NV's response is reasonable

[DOOM III]

NV is a company,and it depends on selling card to make money. what it does is to meke its card more attractive hence more people will buy their product. As the beginners(someone who's gonna buy their computer for the first time) don't know much about 3D technology. they only trust paper print or website. and i think the performace of R300 based card makes them more "attractive" to the beginners hence helps the sells of ATI. Standing on this point,NV's whinning about 3dmark03 is acceptable because its biggest customers are beginners rather than you guys here

 

[tEd]

NV is a company,and it depends on selling card to make money. what it does is to meke its card more attractive hence more people will buy their product. As the beginners(someone who's gonna buy their computer for the first time) don't know much about 3D technology. they only trust paper print or website. and i think the performace of R300 based card makes them more "attractive" to the beginners hence helps the sells of ATI. Standing on this point,NV's whinning about 3dmark03 is acceptable because its biggest customers are beginners rather than you guys here

I don't think misleading people is acceptable

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I disagree (with Doom),

nVidia's response is understandable, given the fact that they are a company looking to make money, and we can more or less "expect" the kind of PR spin. (Though the depths to which nVidia does its spin still surprises me.)

However, being acceptable is something different entirely.

 

[DOOM III]

I disagree (with Doom),

nVidia's response is understandable, given the fact that they are a company looking to make money, and we can more or less "expect" the kind of PR spin. (Though the depths to which nVidia does its spin still surprises me.)

However, being acceptable is something different entirely.

well,what i'm going to say is "understandable". I'm, a Chinese and from my point of view,"reasonable" and "understandable" don't have much differences.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

Doom:

The difference (atleast for me) is that the first (understandable) makes sense. You can understand why someone might do something. Imagine for instance that an individual got fired from his job, found his wife cheating, and crashed his car. Now imagine that you've accidently bumped into him on the street. He punches you as hard as he can and starts screaming at you. It's understandable given all of his misfortune that he might attack you over such a small incident. Yet... It's certainly not acceptable.

Nite_Hawk

 

[Sxotty]

I don't think misleading people is acceptable

You are right, but if you show me a company that doesn't mislead people I would be very impressed, companies are in this day and age expected to do so, it is up to us to use some intelligence and figure out the truth.

 

[Katsa]

I can understand (and even accept in a way) companies misleading consumers. They protect their shareholder investments as they are required. But this can be done in an ethical or unethical fashion.

By ethical I mean accepted forms of marketing - this does not include threats, blackmail, extortion or badmouthing

Also, many of the so called "journalists" on the web who buy these things so easily that they just copy-paste whatever claims a white paper has without trying to verify them is not working very ethically.