nVidia's GPP program is just a legally enforced GITG from hell?

[digitalwanderer]

Kyle wrote an excellent piece over at [H]ard about nVidia's GeForce Parter's Program, (GPP), and how it's gonna screw over gamers even worse than "Get In The Game" exclusives did:

The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP comes down to a single requirement in order to be part of GPP. In order to have access to the GPP program, its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." I have read documents with this requirement spelled out on it.



What would it mean to have your "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce?" The example that will likely resonate best with HardOCP readers is the ASUS Republic of Gamers brand. I have no knowledge if ASUS is a GPP partner, I am simply using the ROG brand hypothetically. If ASUS is an NVIDIA GPP partner, and it wants to continue to use NVIDIA GPUs in its ROG branded video cards, computers, and laptops, it can no longer sell any other company's GPUs in ROG products. So if ASUS want to keep building NVIDIA-based ROG video cards, it can no longer sell AMD-based ROG video cards, and be a GPP partner.



NVIDIA will tell you that it is 100% up to its partner company to be part of GPP, and from the documents I have read, if it chooses not to be part of GPP, it will lose the benefits of GPP which include: high-effort engineering engagements -- early tech engagement -- launch partner status -- game bundling -- sales rebate programs -- social media and PR support -- marketing reports -- Marketing Development Funds (MDF). MDF is likely the standout in that list of lost benefits if the company is not a GPP partner.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Ugh. That sounds a lot like what Intel was doing back in the 90's/early 2000's with preferential pricing to partners that did not sell competitor hardware.

The only difference is that here NV are calling it "sales rebate programs."

The government cracked down on Intel for that, I wonder if they'll even bat an eye at NV doing it.

Basically any AIB wanting to sell NV hardware that isn't in the program will be at a massive disadvantage versus AIBs who are in the program.

Regards,
SB

 

[Malo]

Well that's going to cause a lot of drama. From just starting his article, the first thing that came to mind is the questionable legality of the GPP, especially considering their market position. Obviously we don't have a lot of the details of the actual OEM obligations, but the requirements and more importantly, the incentives lost for the OEM make it very difficult for them.

 

[Grall]

The constant stream of Super Scummy Shit flowing out of Nvidia - recently and going back ten years if not more, almost ever since becoming top dog in the discrete GPU market - makes it increasingly hard for me to desire NV GPUs. I have owned a bunch of NV stuff over the years; GF3, GF6800 vanilla, GF8800GTX SLI, and most lately GF770 SLI, but I don't think I could bring myself to buy anything of theirs of late, and this stuff just turns my stomach.

I went with AMD Vega even though it's a weaker, thirstier product compared to NV's. It was easier for me from a moral standpoint, even though due to cryptominers I ended up paying considerably more for my boards than if I'd bought the equivalent NV card.

 

[nutball]

This is what happens when the competition drops the ball (again), people.

 

[swaaye]

Aren't AMD not even launching more graphics this year? Just that new generation of boring APUs? They'd better hope that Volta/Ampere is really boring and NV just wants mega margins.

 

[itsmydamnation]

Aren't AMD not even launching more graphics this year? Just that new generation of boring APUs? They'd better hope that Volta/Ampere is really boring and NV just wants mega margins.

They have mobile Vega/ Vega on package products. Don't think there is anything else.

 

[Shortbread]

Kyle wrote an excellent piece over at [H]ard about nVidia's GeForce Parter's Program, (GPP), and how it's gonna screw over gamers even worse than "Get In The Game" exclusives did:

This is simply NVidia trying to figure out how to stop the quarterly [market share] hemorrhaging, which they're experiencing. Going from 73% to 66% market share, is quite a big deal, especially when all signs are pointing towards more gains (larger share) for AMD.

But yes, this is bad business for consumers and OEM partners not willing to play NVidia's game.

This is what happens when the competition drops the ball (again), people.

On the GPU gaming side of things, I agree 100%. But, AMD has grown it's GPU market share from 27% to 33.7% within the last quarter, mostly because of mining sales.

 

[CSI PC]

AMD has similar rebate deals with the various AIB partners and engagements albeit not as strict, the primary difference is that Nvidia wants the branding to be unique for those that want to use the Nvidia GPP.
It is more of a headache for partners and customers who then will need to see unique top tier names from say Asus/MSI/etc on both AMD and Nvidia GPUs going forward, and yeah it could take time for new brand name recognition and crucially marketing cost but a customer IMO would have no problem finding the top tier from either company sold by an AIB/OEM partner even if they are distinct brand names going forward.

