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

[Deleted member 13524]

Unless I have missed a major part of story, I have not seen any evidence suggesting that Nvidia has demanded that any AIB terminate their relationship with AMD

You missed a major part of the story.
The part where he's addressing re/etailers, not AIBs.

All you had to do was read the first sentence that @Kaotik quoted.

Types of relationship that A) Exist and B) go quite a bit beyond GPP, which centers upon brand segregation and not the much more restrictive supplier exclusivity?

and C) Intel was found guilty of abusing their dominant market position for doing what Scott Herkelman stated about nvidia:

The EU found, in part:

• That Intel paid rebates to manufacturers on the condition that they would buy all (Dell) or nearly all of their CPUs from Intel.
• That it paid retail stores rebates to only stock x86 parts.
• That it paid computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of AMD hardware, including Dell, Acer, Lenovo, and NEC.
• That it restricted sales of AMD CPUs based on business segment and market. OEMs were given permission to sell higher percentages of AMD desktop chips, but were required to buy up to 95% of business processors from Intel. At least one manufacturer was forbidden to sell AMD notebook chips at all.

 

[Geeforcer]

You missed a major part of the story.
The part where he's addressing re/etailers, not AIBs.

All you had to do was read the first sentence that @Kaotik quoted.

Resellers = retailers?

 

[Kaotik]

You seem to left out a part of the quote there: "...in the manner you and your customers desire." Unless I have missed a major part of story, I have not seen any evidence suggesting that Nvidia has demanded that any AIB terminate their relationship with AMD, merely that Nvidia's products be marketed under separate brand in exchange for additional marketing and auxiliary support.

The bolded part really goes "Nvidia's products be marketed exclusively under companys established gaming brand (which the company has put millions and millions of dollars and years of time to build) or you might find yourself without GPUs on next launch"

 

[Kaotik]

LOL, are r/AMD vigilantes next going to target fast food chains for having exclusive beverage deals with either Pepsi Coor Coca-Cola? Types of relationship that A) Exist and B) go quite a bit beyond GPP, which centers upon brand segregation and not the much more restrictive supplier exclusivity?

Did any of them use dominant market position to get that exclusivity in chain x?

 

[Geeforcer]

You missed a major part of the story.

and C) Intel was found guilty of abusing their dominant market position for doing what Scott Herkelman stated about nvidia:

Again, I have not seen Nvidia stipulating the structure of AIBs supply contract with AMD.

 

[Geeforcer]

Did any of them use dominant market position to get that exclusivity in chain x?

They provide hefty financial incentives and product for the exclusivity; for example Pepsi famously developed Taco Bell-exclusive Mt Dew flavors as part of their beverage supply agreement. But then again, Nvidia is not forcing AIBs to stop making AMD cards, do they?

In the end of the day, the situation seems pretty simple: If I, as supplier, going to provide marketing support for your brand as the end-product manufacturer, I would absolutely not be interested in doing so if the product line includes competitive products, resulting in me spending some of my finite resources on helping the competition. This type of arrangements exist in almost every industry, and make perfect financial and legal sense despite what multitudes with WCCFtech law degrees seem to think.

 

[Malo]

It's so obvious and normal it's a wonder they didn't do this decades ago.

/s

 

[Geeforcer]

It's so obvious and normal it's a wonder they didn't do this decades ago.

/s

Quite possibly because they are now better modeling the RIO on the marketing spend to account for negative externalities of competing product promotion? Because marketing resource allocation is a much bigger concern when their two biggest competitors have co-branding agreements? Because they feel that they have grown the value of their brand the point where it can be leveraged in partner agreements?

 

[Malo]

Quite possibly because they are now better modeling the RIO on the marketing spend to account for negative externalities of competing product promotion? Because marketing resource allocation is a much bigger concern when their two biggest competitors have co-branding agreements? Because they feel that they have grown the value of their brand the point where it can be leveraged in partner agreements?

Definitely possibilities to implement such a move with the AIB's. You seem to have left out the significant factor of their market share and as such threat of loss of sales for AIBs as factors.

 

[Kaotik]

They provide hefty financial incentives and product for the exclusivity; for example Pepsi famously developed Taco Bell-exclusive Mt Dew flavors as part of their beverage supply agreement. But then again, Nvidia is not forcing AIBs to stop making AMD cards, do they?

