Since I've said a lot on these issues previously, I should say something here. I'm gratified that frgmstr has at least made an effort at explanation, and I certainly was glad to see his apologetic remarks to ET (hopefully, he's made a more personal apologetic overture to ET beyond what he's already publicly apologized for.) I think he should also apologize to all other web-site staff from other sites which he has unfairly characterized in his forums (specifically the ones banned from them without cause.) Such efforts would be a good beginning at reformation.
While his remarks describing his relationship with nVidia, and contrasting it with his relationship with ATi, underscore my own earlier opinions on the likely dynamics of the [H]-nVidia relationship, I would exhort frgmstr to kind of "look in the mirror" and ask himself this question: "What is it nVidia can learn from me that might make them want to listen to me?"
It obviously isn't subject matter pertaining to designing 3D chips or refining driver code, since frgmstr would have nothing to contribute in that venue. One valuable type of input frgmstr might provide the company is constructive criticism on its drivers and hardware. This is the kind of input companies usually value from a variety of sources, as it helps them better ascertain the preferences of their target markets. This is a format in which frgmstr could be of some value both to nVidia and the 3D-buying public at large. But the facts as they've appeared to me are that post nv30, Kyle has had very little, if any, constructive criticism to offer nVidia to assist the company in better understanding the needs of it markets, and so has provided pretty much no information to nVidia post nv30 that might actually be worth something to the company.
Rather, it appears only that frgmstr has been listening to nVidia post nv30, and not the other way around, even though he obviously believes otherwise. This is what I would wish frgmastr would seriously consider: that nVidia has been working at making him feel as though it "listens to him" and "values his opinion," merely as a device to ensure that frgmstr will listen to them when they wish to make public statements by proxy through his website they will not make directly themselves. Yes, I heartily concur with frgmstr that nVidia is making "use" of [H], there can be no doubt about that. Where I would disagree with him is in the type of use which has been occurring.
What I read in his characterizations of his different relationships with ATi and nVidia is that, respectively, one company is only interested in "telling" him things, while the other company has convinced him it "listens to him." What frgmstr needs to do is to be scrupulously and rigorously honest with himself and ask himself this question: "What is it I know that either of these billion-dollar-a-year + companies would not be able to discover on its own through the multiplicity of sources available to them?" Such a self examination would likely be productive and fruitful.
To that end, what is it that frgmstr has that both of these companies would be interested in? It's the publicity that might be generated through [H], of course. The difference is only in the approach by the two companies. ATi is not interested in using [H] as a vehicle to play PR games and make statements that it will not make directly, and so it "tells" him things in a straighforward and professional manner, in the belief that this is the proper approach, and that his professional competence will allow him to understand what it is they are "telling" him. nVidia, however, pretends it is listening to him while it is telling him what it prefers to see him print. As frgmastr has characterized it, the central difference in his relationship between the two companies is one of how they treat him personally. I can only suggest to him that cultivating a better relationship with ATi is is entirely up to him.
These are the things I hope frgmstr carries away from all of these discussions.
