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

Status
Not open for further replies.
But don't you think this really should not had been raised-said in this thread and kept private or at least raised in the right thread?

Especially as you said in same PM about that person "notorious for having a pro AMD attitude", and it is that member who is actively involved here without consideration on context/nuances.

1) No. You never told me to not tell anyone and I never promised I wouldn't. Also trying to push me to help you gang up against someone else pisses me off, irrespective of who that person is (unless he/she is a nazi/fascist).

2) Yes and I had plenty of discussions with ToTTenTranz (including the Vega shenanigans you mention here and more), plus he knows I do see him as Pro AMD. Like I also told you I don't see that as something I make enemies off. However, for all his sometimes "tempestive" self, he usually stays on topic. Plus he is also able to criticise AMD and unlike some other people in this forum had a balance approach to Vega (the chip and not the launch shenanigans where we disagreed a lot). Unlike others he was not believing on a magic driver that would bring GP102 performance levels lol.

He is a little bit more moderate defending AMD, than you are defending NVIDIA (including your writing.. Improve it a little bit, use a tiny bit more punctuation, format it a little more.. Your posts are usually long and sometimes a chore to make sense of).
 
1) No. You never told me to not tell anyone and I never promised I wouldn't. Also trying to push me to help you gang up against someone else pisses me off, irrespective of who that person is (unless he/she is a nazi/fascist).

2) Yes and I had plenty of discussions with ToTTenTranz (including the Vega shenanigans you mention here and more), plus he knows I do see him as Pro AMD. Like I also told you I don't see that as something I make enemies off. However, for all his sometimes "tempestive" self, he usually stays on topic. Plus he is also able to criticise AMD and unlike some other people in this forum had a balance approach to Vega (the chip and not the launch shenanigans where we disagreed a lot). Unlike others he was not believing on a magic driver that would bring GP102 performance levels lol.

He is a little bit more moderate defending AMD, than you are defending NVIDIA (including your writing.. Improve it a little bit, use a tiny bit more punctuation, format it a little more.. Your posts are usually long and sometimes a chore to make sense of).

Unless it is in a thread where he bashes Nvidia and then he gets very defensive :)
But let me know where I bash AMD to the same extent and vitriol/speculation as facts please.
OK addressing the PM because you are way out of line.
Title of said PM: Please please consider editing response to me under MX150
What I said:
Heya Picao,
you totally missed the point.
He has been accusing me of being an Nvidia apologist repeatedly and did it again hence my light hearted response about Jack Russell.

Also look back to the post he quoted of mine.
I never said Nvida was not at fault and they do share some of the blame BUT it is not clear if the whole blame is them or partially partners and gave examples why.

Unfortunately your response just reinforces his point about apologist for Nvidia accusation he did in response.
I prefer not to have to respond to your post but may have to otherwise he will feel he is being vindicated.
Thanks

And also
The post in question he is accusing me of apologising yet again for Nvidia had this edit in MX150, he read the edit as well btw as he ignored everything but the last line.
Look at last line, point is to look at the broad picture of why this happened rather than Totterentz that likes to blame everything on Nvidia and only Nvidia.

Just wondering Nvidia has recently manufactured the 1D12 "Max-Q" type version of the MX150 and partners/OEM are using this to replace the existing 1D10 in 13" size or smaller but instead of renaming the models they just kept as is, naughty if so by the partners.
All depends if there is a mix of 1D10 and 1D12 still available going forwards in use at 13" for a specific model such as the UX430UN or lower to tell what the action is about, but still should be renamed product if they are moving to 1D12 as a replacement or an alternative at same size.
And could be argued if they are replacing with the 1D12 Max-Q type it should possibly be cheaper, maybe part of the reason the partners/OEM are not renaming the models to keep current prices on the quiet.

In thread I said said:
However and importantly this situation could had been totally blocked if Nvidia had specc'ed/branded the 1D12 MX150 in similar way they do for trational 'Max-Q'.
So they do share some of the blame but how much is to be seen as it could come back mostly to the partner/OEM.
So cut the crap about forcing and ganging up.