The biggest concern and no-one knows if this will actually happen because it is not defined is the concern allocation of GPUs will be less for those not in the program, one can only say time will tell and something that can be easily monitored and then one can go beyond assumptions.
But then Sapphire who only partner with AMD seem to launch the higher tier products 1st before any other AIB partner and has been hinted they have some specific technical engagement, no-one complains about that.
Worth noting as well the suggested cause of this situation in the article:

.....
The motivations behind this GPP move by NVIDIA is somewhat confusing at first blush. Why would a company that owns ~70% market share, and has no true high-end competition make a move like this? Many people that I have spoken to fully question the legality of the GeForce Partner Program. Interestingly enough, we think that the roots of GPP makes it way all the way back and somewhat dovetails with our From ATI to AMD back to ATI? A Journey in Futility article published in May of 2016. That was the first time that the world got wind of AMD getting into bed with Intel to do some GPU business. We believe at that time NVIDIA put another "exclusive" plan into place, however by a different name, and the GeForce Partner Program we are seeing now is somewhat an extension of that previous program.



One thing we know is that NVIDIA has made a lot of enemies over the years. You can easily put AMD, Apple, and Intel on that list. We think that GPP is somewhat the result of those "feuds" with NVIDIA attempting to gain more control over the market as it is seeing its competitors developing products (ie AMD and Intel partnerships on products) that will not be open to NVIDIA.

I am not sure what Nvidia plans is illegal (morally questionable sure but some of this reflect practices from those who try to squeeze Nvidia), however again it is AMD who raised this with various journalists (including Kyle) and yet seem that Sapphire has some kind of preferential partnership or the fact AMD team up with Intel to squeeze Nvidia in the low/mobile segment....
Good grief even back in 2013 AMD made Sapphire their global distribution partner for FirePro, and no-one bats an eye lid even though Sapphire solely partners with AMD and do not engage with Nvidia.
Or what about AMD excluding professional reviewers who do not always give good reviews/news around AMD going back over 12 months; the irony is they excluded HardOCP from being a reviewer of some their GPU hardware 12 months ago and now provide HardOCP this bit of news to investigate.

Like I said AIB partners will have to create new brand names and marketing recognition going forward if they sign up for the Nvidia GPP; it is even on Nvidia's site one can be a partner and still promote other manufacturer products.
The most negative aspect is the additional burden it places on AIB partners and their product-brand marketing strategies.

And crucially it is not a monopoly anti-competitive because the OEMs/AIBs can still have the same level of commitment to AMD (nothing like what Intel pulled years ago), just how they decide to handle the burden of differentiating brand name and engagement.
Of course they are not happy (and they have a right to this POV) because of this additional overhead and marketing cost, and possibly resources (indirectly includes further costs) but offset some by certain Progam incentives provided by Nvidia.

 

[Grall]

Good grief even back in 2013 AMD made Sapphire their global distribution partner for FirePro, and no-one bats an eye lid even though Sapphire solely partners with AMD and do not engage with Nvidia.

Er, what?

What is the problem with any of that, and how is it in any way comparable to NV's new demands? If a company chooses to work with one brand or another of GPU is their choice (there's exclusively-NV board vendors as well one might add).

NV is trying to meddle in how 3rd parties run their business using a form of extortion scheme. If it isn't an outright antitrust violation, it's surely cutting pretty close.

 

[CSI PC]

Er, what?

What is the problem with any of that, and how is it in any way comparable to NV's new demands? If a company chooses to work with one brand or another of GPU is their choice (there's exclusively-NV board vendors as well one might add).

NV is trying to meddle in how 3rd parties run their business using a form of extortion scheme. If it isn't an outright antitrust violation, it's surely cutting pretty close.

The article is in context that Nvidia is going to use the GPP for preferential treatment and a lot is being made of this, well AMD already does this with Sapphire in terms of both 1st to market products/higher level of supply and technical engagement and some business practices such as making them the Global Distributor of FirePro back in 2013.

