I suppose a key part of the argument here will revolve around the definition of 'brand' (and, beyond that, 'sub-brand').
An example:
Asus is a manufacturer, but also a brand.
ROG is Asus' gaming sub-brand, but could be argued to have sufficient name recognition to be considered a brand of its own.
Ares/Mars are, at best, sub-brands of ROG, with minimal if any separate name recognition. They're barely a step above model designations. If you asked me to guess what GPU manufacturer was behind each name, I'd have no idea.
EVGA is a manufacturer and a brand, but has no "gaming" sub-brand. Then again, they're a much smaller company, and barely make non-gaming products at all.
Now, where to draw the line for what entails a reasonable understanding of this with regards to this report?
- It seems unlikely that Nvidia would require top-level brands (manufacturers' names) to be Nvidia exclusive. Not to mention that that would be blatantly anticompetitive, and hence, illegal.
- Likewise, it seems unlikely that Nvidia would care at all (or even want!) a constant, Nvidia only sub-brand below ROG. Not only does it not match the reported wording ("exclusive... gaming brand"), but it would make for god-awful product names, which Nvidia (or anyone with a marketing department) would see is a bad idea. "Asus ROG Strix GTX 1060 OC" is bad enough. "Asus ROG Mars Strix GTX 1060 OC" is... well, awful. The more sub-brands, the more confusing it all becomes and the less these actually end up meaning.
- As such, it doesn't seem unreasonable to interpret this as if Nvidia would require the ROG brand (Asus' "gaming brand") to be Nvidia exclusive. To keep selling AMD while joining the GPP, they'd need to establish a separate gaming brand, or just sell them as Asus - which of course gives Nvidia a massive PR advantage given ROG's brand recognition. The wording makes it unlikely that establishing a new gaming brand for Nvidia next to an established one (left to AMD) would fulfill this requirement, as the word "the" is consistently used rather than "a".
Asus might be an extreme case, as they're probably the biggest AIB partner out there, but would that mean that they'd get preferential/different treatment than smaller OEMs? I doubt it, as that would be a hard sell for Nvidia to the other OEMs.
So, if this is true, what does it all boil down to? A dominant market leader imposing strict-seeming exclusivivity requirements on partners with the possible penalties having significant economic impacts, especially for smaller partners. That does indeed sound like anticompetitive business practices to me when put in terms that simple - but there are a lot of details and nuances here, not least in terms of how this is put into practice and enforced. I'm no legal expert either, of course. But I'd say it warrants an investigation at the very least.
Well, that's exactly what they should do, instead of crying to journalists like little girls. They're world-wide businesses after all, not kids the Nvidia can bully as they please.
Wow. Seriously? Your answer is "AIB partners should unionize"? That is an absurdly naive stance. Of course Nvidia can bully them around - the vast majority of their GPU business is beholden to the whims of Nvidia. Even as a group, AIB partners have very little say if Nvidia decides to change something. Besides, this is why we have laws and regulations, so that the responsibility of maintaining a somewhat fair society doesn't fall om individuals and minor actors.
I will say again mind, what if nobody signs up to it anyway? I mean why would they if the current status quo exists.
Sorry, but how exactly do you think the status quo is? You realise that the incentives and monetary support mentioned here already exists, right? Nvidia already pays out large sums to help partners with advertising. Do you believe Asus alone pays for all those Asus ROG GeForce gaming laptop ads? If so, you're sorely mistaken. And this, of course, flips the script entirely. Nvidia isn't saying "join the GPP and get more", it's saying "unless you restructure and give us favorable branding, we'll stop paying you." Which, of course, is the kind of thing that drives investors and board members to the verge of hysterical fits in fear of projected profits dropping. Which, again, is why this thing has power.
Of course, should this prove to be true, it really shouldn't surprise anyone. It's the nature of profit-oriented business, particularly publicly traded business, to seek the maximization of profits to the highest degree possible. Of course that entails pushing the limits of the law - especially when they can reap the benefits of said practices while under investigation or on trial (or during appeals, and so on...). In the end, they gain more than they stand to lose. AMD would probably do similar things if they were in a dominant market position. It's the name of the game, and the entire reason why "the free market" is a wildly misleading term - free(dom) implies equality and fairness, to which deregulation and "free competition" (i.e. "do whatever you can to win") are diametrically opposed. Unregulated or underpoliced markets are unfree, fundamentally unfair markets. The hunt for ever-growing profits makes this a given.
Edit: corrected GPU to GPP. That's what I get for typing on my phone, I guess.