You then went on ironically to defend AMD claiming Notebook reviewer got his facts wrong when I expanded the reasoning but you made mistakes as it is about cTDP:
According to AMD both 2500U and 2700U are 15W APUs. I think Notebookcheck is wrong in saying its 25W. Their article was only a preview though.

https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-7-2700u

https://www.amd.com/en/products/apu/amd-ryzen-5-2500u

Now, I'm sure they might get over 15W anyway, but at least they guarantee the minimum, unlike nVIDIA where 1D10 is 25W and 1D12 is 10W. Or just like nVIDIA and its Core clock and Boost clock on GPU. So I do not think your point flies....
I responded then with multiple other reviews and data points including the cTDP showing they were not wrong and AMD could not be defended as their part actually goes beyond 40W with no branding, which you went quiet on and never said another word in response even though pretty clear AMD with the OEM fell into the same trap.
Reinforcing the point of my initial PM as it was even blurred situation for AMD due to OEMs.
You keep on about me derailing the thread but that is twice now you have brought a PM into this and not accurately, I find it really distasteful to be forced to do this, seriously unimpressed with this and glad I never gave you too much of my technical background/responsibilities as I am sure you would mention that someway.
I suggest this drops now because it is bloody idiotic to have to argue about PMs in public threads.
 
Last edited:
Reply to Geeforcer.

1) Partially correct. If you've already decided you want to buy an AMD card, sure it does not matter. However, if you're average joe, and want a decent gaming card you might just know that "Republic of Gamers" cards are good, so you go to a store to buy that, and you can only end up with a nvidia card.

Congratulations, you just inadvertently illustrated exactly why Nvidia is doing what it’s doing: if you are an “Average Joe” who only knows “Republic of Gamers” because of branding Nvidia has partially paid for, go to the store and end up with AMD card, they would have scored their own goal. Furthermore, the situation you describe is perfectly normal. If you only ever heard of Sapphire, you can only end with an AMD card. If you ever heard of McDonald’s, you are drinking a Coke product. Etc, etc, etc.

2) No. If an AIB wants a piece of the nvidia sales pie, it needs to join GPP or it will be at a huge disadvantage.

Sure, just like everyone else who is not a “proffered vendor” in pretty much every single industry. Hello and welcome to the real world, where the last company I worked for had 11 tiers for vendors, based on volume, certifications, season ramp adjustments, 90 day reject rates, and so forth.

3) Sure, but why should nvidia be able to "take" the original brand, why shouldnt nvidia be required to make the new brand since they're the ones who want a separate brand ?

Required... by who? It’s up to AIB to negotiate the terms of their agreement with Nvidia and/or AMD. If AMD is willing to make AIB an attractive counteroffer, I am sure it would have been in their best interest. In fact, knowing how those things usually work, I am sure that AIBs invited into GPP asked AMD to match the terms. In fact, as mentioned, this should be a huge opportunity for AMD, if they actually cared to invest resources. AIB product lines are not public property, they are free to do with them as they like.

4) Problem is, they are clearly breaking laws and regulations in the EU, and probably in the US aswell.

I would argue that they are clearly not, since not only are they not dictating the terms of any AIBs contract with AMD, but preferred or even exclusive supply agreement are wildly used types of agreements.

5) Not it it means breaking the laws & regulations.

Please cite what rules or regulation AMD (or Nvidia) would be breaking by offering additional support for product line exclusivity.
 
Both you and Nvidia are implying that consumers were being ripped off when buying a ROG and ended up with an AMD. Consumers decide if they want a certain AMD/Nvidia chip and either shop around for their best price/quality trade-off or look to their preferred board maker and design for their chosen chip this round.

Yet somehow now PC enthusiasts are buying ROG cards irrespective of what chip is on the board and Nvidia is awesome because they're ensuring the consumer is getting the best experience when they do. Aren't they cool?

What a load of shit.

Are you done punching that straw man and putting words in my mouth? I can’t speak for Nvidia, but I am certainly not implying that consumers are being ripped off. I am clearly stating that Nvidia is being ripped off if they devote resources to advancing/co-promoting a brand significant percentage of which is devoted to a competitor. In fact, you might want to Gelanin in this very thread who is making “average Joes just buying ROG, you know” argument.
 
I'm unsure as to how this logic of yours is supposed to work. Then again, it is never difficult to find defenders of even the most egregious examples of market share abuse in this day and age.

Btw hahaha lol at your claim of AIBs being "free" to join NPP; yeah, free to get their arms twisted, because if they don't join they get penalized.

