- Status
Sound_Card
Regular
MrGaribaldi
Regular
More like the nosy lady next door spending all day looking out of her window, partially hidden by the blinds.
To be fair, if what they've told is true, they have every right to.
let's say you're playing ball, and kick it throug dozen of windows and whatnot.
So, you need to go talk to the owners, and you agree with them that you'll pay x dollars for the damages, thinking it's np, you have insurance, they'll handle the paying - do you really think it would be ok for your insurance company when they haven't been there, they haven't seen the damage, they haven't evaluated the damage, they haven't been part of negotiations at all etc?
To be fair you have no idea if they have a right to or not. None of us has any idea unless we see what Nvidia signed when they bought the insurance. And yes insurance companies' goal is to avoid paying coverage. That is the purpose of a large part of their employees, finding ways to avoid paying. They are in it to make a profit afterall. If you take people's premiums and given nothing back you certainly make good money.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Insurance companies in most cases do have the right to verify if the damages claimed are valid and the extent of those damages.
Just think of all the brick and mortar stores that attempt arson to collect insurance for example. Or people that purposely have their cars stolen to collect on insurance.
Just like people have rights, so do insurance companies. Without those rights, insurance premiums would be significantly higher as they would have to cover not only legitimate insurance claims but also things such as arson, etc...
In this case. The claim by the insurance company is that Nvidia will not divulge any information to them that they think is necessary in determining not only the extent of damages but whether the report of the damage amount is valid and truthful.
In other words, it appears as if the insurance company isn't sure if Nvidia is inflating the numbers to collect more insurance that is due OR if they aren't reporting enough damages and thus the insurance company will be liable to pay even more. And Nvidia isn't cooperating by not releasing information the insurance company feels is required.
And thus we end up in court it appears.
Regards,
SB
Groo The Wanderer
Regular
You wear ignorance like a badge
Of all the stupid comments I have read, emails and forums, you have to be one of the worst. Intentional ignorance is pretty sad, especially when it takes only the merest of sideways glances to dispel.
When I wrote the article, I had the suit and the two attachments. The suit has most of the relevant insurance clauses in it. Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 are the full insurance policies, scanned, including signatures. Did you even bother to look for it before you mouthed off? Of course not.
Did you even read my article before you criticized it? I highly doubt it because if you did, you would have seen some quotes from the policy directly.
Every time I come here, I am reminded of why I don't come more often, there are some very smart people, but the wilful ignorance is astounding. "I am loud and was told X, therefore no contradictory information will be tolerated" gets old after a while. A very short while.
-Charlie
Of all the stupid comments I have read, emails and forums, you have to be one of the worst. Intentional ignorance is pretty sad, especially when it takes only the merest of sideways glances to dispel.
When I wrote the article, I had the suit and the two attachments. The suit has most of the relevant insurance clauses in it. Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 are the full insurance policies, scanned, including signatures. Did you even bother to look for it before you mouthed off? Of course not.
Did you even read my article before you criticized it? I highly doubt it because if you did, you would have seen some quotes from the policy directly.
Every time I come here, I am reminded of why I don't come more often, there are some very smart people, but the wilful ignorance is astounding. "I am loud and was told X, therefore no contradictory information will be tolerated" gets old after a while. A very short while.
-Charlie
Honestly given that your a mod at a partisan website favoring NV, I'm not shocked at your opinion.
You seem to believe that charlie just prints speculation, but the reality is that he actually holds quite a bit back of info and proof that he can't publish. Just like a good journalist.
He was right about AMD/ATI, well before anyone else. Ditto for the defective NV parts and quite a few others.
If you look at some of the stuff like the SEM images of the packaging, that's a hell of a lot more research than anyone else does except reverse engineering firms. Definitely above and beyond the call of what someone at NYT or CNN would do.
Charlie has been wrong about things, and he's been right about quite a few. Of course, anyone who repeated what NV's PR and IR folks said was wrong here...and I don't see you lobbing grenades at them : )
Charlie does have a grudge against NV and sometimes it does seem like he is just grinding an axe.
As a reader, it seems like you understand that and try to correct for that perceived bias (which is good).