In essence what AMD is not happy about with this program (as they were the ones to raise this with HardOCP) they already do with Sapphire...
And while some may say "ah but the Nvidia program affects more", it is still not anti-competitive because the OEMs/AIBs are still able to have same level of commitment to AMD as now, meaning it is not the same as what Intel pulled against AMD.

Like I said the AIB partners have a right to be upset because it is further overhead for them, but I outline this in my previous post.

If you have no issue with how AMD use Sapphire in a preferential way over other AIB partners and to reiterate Sapphire funny enough do not engage with Nvidia, then you should be ok with what Nvidia is doing, and as HardOCP article mentions this is next step as part of their strategy in response to AMD-Intel collaboration and maybe AMD-Apple.
You do not find it strange the preferential position of Sapphire that solely engages with AMD?
Sure they may not be contractually obliged to be so limited (we do not know what the agreement is between the two parties), but then a lot of opportunities have come their way from AMD while being AMD exclusive.
Point being it is a bit one-sided solely to just complain about Nvidia GPP practice, unless ones context is the overhead burden-unknown cost it will bring to AIB partners, but if one wants to use the HardOCP article then one also needs to accept this is the fallout from the AMD-Intel collaboration created to squeeze Nvidia; not saying it makes the GPP right but the situation is more nuanced than "this deal is illegal" and "anti-competitive".

 

[Kaotik]

.....of Skynet?

.....Umbrella Inc?

Of abusing dominant position on the market
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/03/08/geforce_partner_program_impacts_consumer_choice

 

[CSI PC]

...
NV is trying to meddle in how 3rd parties run their business using a form of extortion scheme. If it isn't an outright antitrust violation, it's surely cutting pretty close.

What precisely is the extortion scheme?
AIB partners who sign up will need to rebrand and differentiate between the AMD and Nvidia lineup (the biggest hurt is the burden to AIB partners and I agree they have a right to be upset like I mentioned earlier), extortion would be if they were forced to choose one over the other and it seems they are not; what Intel did could be deemed extortion pressure put onto the OEMs those years ago against AMD.

If you then talk about preferential engagement in engineering/supply/business practice/etc then that already happens like I said with AMD and Sapphire (who do not engage with Nvidia and are AMD exclusive); that would mean Nvidia is taking AMD approach with Sapphire and making it an actual broader partner proposal.

How is Nvidia meant to strategically respond to the AMD-Intel collaboration designed to squeeze them competitively?

To clarify I am not defending Nvidia but just seeing it from a broader perspective that goes beyond Nvidia practices.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

First posted by a story on HardOCP (which was followed by a damage-control blog post at nvidia), but has since been picked up by Forbes and now others.

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/03/07/geforce_partner_program_impacts_consumer_choice
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...olistic-anti-consumer-practices/#5b3ef6f42241
http://www.nag.co.za/2018/03/09/nvi...rogram-this-week-and-people-are-mad-about-it/


Kyle Benett has a lot of (temper) problems on his own IMO, but he was indeed the first to bring up the Intel+AMD solution well before anyone thought it to be possible, so their popularity and reliability is are at an all-time high right now.

We have contacted seven companies about their part in NVIDIA GPP and not one of the seven would talk to us on the record if they spoke to us about it at all. 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.

All of the people that I did interview at AIBs and at OEMs did however have the same thoughts on GPP. 1.) They think that it has terms that are likely illegal. 2.) GPP is likely going to tremendously hurt consumers' choices. 3.) It will disrupt business with the companies that they are currently doing business with, namely AMD and Intel.

The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP comes down to a single requirement in order to be part of GPP. In order to have access to the GPP program, its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." I have read documents with this requirement spelled out on it.

What would it mean to have your "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce?" The example that will likely resonate best with HardOCP readers is the ASUS Republic of Gamers brand. I have no knowledge if ASUS is a GPP partner, I am simply using the ROG brand hypothetically. If ASUS is an NVIDIA GPP partner, and it wants to continue to use NVIDIA GPUs in its ROG branded video cards, computers, and laptops, it can no longer sell any other company's GPUs in ROG products. So if ASUS want to keep building NVIDIA-based ROG video cards, it can no longer sell AMD-based ROG video cards, and be a GPP partner.

NVIDIA will tell you that it is 100% up to its partner company to be part of GPP, and from the documents I have read, if it chooses not to be part of GPP, it will lose the benefits of GPP which include: high-effort engineering engagements -- early tech engagement -- launch partner status -- game bundling -- sales rebate programs -- social media and PR support -- marketing reports -- Marketing Development Funds (MDF). MDF is likely the standout in that list of lost benefits if the company is not a GPP partner.