It’s interesting because I provided the detailed explanation several times, but I guess I’ll try again. Nvidia has finite amount of resources for marketing,promotions etc. They are offering these to AIBs to increase their sales. For obvious reasons, they (Nvidia) do not want any of this largesse furnished by them to benefit their competitor; for example if Nvidia is giving making payments towards print ads to promote much-maligned ROG product line, and that brand also includes competitiors products, they wasted some of their ad spend. It’s an extremely simple concept.
 
It’s interesting because I provided the detailed explanation several times, but I guess I’ll try again.
Yes, I read your explanations, and I couldn't get the pieces to fit together correctly in my head in a way that makes logical sense to me so I had to ask again to see if you had some additional pieces to the puzzle, but it appears you do not.

Nvidia has finite amount of resources for marketing,promotions etc. They are offering these to AIBs to increase their sales. For obvious reasons, they (Nvidia) do not want any of this largesse furnished by them to benefit their competitor
Your door swings both ways; you say AIBs are free to choose to join GPP, so if NV chooses to co-promote with AIBs that's their choice. NV doesn't own the ROG brand; it is ASUS property.

However, NV is now inproperly abusing their market dominance to extort influence over said ASUS property, and dictate how ASUS may use their own brands and trademarks. This is not ethical, regardless of how legal it may or may not be (I would say it's a clear antitrust matter, but I'm not a lawyer, just a naive fool, and ethics went out of style back in the 1980s. Maybe before then even... :p)

and that brand also includes competitiors products, they wasted some of their ad spend. It’s an extremely simple concept.
It's faulty logic concept. Again, NV doesn't own ROG; they don't deserve to have a say over it, they advertised free of their own choosing, and they advertised for NV ROG cards, not AMD ROG cards. So nothing wasted at all, just a dominant bully bullying and you cheering it all on even though you as a PC gamer stand nothing to benefit from it and only to lose.

Authoritarianism in a nutshell.
 
You have a strange perception of what “authoritarian” means. You don’t own ROG brand, ASUS does. What they chose to do with it is their prerogative, (be it leave it as is, aligned it with Nvidia, align it with AMD, shut it down entirely, etc) and yet somehow Internet commentariat decides that they know best what ASUS should be allowed to do with their possessions. It’s really ironic that not only did public property apparently become nationalized via some sort of stealth Marxist revolution but that the people who feel like they get to decide what agreements independent third parties can or cannot enter throw around terms like “authoritarianism” without a slightest hint of irony.

When the discussion degenerates into statements about who “deserves” :rolleyes: what based one’s feeling about IHV, it might be time to step back and re-asses one’s position.
 
Last edited:
Unless it is in a thread where he bashes Nvidia and then he gets very defensive :)
But let me know where I bash AMD to the same extent and vitriol/speculation as facts please.
OK addressing the PM because you are way out of line.
Title of said PM: Please please consider editing response to me under MX150
What I said:


And also

So cut the crap about forcing and ganging up.

You then went on ironically to defend AMD claiming Notebook reviewer got his facts wrong when I expanded the reasoning but you made mistakes as it is about cTDP:

I responded then with multiple other reviews and data points including the cTDP showing they were not wrong and AMD could not be defended as their part actually goes beyond 40W with no branding, which you went quiet on and never said another word in response even though pretty clear AMD with the OEM fell into the same trap.
Reinforcing the point of my initial PM as it was even blurred situation for AMD due to OEMs.
You keep on about me derailing the thread but that is twice now you have brought a PM into this and not accurately, I find it really distasteful to be forced to do this, seriously unimpressed with this and glad I never gave you too much of my technical background/responsibilities as I am sure you would mention that someway.
I suggest this drops now because it is bloody idiotic to have to argue about PMs in public threads.

So you PMing people asking for them to please please edit their posts is appropriate???? If you have your own points present them yourself and deal with the outcome yourself. Grow up!

I did not reply to you again for the same reason I told you on this thread again and again. Your argument are always "but AMD makes something similar, not quite the same but similar". That is the equivalent of kindergarden discussions "he started it!!!
I don't have patience for that shit!

I also did not reply more to you because NOTHING you said contradicted my point:

Now, I'm sure they might get over 15W anyway, but at least they guarantee the minimum, unlike nVIDIA where 1D10 is 25W and 1D12 is 10W. Or just like nVIDIA and its Core clock and Boost clock on GPU. So I do not think your point flies....