In the end of the day, the situation seems pretty simple: If I, as supplier, going to provide marketing support for your brand as the end-product manufacturer, I would absolutely not be interested in doing so if the product line includes competitive products, resulting in me spending some of my finite resources on helping the competition. This type of arrangements exist in almost every industry, and make perfect financial and legal sense despite what multitudes with WCCFtech law degrees seem to think.

There's a difference between "we'll give you extra goodies for exclusivity" and nvidia's "we won't give you GPUs if you don't give us exclusivity to your gaming brand"

 

[fbomber]

Again, I have not seen Nvidia stipulating the structure of AIBs supply contract with AMD.

Was it possible, under GPP deal, for the AIB to choose making their strong gaming brand (e.g. ROG from asus) AMD exclusive? And making a new one, from scratch, for Nvidia cards? Or did Nvidia enforce the use of its cards under the old established strong brand?

 

[Deleted member 2197]

Was it possible, under GPP deal, for the AIB to choose making their strong gaming brand (e.g. ROG from asus) AMD exclusive? And making a new one, from scratch, for Nvidia cards? Or did Nvidia enforce the use of its cards under the old established strong brand?

Sure, AIB's could have chosen either IHV cards for their existing premier gaming brand. Nvidia just wanted brand separation regardless of what the brand name was, the decision to select what products were associated with which brand names was entirely the AIB's choice. However from the AIB standpoint GPU product revenue, the anticipated type of IHV product support/marketing assistance, and having timely access to silicon to build GPU's for specific premier brands would definitely be factors in their brand association decisions.

 

[Geeforcer]

The bolded part really goes "Nvidia's products be marketed exclusively under companys established gaming brand (which the company has put millions and millions of dollars and years of time to build) or you might find yourself without GPUs on next launch"

Why would that be the case? Nvidia makes money by selling chips to AIBs, you don’t grow you revenue by NOT selling chips and filling orders. And of course, there is always the option giving Nvidia the finger if you are so inclined and making that sweet sweet AMD money instead. Both AMD AMD Nvidia have exclusive partners and the world has somehow kept on spinning without Sapphire Geforces and eVGA Radeons.

It comes down to optimal resource allocation. As a rational actor, you would absolutely never chose to spend your finite resources to advance a brand that is often build around competitor’s product, given the alternatives. That’s crazy.

 

[CSI PC]

That has zero to do with what Scott said. When doing that, AMD did not restrict or block any companies' ability to sell NVidia cards.

You did notice I said "but this is not the same as GPP".
What it has to do with is that Scott infers consumer-reseller impact and about funding by IHV (not same funding scheme but still an IHV funding mechanism used as misdirection), so yes it is relevant especially in that context he said; " sell Radeon based products in the manner you and your customers desire".
So yeah has everything to do with how he positions this as no customer wanted or even all resellers (because they were definitely affected) Vega directed mostly to specific resellers that had the rebate, personally I do not want to buy from OverclockersUK but that was really the only choice for anyone in the UK and some in Europe that purchased from them as well.
Anyway he needs to be careful that it does not cross over from being sincere to just marketing, and that is the point some seem to have missed.

 

[CSI PC]

Was it possible, under GPP deal, for the AIB to choose making their strong gaming brand (e.g. ROG from asus) AMD exclusive? And making a new one, from scratch, for Nvidia cards? Or did Nvidia enforce the use of its cards under the old established strong brand?

If your company sells 70% more dGPU by one IHV that consistently pushes new products every generation would you a) keep that as the primary gaming brand b) weaken that primary brand with the IHV with a notable lower sales footprint and possibly lower margins (when no mining craze).
This is also further impacted by how much marketing funds and event profiles both IHV can provide to the AIB partner or even more critically level of engagement with the IHV by partner.

That is part of the crux; the GPP while being flexible I am sure in the context you raise, it pushes from a business perspective the AIB partner to go with Nvidia as their primary IHV for their best branding.
For me though Strix Gaming is more important than ROG for model naming, but others do care about ROG - specifically focusing on this context rather than the overall impact in other ways of GPP such as the greater impact with the MSI implementation.
Kinda cheap that Asus did not raise the old Ares name exactly though, which is sad.

 

[Picao84]

Why would that be the case? Nvidia makes money by selling chips to AIBs, you don’t grow you revenue by NOT selling chips and filling orders. And of course, there is always the option giving Nvidia the finger if you are so inclined and making that sweet sweet AMD money instead. Both AMD AMD Nvidia have exclusive partners and the world has somehow kept on spinning without Sapphire Geforces and eVGA Radeons.