However, you are just as bad as charlie, adding all sorts of noise into the discussion - you own 8xG92s. That's fine and makes an interesting story, but it's not actual data, it's merely an anecdote. Ditto for your comments about a NV-centric website liking the G92 - of course they do.
If you have a verifiable study of say, 1000 G92s, examining failure rates, causes and conditions, (like studies done at USENIX on HDDs), that's a lot of data you could add to the conversation. But so far all you are doing is adding anecdotes, which aren't that helpful.
If you look at the lawsuit, it adds quite a lot of data to the discussion showing:
1. Failures were encountered at multiple OEMs
2. Failures spanned a variety of GPUs
3. NV planned to settle with Dell for $10M
That information pretty much contradicts all the spin from NV, so I basically would ignore whatever their PR folks say from this point forward.
You could also try and figure out how many defective GPUs would be covered by $10M...
Anyway, the bottom line is that as someone who got this ball rolling, I salute charlie. I don't necessarily think his coverage is fair and unbiased, but there's clearly a very large kernel of truth behind what he is claiming. I'm sure some of it's wrong, but obviously not all of it.
Time will tell what the truth of the matter is, but AFAICT, it's less bad than Charlie claims, but way worse than what NV is claiming.
DK
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
I think Charlie and the likes of the Inq are a necessary polar opposite to the spin and control put out by large companies who would rather you didn't know about these issues. If it wasn't for people like Charlie, big companies would continue to churn out faulty products, and would simply keep insisting "nothing is wrong, failure rate is small and within margins, etc" and other similar nonsense to protect their bottom lines while screwing over the customer. Look at recent happenings at Seagate, and it's the same disregard for their customer that Nvidia has been displaying over their faulty products.
Charlie isn't always right, but I'd rather he was doing his job than just leaving it all down to what the corporations want us to hear.
Charlie isn't always right, but I'd rather he was doing his job than just leaving it all down to what the corporations want us to hear.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Well I suppose that at then end of the day, Nvidia have no one but themselves to blame for the position they are in. They have always had an arrogant corporate culture, and this is just one example of it. It's also been part of the reason for their success in the industry.
In this day and age, news gets around on the internet and people get mobilised against what they consider to be widespread failures or bad service and products. Companies can't hide it any more, and it's a counterpoint to all the heavy marketing/PR/spin they do.
Of course your not. Doesn't change the fact that the G92 is not a defecto junk card with high failure rate or that all 55 NM and 65 NM cards are bad. Call my opinion into question. I don't really care.
I don't think the point was to say my G92 are exactly like every card on the market. Infact every Nvidia product I own are pre released hardware configuration's still beta phases. ((IE not complete or final products. Nor do they always end up being reference cards))
I have dealt with MANY failure parts from Nvidia from early pre release hardware, ((680Is with lockable mouse errors and overloaded PS/2 Interfaces, Early Bios 790I pre production problems)). However the GPUS have been remarkably stable. And the website I have been working for deals with troubleshooting issues specifically. The entire point of SLIZONE forums is to provide user to user technical support.
That said. I have yet to see large failure rates of G92 cards. Whether it be at SLIZONE or other multiple websites. If these cards were failing left and right. There would be an uptake.
Believe me. I know when something is not going well for Nvidia and people are not happy. The forums light up like a bonfire with new users and complaints. ((IE see Nvidia's no beta vista drivers for 8000 series. Early 680I motherboards ect. Driver not responding issues with SLI and early Vista problems, and it goes on and on and on)).
Its easy to sit there and say that I have no factual data. And your right. I havent kept a list of every forum user who's G92 might have failed. I have however kept track of hot issues like the ones above in spread sheet format for Nvidia driver and product teams. And the G92's were simply never an issue. I resigned from the focus group today and left my post at SLIZONE. So your going after my credibility based on my affiliation is pretty much moot.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why? Hopefully it wasn't due to people giving you crap on the internet.....
BZB, I agree. We do need a counterpoint to company spin. But that's not what we get from these "Friction" articles. They are maybe 10% fact, 40% rumour and the rest is just bile and wishful thinking on Charlie's part. It's that last 50% that kills any chance of him being taken seriously.
