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

Discussion in 'Graphics and Semiconductor Industry' started by digitalwanderer, Mar 8, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    16,786
    Likes Received:
    1,412
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    Kyle wrote an excellent piece over at [H]ard about nVidia's GeForce Parter's Program, (GPP), and how it's gonna screw over gamers even worse than "Get In The Game" exclusives did:

     
    Shortbread and Grall like this.
  2. Silent_Buddha

    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    15,409
    Likes Received:
    4,324
    Ugh. That sounds a lot like what Intel was doing back in the 90's/early 2000's with preferential pricing to partners that did not sell competitor hardware.

    The only difference is that here NV are calling it "sales rebate programs."

    The government cracked down on Intel for that, I wonder if they'll even bat an eye at NV doing it.

    Basically any AIB wanting to sell NV hardware that isn't in the program will be at a massive disadvantage versus AIBs who are in the program.

    Regards,
    SB
     
    Cyan, Lightman, Shortbread and 2 others like this.
  3. Malo

    Malo YakTribe.games
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    6,558
    Likes Received:
    2,591
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Well that's going to cause a lot of drama. From just starting his article, the first thing that came to mind is the questionable legality of the GPP, especially considering their market position. Obviously we don't have a lot of the details of the actual OEM obligations, but the requirements and more importantly, the incentives lost for the OEM make it very difficult for them.
     
    Shortbread, Grall, BRiT and 1 other person like this.
  4. Grall

    Grall Invisible Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    10,801
    Likes Received:
    2,170
    Location:
    La-la land
    The constant stream of Super Scummy Shit flowing out of Nvidia - recently and going back ten years if not more, almost ever since becoming top dog in the discrete GPU market - makes it increasingly hard for me to desire NV GPUs. I have owned a bunch of NV stuff over the years; GF3, GF6800 vanilla, GF8800GTX SLI, and most lately GF770 SLI, but I don't think I could bring myself to buy anything of theirs of late, and this stuff just turns my stomach.

    I went with AMD Vega even though it's a weaker, thirstier product compared to NV's. It was easier for me from a moral standpoint, even though due to cryptominers I ended up paying considerably more for my boards than if I'd bought the equivalent NV card.
     
    Wesker, Cyan, ToTTenTranz and 2 others like this.
  5. nutball

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,014
    Likes Received:
    324
    Location:
    en.gb.uk
    This is what happens when the competition drops the ball (again), people.
     
    Sxotty, Picao84, Shortbread and 2 others like this.
  6. swaaye

    swaaye Entirely Suboptimal
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,392
    Likes Received:
    531
    Location:
    WI, USA
    Aren't AMD not even launching more graphics this year? Just that new generation of boring APUs? They'd better hope that Volta/Ampere is really boring and NV just wants mega margins.
     
    #6 swaaye, Mar 9, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2018
  7. itsmydamnation

    Veteran Regular

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,240
    Likes Received:
    331
    Location:
    Australia
    They have mobile Vega/ Vega on package products. Don't think there is anything else.
     
  8. Shortbread

    Shortbread Island Hopper
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2013
    Messages:
    3,235
    Likes Received:
    1,328
    This is simply NVidia trying to figure out how to stop the quarterly [market share] hemorrhaging, which they're experiencing. Going from 73% to 66% market share, is quite a big deal, especially when all signs are pointing towards more gains (larger share) for AMD.

    But yes, this is bad business for consumers and OEM partners not willing to play NVidia's game.

    On the GPU gaming side of things, I agree 100%. But, AMD has grown it's GPU market share from 27% to 33.7% within the last quarter, mostly because of mining sales.
     
    #8 Shortbread, Mar 9, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2018
    digitalwanderer and Lightman like this.
  9. CSI PC

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,050
    Likes Received:
    843
    AMD has similar rebate deals with the various AIB partners and engagements albeit not as strict, the primary difference is that Nvidia wants the branding to be unique for those that want to use the Nvidia GPP.
    It is more of a headache for partners and customers who then will need to see unique top tier names from say Asus/MSI/etc on both AMD and Nvidia GPUs going forward, and yeah it could take time for new brand name recognition and crucially marketing cost but a customer IMO would have no problem finding the top tier from either company sold by an AIB/OEM partner even if they are distinct brand names going forward.