No Ryzen APU ever goes under 15W and even Ryzen that do go over 15W most likely will not maintain that over an extended period of time (in gaming for example). You were trying to compare two opposite situations and call it the same. Please show me a Ryzen that does go under 15W, just like the MX150 D12 goes under its default TDP. Otherwise you have no case to stand on, no matter how many context you present.

Edit - Additionally, AFAIK none of the Ryzen SKUs that go over 15W have different IDs unlike D10 vs D12. Earlier in that thread I was making pretty much the same point as you were, of OEMs being responsible. But when I got convinced that D12 was indeed a thing coming from nvidia (as several OEMs showed up with D12) my opinion obviously changed. With the exception of ToTTenTranz trying to compare with the RX560 that sports less CUs, which was a comparison that I consider to have no grounds, just like your comparison with Ryzen. My opinion is not mandated by being Pro-Nvidia.
 
Last edited:
So you PMing people asking for them to please please edit their posts is appropriate???? If you have your own points present them yourself and deal with the outcome yourself. Grow up!

I did not reply to you again for the same reason I told you on this thread again and again. Your argument are always "but AMD makes something similar, not quite the same but similar". That is the equivalent of kindergarden discussions "he started it!!!
I don't have patience for that shit!

I also did not reply more to you because NOTHING you said contradicted my point:



No Ryzen APU ever goes under 15W and even Ryzen that do go over 15W most likely will not maintain that over an extended period of time (in gaming for example). You were trying to compare two opposite situations and call it the same. Please show me a Ryzen that does go under 15W, just like the MX150 D12 goes under its default TDP. Otherwise you have no case to stand on, no matter how many context you present.
The difference is that I do not create posts and threads to consistently bash just one IHV but prefer to respond to highlight context/perspective with their counterpart where applicable or a situation is nuanced and not as clear as some make it; for perspective look at CU silently changed affecting 560 post when it was raised by a member and how many here complained (no-one) but was different when Nvidia ended up with 2 specs (a new thread and lots of vitriol): https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/amd-polaris-rumors-and-discussion.59827/page-11#post-2013214
And it can potentially ahppen again with the rebrand RX 550X with 8/10 CUs.
And in the Nvidia thread that the PM touches upon one member demanding Nvidia should apologise.
Anyway 2500U has a cTDP of 12W - 25W.....mentioned it in the PM that you keep saying did not have relevant information; to ignore it because it does not go down to 10W like MX150 is just wrong (both are in the trap consumers cannot differentiate once the parts are in the hands of the OEM).
The point was a consumer cannot differentiate between a 15W or 25W 2500U product, case made even more so that you made that mistake, reviewers made that mistake (Tech Report only realised after AMD contacted them), others assuming nothing to do with AMD because they mention mXFR in their launch presentation even if then it is not enforced for branding and reviewers are confused enough not to even mention mXFR (which is meant to be branded) supported or not for a product review.
And that then leads onto 25W is not accurate because it can average 41W in games against 29W for 8250U (in 25W cTDP spec) - you had all that information in the PM with relevant links.
But if you want lets take this to the Nvidia thread.
 
Last edited:
The difference is that I do not create posts and threads to consistently bash just one IHV but prefer to respond to highlight context/perspective with their counterpart , for perspective look at CU silently changed affecting 560 post when it was raised by a member and how many here complained (no-one) but was different when Nvidia ended up with 2 specs (a new thread and lots of vitriol): https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/amd-polaris-rumors-and-discussion.59827/page-11#post-2013214

Maybe because it only took AMD 24 hours to release a statement apologising for the situation and to do changes to reflect that? While nvidia has been mum on the MX150 this entire time?

Also, see my edit on the post you replied to.
 
Last edited:
Maybe because it only took AMD 24 hours to release a statement apologising for the situation and to do changes to reflect that? While nvidia has been mum on the MX150 this entire time?

Also, see my edit on the post you replied to.
People posting in the thread I linked did not know that at the time.
The ID is not necessarily a different SKU, some reports are suggesting it is same SKU (firmware difference) but that is irrelevant as it is about consumer confusion and all it needs is a valid spec sheet either way with both (AMD and Nvidia) enforced with OEMs, which was emphasised by you and certain reviewers perceiving the wrong TDP for the 2500u product they reviewed.
Like I said if you want to continue we can take it to the Nvidia thread, where someone else went into detail about flexible TDP for OEMs.
 