Don't do it! That was a good gig! Don't let the internetz win!
I am well aware of all that, but that has little to do with what I was talking about.
tgdaily says
Does the agreement NUFI and NVidia signed say NUFI has a right to participate in negotiations? If it doesn't then I don't see why they are upset over it. Obviously the reason they are in court is b/c NUFI thinks it does and Nvidia thinks it doesn't. NUFI is also saying the policy doesn't cover it and Nvidia is saying it does. Once again that is why they are in court.
Charlie I don't read your stuff much I was discussing the TG daily piece as it was coherent. Specifically whether NUFI has a right to be part of negotiations or not.
As far as your piece goes, with a wee bit less self aggrandizement and a bit of clearer writing it might be readable. One tip is to avoid a ridiculous amount of hyperlinks in the text.
Ctrl +F for exhibit turns up nothing except in the comments. You have 15 links to your own site in your article that is just repeating what Tgdaily turned up anyway. If you want people to wade through the morass you create then provide the links to the NUFI suit in the beginning. Or if you refuse to document any sources except yourself over and over don't expect people to take you too seriously. Thanks for wandering by it was enlightening in some respects.
So if nvidia decided to pay Dell $100 billion because the Dell CEO is a good friend of Jen-Hsun's, NUFI has no choice but to pay? Doesn't seem logical.
For nvidia to say, "We coughed up $xxx millions, now repay us" doesn't compute.
-FUDie
I 100% agree that not all 55nm and 65nm based GPUs are going to die prematurely. That's a ridiculous claim. Even the defective ones probably don't show a 100% failure rate, just abnormally high. It all depends on temps, usage, etc.
As to whether G92 has problems, the complaint does not mention it. Actually the complaint only mentions notebook chips. So while it is likely that G92 has the same bump problems as the defective notebook chips, it's not clear this would result in failures.
I suspect the desktop ones have better cooling and therefore don't have a problem (necessarily). The desktop ones could have problems, but I'd want to see proof, basically. And I haven't yet.
Pre-release hardware failures tend to be stuff like what you are talking about - obscure corner cases. Charlie's talking about actual hard fails which destroy your chip/board. Rather different case, as any issues like that should be worked out in alpha - well in advance of when they pre-release to partners or end-users.
Also - you're probably talking about desktop, not notebook. NV might have configured the fans to aggressively cool a desktop card so that it doesn't reach problematic temperatures.
That doesn't quite work so well in a notebook, since fans eat battery life.
Again, desktop versus notebook.
Again, I think most of what early users are testing are desktop boards which aren't as susceptible to the problem.
A couple of points:
1. It sounds like a lot of those folks at SLIZONE have pre-release hardware. Even if there were elevated failure rates in pre-release G92, that doesn't mean the problems will be seen in real hardware. It just means its a good idea to watch out for them. NV has lots of sharp engineers and they can probably fix quite a few bugs that hit pre-release HW before it goes to market.
2. I wasn't suggesting you should leave the focus group or SLIzone, but that you want to be careful and try to bring as much fact to back up your opinion as possible.
3. I think it's likely G92 uses the same bump and underfill materials as the defective chips. However, it's not clear to me (yet) that this would result in dead chips.
More clearly - bad bumps and underfill are a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the chips to die prematurely. Other required conditions include high activity factor (which generates heat) and cooling.
DK
Yes, NUFI has a right/obligation to be part of the negotiations. Here's a direct quote:
No insured (i.e. NV) will, except at insured's own cost, voluntarily make a payment, assume any obligation or incur any expense, other than for first aid, without our consent.
So basically, NV can't agree to anything with OEMs without NUFI's consent. That makes sense, since they would be spending NUFI's money.
Insured must cooperate with us (NUFI) in the investigation or settlement of the claim or defense against the "suit"
The above says that basically NUFI gets to decide if they want to fight the claims or not. NV doesn't want to fight the claims, since it would piss off their customers (OEMs), but I don't know how much choice they have...
DK
- Status
Similar threads
