Why should the AIBs be forced to create an entirely new brand name for nVidia versus AMD cards?
Really nVidia? Do you really take us for fools?
We can
CLEARLY see that this is an nVidia card.
View attachment 100661
And we can also
CLEARLY see that this is
not an nVidia card.
View attachment 100662
So nVidia, by saying this...
I can't help but to feel like you are insulting our intelligence here.
Note: Images were modified to make certain parts stand out.
I suppose Nvidia is targeting the red-green colorblind and also illiterate market?
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.
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!!!
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.
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 !!!
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.
-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??
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....
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.
.
What more a company must do in order to gain someone's interest IF what has been said here is accurate??