Last edited:
People posting in the thread I linked did not know that at the time.

Err, my point was that not a lot of time passed to have more people posting about it? Not everyone is on this forums 24/7. Besides, most of people who posted before the announcement were not pleased by it and certainly did not try to apologise AMD (with the exception of Anarchist4000 but he is the guy who believed in the miracle driver...).
 
Geeforcer, i guess you did not read my post earlier in this thread where i link to the EU rules/regulations, so i'll just do a quick copy/paste from there...

You can (and most likely will) ofcourse disagree, but i think most unbiased people would agree that nvidia are breaking those on atleast 2 accounts.




----- Copy / Paste -----

For those interested, here is some information about what the European Union considers illegal contacts, agreements and abuse of a dominant position.
(Link: https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/sell-abroad/free-competition/index_en.htm )

Now, the most stand out part to me is this bit under the "Abuse of a dominant position":
- Discriminate between customers
- Force certain trading conditions on your business partners.

This is certainly what Nvidia is doing now, so it should be reported imho.


Illegal contacts and agreements
These agreements are known as cartels. They are forbidden because they restrict competition. They can take many forms, and need not be officially approved by the companies involved. The most common examples of these practices are:

  • Price fixing
  • Market sharing
  • Agreement on customer allocation
  • Agreement on production limitation
  • Distribution agreements between suppliers and re-sellers where, for example, the price charged to customers is imposed by the supplier.
All agreements and exchanges of information between you and your competitors that reduce your strategic uncertainty in the market (around your production costs, turnover, capacity, marketing plans, etc.) can be seen as anti-competitive.

Even disclosing this kind of strategic information unilaterally via mail, phone or meetings could be seen as infringing this rule.

To be on the safe side:

  • Do not fix prices or other trading conditions
  • Do not limit production
  • Do not share markets
  • Do not exchange strategic information about your company.
Some agreements are not prohibited - if they can be justified as benefiting consumers and the economy as a whole. One example is agreements on research & development and technology transfer. These cases are covered by the Block Exemption Regulations .


Abuse of a dominant position
If your company has a large market share, it holds a dominant position and must take particular care not to:

  • charge unreasonably high prices which would exploit customers
  • charge unrealistically low prices which may drive competitors out of the market
  • discriminate between customers
  • force certain trading conditions on your business partners.
 
Last edited:
You can (and most likely will) ofcourse disagree, but i think most unbiased people would agree that nvidia are breaking those on atleast 2 accounts.

If Scott Herkelman's statements about using funding and allocation to hamper Radeon sales are true, I think the similarities with Intel's 2009 rulings are really big and the legal precedent already exists.
As Forbes' article suggests, it seems AMD is rallying the troops and collecting testimonies to build a case against nvidia right now (or assist in already ongoing investigations).

But if Herkelman's statements are false, he could be the target of a defamation lawsuit as well.. since the accusations seem pretty serious.
 
@Gelanin,
Unfortunately a lot of those bullet points (bolded and unbolded) could be applied to both companies, as well as their business partners and re-sellers.
If any of the bullet points to this particular case is valid I'm sure an investigation will be launched.
 
Geeforcer, i guess you did not read my post earlier in this thread where i link to the EU rules/regulations, so i'll just do a quick copy/paste from there...

You can (and most likely will) ofcourse disagree, but i think most unbiased people would agree that nvidia are breaking those on atleast 2 accounts.




----- Copy / Paste -----

For those interested, here is some information about what the European Union considers illegal contacts, agreements and abuse of a dominant position.
(Link: https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/sell-abroad/free-competition/index_en.htm )

Now, the most stand out part to me is this bit under the "Abuse of a dominant position":
- Discriminate between customers
- Force certain trading conditions on your business partners.

This is certainly what Nvidia is doing now, so it should be reported imho.


Illegal contacts and agreements
These agreements are known as cartels. They are forbidden because they restrict competition. They can take many forms, and need not be officially approved by the companies involved. The most common examples of these practices are:

  • Price fixing
  • Market sharing
  • Agreement on customer allocation
  • Agreement on production limitation
  • Distribution agreements between suppliers and re-sellers where, for example, the price charged to customers is imposed by the supplier.
All agreements and exchanges of information between you and your competitors that reduce your strategic uncertainty in the market (around your production costs, turnover, capacity, marketing plans, etc.) can be seen as anti-competitive.

