laptops-Nvidia-s-GeForce-Partner-Program-may-be-to-blame.300748.0.html
Funny you bring that up because up until now you have been very akin to point out how someone like Kyle had "no documents" to provide "accurate and reliable information". Yet you take as fact information provided by some unspecified sources with regards to a single instance of one single product which might have been , supposedly , affected by GPP.
I also find it interesting how you claim very confidently that this was Nvidia's plan all along , based on ... what? What "documents and accurate information" do you have ?
I was mostly referring at Gamer'sNexus recent video:
take a look between 13:55-17:05
this is my way to react on what i'm reading, i didn't started this, i'm just reacting using my logic. Anyway, at my post #102 i already explained :
They can however ask certain level of production quality to get into the program, that's what I meant.
Facts with regards to market share , product segments and existing dependencies between these companies are way more concrete and relevant that whatever constitutes your "logic".Take a good look again at the video you posted of Gamer Nexus , notice how he's pointing out a "disclaimer" that he is not against Nvidia in it's entirety. Why do you think he does that ? Because all these reviewers are more or less at the mercy of how these companies perceive them , their business relies on that , it's a form of censorship.
I mostly do not care at all about what they have to say on these sorts of matters because I know that more often than not their opinions are constrained by that. The fact that you arbitrarily chose to listen only to a specific group of people , even though they are also basing their opinions on unspecified/unverified source tells me that you don't have any real argument to back up your claims.
there is no if anymore (won't point to who... let him use his logic) why ? because they ended gpp in the way they do it.
they wouldn't runaway so fast from it if all was so legal & pro-consumer; i don't need any other proof (using my stupid logic) ; they stirred up the shit and don't know how to get rid of the flies now
They also have long since required a level of production quality for GPU's. Every single design and bios has to meet nvidia qc nonsense. Remember these are the same wonderful people that wouldn't let AIB's sell an overclocked version of the 1070ti.
But i do care about penalizing NVIDIA for their bullshit.
They wont ever see a dime from me again. The consumers have the power, the power of the Money they spend. Spending Money on Nvidia will only ensure they Keep on playing their dirty games again. Remeber, the power is in our pocket. We have the power to bankrupt the thieves (Nvidia). Simple. Dont buy from them again.
And this Geforce program is just a smal example. Look in the history.
Same with Intel. They sit on their arses for the past 10 years and offered only incremental Upgrades to milk to fools.
Switched to Epyc platform. No thanks Intel.
I also love how my posts in this thread apparently have made me an "Nvidia Expert" according to the forums. Can't quite say I deserve that, considering I've never bought or actively used an Nvidia GPU (aside from some ancient Geforce in the ... early 2000s or so, before I knew what a GPU was - no, I didn't buy that). My GF's video editing rig has a GTX 970 in it, though, but I got that for free off my brother.As reported, these documents have likely never existed. Nor did they have to. A company like Nvidia can easily pressure AIB partners "off-the-record" with insinuations and well-placed comments, and as they dictate the terms of the deals (again: we have no indication that the GPP left any room for negotiation), they have no incentive to put any of this down on paper - that would only leave a document trail to incriminate them, while "specifying" the on-paper terms with a wink and a nudge would be just as binding.The issue here is that you're conflating reporting based on off-the-record statements from industry sources with outright speculation and off-the-cuff analysis, or comparing with issues of a vastly different order of magnitude. I'm not saying Steve is wrong in his speculation (it seems likely, though there are justifiable reasons for this (prioritizing non-blockchain compute and professional users who use/need more than 8GB of VRAM) beyond "not wanting to sell to gamers" - but again, that's another discussion entirely), and although I have no idea who Elric (Eric? Still don't know) is, there have been quite a few reports of AMD pushing reviewers to test in specific ways - and there has been plenty of outcry and discussion surrounding it. I'd say the difference in attention between the GPP and AMD's attempts to influence reviewers is pretty much proportional to the gravity of the accusations. Both are bad, but that does not make them equally bad.Firstly: AMD and Intel can sue each other pretty much freely, as they have zero economic inter-dependencies like this (they have mutual patent deals, but don't actually rely on each other beyond that to do business). The only real difference here is who has the resources to outlast each other. AMD took a major risk when they did this, but they had the backing of an antitrust investigation and attached criminal case - which significantly eases the burden on them as the accusing party - they could simply argue that they had been damaged by Intel's criminal activity and thus sue for damages. If no criminal activity is investigated, alleged or brought to court, this is not a possible argument.
As such, I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of lawsuits against Nvidia crop up once (/"if") these fresh antitrust investigations (at least in the EU, and I think I read something about the US as well?) actually lead somewhere. Before that, the burden of proof is significantly shifted to the suing party, and as such any lawsuit carries a much higher risk. And risk, again, is not something that publicly traded companies can really afford to take without the prospect of a reasonably short-term gain - which major lawsuits do not lead to. Dell isn't publicly traded, and might as such be less risk-averse, but they're still a for-profit corporation.
How I predict things will go in the coming years, given that the antitrust investigations actually lead somewhere:
-Nvidia is brought to court on criminal charges for anticompetitive business practices. If this happens, it won't be before 2020.
-A case like that will take years, so a lot of waiting and silence will ensue
-If a judgement against Nvidia seems likely (or happens)*, large and financially secure actors like HP and Dell will launch civil suits alleging damages from Nvidia's criminal activity
-If these go well, smaller and less financially secure actors will launch similar suits.
-If Nvidia is convicted, they'll appeal, and a new multi-year trial will start.
This will play out over a period of a decade or more. Remember, Intel's appeal of their fine for anti-competitive practices (originally levied in 2009) is still ongoing.
*The burden of proof in civil cases, at least in the US, is lower than in criminal cases. As such, large actors might take the minor risk of suing before a judgement is handed down (or even if Nvidia wins!), as they might judge that the burden of proof for a civil case has already been met.
edit: jumping between pages here cut out some text, apparently.
hardforum.com/threads/nvidia-starts-disinformation-gpp-campaign.1958917/page-7#post-1043601953 .
Also you can check the rest of my comment on this post, besides the video, and you'll probably understand better why i'm reacting the way i do. From our conversations i understood that you are a person who has the ability to think very rational.:)
As for your other comments, although they are interesting arguments , i would rather not comment on them, because i'll be forced to repeat a lot of things , and i'd like to avoid that.
I will only ask this as a comment to your closing paragraph : Has any of the directly-involved parties (*AIBs, Dell, HP ) , or indirectly involved parties(*AMD who started all this, ) , filed a claim against GPP ?
If none of them haven't, then do you really believe that there will be a court which will legaly-persue nVidia, without any claims from the involved parties?;)
While there's no doubt white-collar crime is often easy to hide and prosecution of this to a certain degree depends on tip-offs and whistleblowers, equating this to "if nobody complains, nobody will be charged" is a gross oversimplification. If I were you, I'd take a good look at my own impression of the justice system. Of course, I don't know where you live, but your country has to be pretty bad in terms of underfunded investigative agencies/corruption for this to be even close to reality. You come off as either really cynical or like you've completely given up on society's ability to function with a modicum of fairness.
(*At least i can't recall such a thing , but i might be mistaken, since , as i said , i'm not a lawyer.)
Still, my question was if : ""any of the directly-involved parties (*AIBs, Dell, HP ) , or indirectly involved parties(*AMD who started all this, ) , filed a claim against nVidia/GPP "". I'm most curious.