    The biggest concern and no-one knows if this will actually happen because it is not defined is the concern allocation of GPUs will be less for those not in the program, one can only say time will tell and something that can be easily monitored and then one can go beyond assumptions.
    But then Sapphire who only partner with AMD seem to launch the higher tier products 1st before any other AIB partner and has been hinted they have some specific technical engagement, no-one complains about that.
    Worth noting as well the suggested cause of this situation in the article:
    I am not sure what Nvidia plans is illegal (morally questionable sure but some of this reflect practices from those who try to squeeze Nvidia), however again it is AMD who raised this with various journalists (including Kyle) and yet seem that Sapphire has some kind of preferential partnership or the fact AMD team up with Intel to squeeze Nvidia in the low/mobile segment....
    Good grief even back in 2013 AMD made Sapphire their global distribution partner for FirePro, and no-one bats an eye lid even though Sapphire solely partners with AMD and do not engage with Nvidia.
    Or what about AMD excluding professional reviewers who do not always give good reviews/news around AMD going back over 12 months; the irony is they excluded HardOCP from being a reviewer of some their GPU hardware 12 months ago and now provide HardOCP this bit of news to investigate.

    Like I said AIB partners will have to create new brand names and marketing recognition going forward if they sign up for the Nvidia GPP; it is even on Nvidia's site one can be a partner and still promote other manufacturer products.
    The most negative aspect is the additional burden it places on AIB partners and their product-brand marketing strategies.

    And crucially it is not a monopoly anti-competitive because the OEMs/AIBs can still have the same level of commitment to AMD (nothing like what Intel pulled years ago), just how they decide to handle the burden of differentiating brand name and engagement.
    Of course they are not happy (and they have a right to this POV) because of this additional overhead and marketing cost, and possibly resources (indirectly includes further costs) but offset some by certain Progam incentives provided by Nvidia.
     
    #9 CSI PC, Mar 9, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2018
    Sxotty, pharma and swaaye like this.
  10. Grall

    Grall Invisible Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    10,801
    Likes Received:
    2,170
    Location:
    La-la land
    Er, what?

    What is the problem with any of that, and how is it in any way comparable to NV's new demands? If a company chooses to work with one brand or another of GPU is their choice (there's exclusively-NV board vendors as well one might add).

    NV is trying to meddle in how 3rd parties run their business using a form of extortion scheme. If it isn't an outright antitrust violation, it's surely cutting pretty close.
     
    Wesker, patrick.baumhof, no-X and 4 others like this.
  11. CSI PC

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,050
    Likes Received:
    843
    The article is in context that Nvidia is going to use the GPP for preferential treatment and a lot is being made of this, well AMD already does this with Sapphire in terms of both 1st to market products/higher level of supply and technical engagement and some business practices such as making them the Global Distributor of FirePro back in 2013.

    In essence what AMD is not happy about with this program (as they were the ones to raise this with HardOCP) they already do with Sapphire...
    And while some may say "ah but the Nvidia program affects more", it is still not anti-competitive because the OEMs/AIBs are still able to have same level of commitment to AMD as now, meaning it is not the same as what Intel pulled against AMD.

    Like I said the AIB partners have a right to be upset because it is further overhead for them, but I outline this in my previous post.

    If you have no issue with how AMD use Sapphire in a preferential way over other AIB partners and to reiterate Sapphire funny enough do not engage with Nvidia, then you should be ok with what Nvidia is doing, and as HardOCP article mentions this is next step as part of their strategy in response to AMD-Intel collaboration and maybe AMD-Apple.
    You do not find it strange the preferential position of Sapphire that solely engages with AMD?
    Sure they may not be contractually obliged to be so limited (we do not know what the agreement is between the two parties), but then a lot of opportunities have come their way from AMD while being AMD exclusive.
    Point being it is a bit one-sided solely to just complain about Nvidia GPP practice, unless ones context is the overhead burden-unknown cost it will bring to AIB partners, but if one wants to use the HardOCP article then one also needs to accept this is the fallout from the AMD-Intel collaboration created to squeeze Nvidia; not saying it makes the GPP right but the situation is more nuanced than "this deal is illegal" and "anti-competitive".
     
    #11 CSI PC, Mar 9, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2018
  12. Kaotik

    Kaotik Drunk Member
    Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2003
    Messages:
    7,841
    Likes Received:
    1,554
    Location:
    Finland
    digitalwanderer likes this.
  13. CSI PC

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,050
    Likes Received:
    843
    What precisely is the extortion scheme?
    AIB partners who sign up will need to rebrand and differentiate between the AMD and Nvidia lineup (the biggest hurt is the burden to AIB partners and I agree they have a right to be upset like I mentioned earlier), extortion would be if they were forced to choose one over the other and it seems they are not; what Intel did could be deemed extortion pressure put onto the OEMs those years ago against AMD.

    If you then talk about preferential engagement in engineering/supply/business practice/etc then that already happens like I said with AMD and Sapphire (who do not engage with Nvidia and are AMD exclusive); that would mean Nvidia is taking AMD approach with Sapphire and making it an actual broader partner proposal.

    How is Nvidia meant to strategically respond to the AMD-Intel collaboration designed to squeeze them competitively?

