Nvidia, AMD accused of conspiracy to keep graphics pricing high

[Techno+]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36258

if AMD and Nvidia are beaten, I expect gfx card prices to go really down do you?

 

[BRiT]

I dont expect prices to drop as they are not price-fixing. It's just the way the market works with the different segments. It might be price fixing if there was only 1 segment with 1 product with 1 price-point, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[trinibwoy]

Is this about chip sales to AIB's or board sales to consumers?

Either way, the consistent high price of high-end GPU's is a weak basis for making this argument. That totally ignores the innovation/investment in the field and the increased quality of each iteration at that price point.

In a market like this I'll be interested to know how one distinguishes between collusion and reluctance to enter a price war.

 

[stevem]

Pricing to market is an interesting issue... However, the pertinent judicial decision will be to rule on the following:

Executives of the companies are also alleged to have had meetings and conversations to discuss pricing of graphics processing units and cards in the US.

Further, there are allegations that the defendants concealed this behaviour, which would constitute a cartel, if a judge or the DoJ found against them.

If proved, the penalties are substantial. If the action is speculative, it will be thrown out early.

My question. Is the plaintiff nam_ng...?

 

[BRiT]

The US DoJ needs to stop wasting time on luxury items and concentrate on essentials such as the Oil and Gas companies.

 

[stevem]

The legislation doesn't discriminate on unit price. Collusion is collusion.

 

[digitalwanderer]

This strikes me as a bit of a silly lawsuit, haven't we seen the top prices of cards going up fairly steadily in the last few years?

 

[Sobek]

This strikes me as a bit of a silly lawsuit, haven't we seen the top prices of cards going up fairly steadily in the last few years?

It's a gradual monopoly

I'm all for lower prices, but a lawsuit wont acheive anything.

 

[ANova]

This strikes me as a bit of a silly lawsuit, haven't we seen the top prices of cards going up fairly steadily in the last few years?

I think this may have some merit considering prices have more than doubled since the 9700 Pro.

 

[MulciberXP]

I think this may have some merit considering prices have more than doubled since the 9700 Pro.

So have the size of the chips, R&D costs, developmental costs, and not the least of all, so has the expectations of the consumer, doubled.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Yeah, I still remember speculating if both companies were losing money on some of their high-end cards during launch.

I think the bloody things are just expensive to develop and make, and I think both companies should be able to prove it.

 

[MulciberXP]

I think digs post count may have doubled since then too

 

[BRiT]

So have the size of the chips, R&D costs, developmental costs, and not the least of all, so has the expectations of the consumer, doubled.

Exactly. They even created additional performance segments.

The only part I could even see having any sort of merit is Nvidia deciding not to get into a price war, as their margins soared (40%), while ATI's margins remained lower (30%?). But that is hardly anything to go on, as it seems to be just a smart business decision.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I think digs post count may have doubled since then too

It's actually went down since then due to post pruning.

 

[Sobek]

Exactly. They even created additional performance segments.

Are you talking about something to do with R&D, or something more...physical? (is that a pun? not sure).

 

[trinibwoy]

This is getting ridiculous - from TR:

One of the complaints relayed by The Inq quotes a variety of evidence, including forum posts and a quote from an American Technology Research analyst who stated, "As a consumer, I have noticed that the price points of video cards have always been pretty equal. The first mover comes out with a product that is $500 and the follower comes out with a product that is $500. They tend to not be in price wars."

In a game like this you don't enter a price war out of principle. It is very possible that profit maximization for both companies is attained at the $500 price point. If price cuts result in lower profits for the follower as well as the first mover then there obviously will not be a price cut.

They might have a point if the focus was on ATi's refusal to cut prices at the high-end in the face of market share losses. But then Nvidia responds in kind. Net result? No market share gain and lower profits all around.

 

[ChrisRay]

And yet we still havent seen a shed of proof that this is the case.

 

[digitalwanderer]

And yet we still havent seen a shed of proof that this is the case.

And sheds of proof tend to stand out a whole lot more than shreds of proof so we would have seen it if it was occurring.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Yeah, I still remember speculating if both companies were losing money on some of their high-end cards during launch.

I think the bloody things are just expensive to develop and make, and I think both companies should be able to prove it.

Last year I saw a profit sheet from ati on a other site wich showed that they actually made a pretty large profit on their high end models, alot higher than one would expect.

If they fixed pricing? probably. But isnt that the case with alot of products? I find it hard to belive there is no fixing if both ati and nvidia products offering about the same performance are constantly in the same price range. Though there probably are no real agreaments im sure there are some ''unspkoken'' agreements of not dropping prices to much. After all, they are the only 2 players in the market so no need to start a price war if you can both keep the prices up and make more money with less effort.

 

[ChrisRay]

And sheds of proof tend to stand out a whole lot more than shreds of proof so we would have seen it if it was occurring.

Southern slang bites me again...