Even disclosing this kind of strategic information unilaterally via mail, phone or meetings could be seen as infringing this rule.

To be on the safe side:

  • Do not fix prices or other trading conditions
  • Do not limit production
  • Do not share markets
  • Do not exchange strategic information about your company.
Some agreements are not prohibited - if they can be justified as benefiting consumers and the economy as a whole. One example is agreements on research & development and technology transfer. These cases are covered by the Block Exemption Regulations .


Abuse of a dominant position
If your company has a large market share, it holds a dominant position and must take particular care not to:

  • charge unreasonably high prices which would exploit customers
  • charge unrealistically low prices which may drive competitors out of the market
  • discriminate between customers
  • force certain trading conditions on your business partners.

You (and everyone liking this post) missed a HUGELY important part:

GPP is available to ALL Nvidia partners under uniform terms. This makes this behavior non-discriminatory BY definition. Furthermore, terms and conditions of GPP do not in any way shape or form curtail volumes and prices of AIBs agreements with a competitive supplier, ergo no market sharing. This lack of fundamental understanding of what constitutes illegal practices is probably why Law Offices of Aggrieved AMD Internet Fan Club have yet to be poached by corporate General Council recruiters from around the world.

Let’s go through these together:

- Discriminate between customers

Is GPP participation availability universal and uniform? If the answer is yes, this does not apply. This is why unit volume contingent price discounts are fully legal: it doesn’t matter whether you can afford 10,000 units to get 15% discount, or, hell, “buy 4, get 1 free” deal on muffins at your local supermarket, as long as the same terms are accessable to everyone.

- Force certain trading conditions on your business partners.

You highlight the wrong term here, which is actually “certain”. The illegal trading conditions are by-and-large the ones attempting to regulate your relationship with other suppliers by placing pricing and volume limitations on them; even the most far-fetched anti-GPP theories have failed to mention any of that.

The fact that you are even citing anti-cartel regulations shows just how off the mark your interpretation of the events is from reality: these actions from Nvidia are, if anything, a sign of intensifying competitive aggressives, also know as the exact opposite of attempting to form a cartel. I will humor you anyway:

Has Nvidia entered into an agreement with another producer to set (artificially high) unit prices across the market? Unless AMDs indignation is an Oscar-caliber performance while in reality the two are secretly colluding to rig the market, the answer is an obvious “No”. Next!
Largely same as above: Had Nvidia entered into an agreement with another supplier to segment the market? These agreements, which would have to with AMD, can be either vertical (I make high-end, you make low end) or horizontal (You only sell to AIB x, I only sell to AIB y) market segmentation, and not only CLEARLY don’t exist, but would make all participants culpable. Next!
Would, agaiin, have to be between Nvidia and AMD (“Only sell x numbers of units to AIB y, while I only sell n units to AIB m”), not happening, both would be liable, etc. Next!
Unless AMD’s chronic inability to launch high-end parts in volume has actually been a conniving ploy of epic proportions stemming from a secret agreement with Nvidia, we can safely conclude this one is not happening either. Next!
Not only would this again apply to both AMD and Nvidia, but considering cards with the same GPUs, be it GP104 or Vega64 are available at the variety of price points from multiple AIBs there is clearly no arrangement imposing universal re-seller pricing. I highly doubt there is one in GPP either, it had certainly not been reported.

  • Do not fix prices or other trading conditions
  • Do not limit production
  • Do not share markets
  • Do not exchange strategic informationabout your company.

Since this is the recap, I will do likewise and reiterate that price fixing, production quotas and market sharing are done via an agreement with another supplier (you can’t “fix” your own price) and there absolutely no evidence that AMD and Nvidia have formed a cartel. The only point not addressed in detail above is the “sharing stratigic information”. Just like all the others, this is a competitor-facing provision (all companies are allowed to share their plans with their partners) designers to prevent suppliers from inflating prices to by coordinating/anticipating each other’s natural production fluctuations, etc. Just like with all the other items, unless some rather amazing acting is taking place there is no stratigic coordination between the two.

  • charge unreasonably high prices which would exploit customers
  • charge unrealistically low prices which may drive competitors out of the market
  • discriminate between customers
  • force certain trading conditions on your business partners.