    To clarify I am not defending Nvidia but just seeing it from a broader perspective that goes beyond Nvidia practices.
     
    #13 CSI PC, Mar 9, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2018
  14. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,309
    Likes Received:
    3,967
    First posted by a story on HardOCP (which was followed by a damage-control blog post at nvidia), but has since been picked up by Forbes and now others.

    https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/03/07/geforce_partner_program_impacts_consumer_choice
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...olistic-anti-consumer-practices/#5b3ef6f42241
    http://www.nag.co.za/2018/03/09/nvi...rogram-this-week-and-people-are-mad-about-it/


    Kyle Benett has a lot of (temper) problems on his own IMO, but he was indeed the first to bring up the Intel+AMD solution well before anyone thought it to be possible, so their popularity and reliability is are at an all-time high right now.





    This last part sounds really hostile.
    Sounds an awful lot like what Intel did back in the Netburst days to stop AMD from gaining marketshare when the latter had a superior product (which was caught way too late in the game and the damage had already been done, unfortunately).
     
  15. CSI PC

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,050
    Likes Received:
    843
    Sounds more like what AMD does with Sapphire and Nvidia is expanding that to be more of broader program rather than what Intel pulled and forcing AIB Partners to be more focused on them rather than AMD.
    Anyway both manufacturers already offer partner status/game bundling/sales rebate programs.

    A partner can still sell AMD based cards but they or Nvidia would need to be rebranded going forward so an AIB partner would need to decide who gets the current marketing brand as an example for Rog at Asus or for MSI Gaming X; the negative impact is the additional burden and resources/costs this puts on the AIB, which may be offset a bit by the new program but still a negative.

    And worth noticing HardOCP states this has happened due to the collaboration strategy from AMD-Intel to squeeze Nvidia competitively; of course does not make it right but the situation is more nuanced when looking at practices more broadly.
     
    #15 CSI PC, Mar 9, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2018
  16. Malo

    Malo YakTribe.games
    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    6,558
    Likes Received:
    2,591
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Thread posted already here though should be merged and moved here as it's more appropriate forum.
     
  17. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,309
    Likes Received:
    3,967
    :lol::lol::lol:

    I wonder if you honestly believe that sentence.


    What's Sapphire's exclusive partnership with AMD other than being the official distributor for low-volume FirePro graphics cards? nVidia does exactly that with PNY on Quadro GPUs.
    Exclusivity on professional graphics cards is done to reduce the number of hardware variations (RAM chips, VRMs, PCBs, etc.) for which the premium support for these products is done.

    This has nothing to do with holding the AIB for gaming cards hostage saying if you don't get exclusive then you'll have to wait longer to get the cards and get them more expensive on top of it.
    Anyone can see the difference.
     
    #17 ToTTenTranz, Mar 9, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2018
    Moloch, Wesker, no-X and 5 others like this.
  18. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Sapphire or EVGA, Palit/galaxy who only sold GPU of one Brand have nothing to do with GPP... It is their choices..and it is not resulting of a vast program.. Forcing brands to only sold your GPU's if they want tariffs cut ( and brands who dont, will not have them ofc ), free marketing cost ( Nvidia seems to pay the marketing cost from their pocket ), and bring priority on the retail channel to them.. . etc etc as described in the article seems to look exactly like what was doing Intel in the 90-2000 with Dell, HP etc

    lets call distort the concurrences ( not only bettween AMD and Nvidia, but too between the different gpus brand ( Asus, MSI, etc ). What next ? Shop who can only sold one brand, otherwise they dont get enough GPU to sold, have higher prices than their competitors, etc etc ?

    Similary, Apple is in trouble for similar practice here in Europe. ( for the smartphone market )

    Now, i have absolutely no idea if the article is true..
     
    #18 lanek, Mar 9, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2018
  19. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,309
    Likes Received:
    3,967
    Actually it was the opposite.
    This happened because nvidia is feeling threatened with the Intel-AMD (and Apple?) deal.
     
  20. CSI PC

    Veteran Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,050
    Likes Received:
    843
    Well lets see.
    Who delivered 1st 480 and 580 GPUs and reference design?
    Who had the largest supply available to retailers for the 1st few months? - Overclockers UK provided some interesting data points back in the day (and they sourced from various distributors).
    Who was the sole Global Distribution supplier of FirePro (largest margins btw) and also the reference design platform partner?
    The list goes on, and funny enough the next AIB partner doing well these days is XFX, who again are AMD exclusive.

    The GPP as reported with concerns involved everything AMD does currently with Sapphire....
    Yes it may scale larger but the difference is the partner will not be exclusive as is the case of XFX and Sapphire.
    So no need for sarcastic laughs...
     
    #20 CSI PC, Mar 9, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2018
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...