This last part sounds really hostile.
Sounds an awful lot like what Intel did back in the Netburst days to stop AMD from gaining marketshare when the latter had a superior product (which was caught way too late in the game and the damage had already been done, unfortunately).

 

[CSI PC]

Sounds more like what AMD does with Sapphire and Nvidia is expanding that to be more of broader program rather than what Intel pulled and forcing AIB Partners to be more focused on them rather than AMD.
Anyway both manufacturers already offer partner status/game bundling/sales rebate programs.

A partner can still sell AMD based cards but they or Nvidia would need to be rebranded going forward so an AIB partner would need to decide who gets the current marketing brand as an example for Rog at Asus or for MSI Gaming X; the negative impact is the additional burden and resources/costs this puts on the AIB, which may be offset a bit by the new program but still a negative.

And worth noticing HardOCP states this has happened due to the collaboration strategy from AMD-Intel to squeeze Nvidia competitively; of course does not make it right but the situation is more nuanced when looking at practices more broadly.

 

[Malo]

Thread posted already here though should be merged and moved here as it's more appropriate forum.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Sounds more like what AMD does with Sapphire and Nvidia is expanding that to be more of broader program rather than what Intel pulled and forcing AIB Partners to be more focused on them rather than AMD.

I wonder if you honestly believe that sentence.


What's Sapphire's exclusive partnership with AMD other than being the official distributor for low-volume FirePro graphics cards? nVidia does exactly that with PNY on Quadro GPUs.
Exclusivity on professional graphics cards is done to reduce the number of hardware variations (RAM chips, VRMs, PCBs, etc.) for which the premium support for these products is done.

This has nothing to do with holding the AIB for gaming cards hostage saying if you don't get exclusive then you'll have to wait longer to get the cards and get them more expensive on top of it.
Anyone can see the difference.

 

[lanek]

Sapphire or EVGA, Palit/galaxy who only sold GPU of one Brand have nothing to do with GPP... It is their choices..and it is not resulting of a vast program.. Forcing brands to only sold your GPU's if they want tariffs cut ( and brands who dont, will not have them ofc ), free marketing cost ( Nvidia seems to pay the marketing cost from their pocket ), and bring priority on the retail channel to them.. . etc etc as described in the article seems to look exactly like what was doing Intel in the 90-2000 with Dell, HP etc

lets call distort the concurrences ( not only bettween AMD and Nvidia, but too between the different gpus brand ( Asus, MSI, etc ). What next ? Shop who can only sold one brand, otherwise they dont get enough GPU to sold, have higher prices than their competitors, etc etc ?

Similary, Apple is in trouble for similar practice here in Europe. ( for the smartphone market )

Now, i have absolutely no idea if the article is true..

 

[Deleted member 13524]

This is what happens when the competition drops the ball (again), people.

Actually it was the opposite.
This happened because nvidia is feeling threatened with the Intel-AMD (and Apple?) deal.

 

[CSI PC]

I wonder if you honestly believe that sentence.


What's Sapphire's exclusive partnership with AMD other than being the official distributor for low-volume FirePro graphics cards? nVidia does exactly that with PNY on Quadro GPUs.
Exclusivity on professional graphics cards is done to reduce the number of hardware variations (RAM chips, VRMs, PCBs, etc.) for which the premium support for these products is done.

This has nothing to do with holding the AIB for gaming cards hostage saying if you don't get exclusive then you'll have to wait longer to get the cards and get them more expensive on top of it.
Anyone can see the difference.

Well lets see.
Who delivered 1st 480 and 580 GPUs and reference design?
Who had the largest supply available to retailers for the 1st few months? - Overclockers UK provided some interesting data points back in the day (and they sourced from various distributors).
Who was the sole Global Distribution supplier of FirePro (largest margins btw) and also the reference design platform partner?
The list goes on, and funny enough the next AIB partner doing well these days is XFX, who again are AMD exclusive.

The GPP as reported with concerns involved everything AMD does currently with Sapphire....
Yes it may scale larger but the difference is the partner will not be exclusive as is the case of XFX and Sapphire.
So no need for sarcastic laughs...