The last two items have been addressed elsewhere, but as far as pricing is concerned there has been no evidence that Nvidia pricing has been anything but highly competitive.

In conclusion, this post is pretty indicative of the overall quality of discourse in this thread that has been rife with some amazingly bad armchair lawyering, and most ironically, labeling highly competitive practices “anti competitive” because ones favored company finds competing inconvenient. The very fact that AMD is doing the public routine of “If Nvidia has been mean to you, blog at us” just goes to show that they have nothing of actionable legal substance, just sour grapes about having to open up the purse strings and pony up some additional marketing resources of their own, or as we like to call it in the real world, “actually compete”.
 
Discriminate between customers

- Is GPP participation availability universal and uniform? If the answer is yes, this does not apply.

Err, are you really being that thick? The discrimination is not about allowing customers to join GPP or not. The discrimination is between companies who join GPP and those who don't. The ones that do will have access to extra goodies (translatable to money) in exchange for some conditions. The ones who don't will be left in less favorable condition. So yes, this may very well apply.

You did a comparison with Coca-Cola and Pepsi where something like this happens. The key difference here though, is that NVidia essentially has a Monopoly on the graphics card market (while neither Coca-Cola or Pepsi have one in the soft drinks market), therefore this discrimination can be seen as an abuse of dominant position, by forcing terms upon customers that they would otherwise not accept.

What authorities understand by "Dominant Position" is really the key to GPP be considered unlawful or not.
 
Last edited:
GPP is available to ALL Nvidia partners under uniform terms.
(...)
Is GPP participation availability universal and uniform? If the answer is yes, this does not apply.

Kyle isn't publishing the GPP contract he has with him because AIBs told him they know the contracts are all different, and if he made it public - even through his own words - it would paint a target on the whistleblower's back.


You highlight the wrong term here, which is actually “certain”. The illegal trading conditions are by-and-large the ones attempting to regulate your relationship with other suppliers by placing pricing and volume limitations on them; even the most far-fetched anti-GPP theories have failed to mention any of that.

You're obviously (and knowingly) mixing up two different sub-sections on the Competition Rules' webpage: "Illegal Contacts and Agreements" (which refers to cartels) and "Abuse of a Dominant Position" (which refers to a single company with a large marketshare).

The bullet-points referring to customer discrimination and forcing trading conditions belong to the "Abuse of a Dominant Position", i.e. nvidia taking advantage of their large marketshare, not the cartels.

GPP falls very obviously into the "force trading conditions":

To sum up NVIDIA's actions, if you do not agree to be a part of its GPP, you lose GPU allocation, you lose GPU discounts, you lose rebates, you lose marketing development funds (MDF), you lose game bundles, you lose NVIDIA PR and marketing support, you lose high effort engineering engagements, you lose launch partner status, but you do get to keep the gaming brand that your company has developed over the years.




Now, do you think GPP's documentation has to say "if your company doesn't adhere to GPP then you lose all of these things" for nvidia to be considered guilty?
If so, you're awfully naive. No signed document would ever state something like that. There wouldn't even be an investigation if they had, it would go straight to court and they would lose billions after the first hearing.

You think Intel had even a single signed document saying "if you sell AMD CPUs we will limit allocation to your CPUs" back in 2005?
Legal departments and boards of directors can be stupidly bullish, but they're not stupidly stupid.

If a lawsuit comes up, there will be people making depositions, court hearings with witnesses on the stand, investigators going through thousands of e-mails, and tens/hundreds of other activities that take place to determine if nvidia ever had the intent of abusing their market dominance through GPP.

And AMD has come up publicly saying "come talk to us if you went through this", which led to the assumption that they're gathering up the witnesses to mount a case.


Funny thing is this could turn into a lawsuit filed by both AMD and Intel, since GPP also threatens Intel's own Kaby Lake G lineup (and maybe future products, with CannonLake NUCs appearing with RX500 GPUs this could be another MCM integration).
 
I can't really see how GPP threatens Kaby Lake G? It's not like Kaby Lake G has a GPU that is add-in?

No, but it does have a (reasonably large) GPU and is targeted at gaming (among other things). So could Asus market a Kaby Lake G laptop under its Republic of Gamers brand, for example? IANAL, but depending on how GPP contracts are worded, it might be an issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top