It comes down to optimal resource allocation. As a rational actor, you would absolutely never chose to spend your finite resources to advance a brand that is often build around competitor’s product, given the alternatives. That’s crazy.

Have you missed the fact that Nvidia has started selling their own cards online a while ago?

 

[Picao84]

You did notice I said "but this is not the same as GPP".
What it has to do with is that Scott infers consumer-reseller impact and about funding by IHV (not same funding scheme but still an IHV funding mechanism used as misdirection), so yes it is relevant especially in that context he said; " sell Radeon based products in the manner you and your customers desire".
So yeah has everything to do with how he positions this as no customer wanted or even all resellers (because they were definitely affected) Vega directed mostly to specific resellers that had the rebate, personally I do not want to buy from OverclockersUK but that was really the only choice for anyone in the UK and some in Europe that purchased from them as well.
Anyway he needs to be careful that it does not cross over from being sincere to just marketing.

Dude, will you stop with the strawman arguments to derail the thread? AFAIK that issue has already been discussed to dead on Vega's launch and I was critical of that. Move on, the issue here is GPP. You are basically apologising nvidia by trying to picture AMD in the same light. Two wrongs don't make one right. It's getting sad.

 

[CSI PC]

Dude, will you stop with the strawman arguments to derail the thread? It's getting sad.

It is only a strawman when one cannot see beyond a certain context/absolute narrative (even if it does not entirely fit) that seems to be consistent with 2 others in always attacking Nvidia and supporting AMD.
Lets break down what he said and context;
a) Talk was to resellers
b) Context was "restrict or block your ability to market and sell Radeon based products in the manner you and your customers desire". - you may had focused only on market and not the sell portion of context.
c) The Vega launch example your defending and attacking me about involved AMD forcing AIB partners to sell Vega at launch to specific retailers with rebates; OverclockersUK publicly (AMD could sue them if it was false or request they take it down and AMD has a sales rep who is part of the forums so they would be aware) and GamersNexus (via AIB partners off the record) confirmed this approach and I linked the information multiple times in the past.
c.1) This impacts manner in how Vega at launch was sold; meaning restrict selling ability of the AIB partner to specific resellers for the majority of the launch cards.
c.2) This impacts manner in supporting customer desire; meaning customers restricted to certain retailers they would not usually use or have access to, people in Europe were buying from UK based OverclockersUK and even those in UK who do not usually use that retailer because the level of stock-resupply they had.

But again I said IT IS NOT SAME AS GPP BUT HAS RELEVANCE lol - relevance because it is a fine line between being sincere and pure marketing when it comes to such speeches as done at the AMD sales event London.
I am sure you can tell the difference between sincerity and marketing (which is what the quote HardOCP is providing is close to bordering now and why I said Scott needs to be careful), or is that when it is only Nvidia your cynical

 

[Kaotik]

Why would that be the case? Nvidia makes money by selling chips to AIBs, you don’t grow you revenue by NOT selling chips and filling orders. And of course, there is always the option giving Nvidia the finger if you are so inclined and making that sweet sweet AMD money instead. Both AMD AMD Nvidia have exclusive partners and the world has somehow kept on spinning without Sapphire Geforces and eVGA Radeons.

It comes down to optimal resource allocation. As a rational actor, you would absolutely never chose to spend your finite resources to advance a brand that is often build around competitor’s product, given the alternatives. That’s crazy.

Because NVIDIA doesn't care if it sells 1 million chips via Company 1 and Company 2 or only via Company 1.
They have enough AIBs (+their own founders editions) to blackmail anyone selling both NVIDIA & AMD GPUs into this crap

 

[Picao84]

It is only a strawman when one cannot see beyond a certain context/absolute narrative (even if it does not entirely fit) that seems to be consistent with 2 others in always attacking Nvidia and supporting AMD.

THIS IS YOUR PROBLEM! You are seeing people disliking and complaining about GPP as an attack on nVIDIA. IT IS NOT! It is an attack on shady practices by a company, irrespective of it being nVIDIA or AMD. YOU are the one driving the discussion into this corner. If I was a mod, I would ban your from this discussion thread (if that is even possible), since you are not contributing anything here, other than saying "look AMD did this, so nVIDIA can". This thread is about what nVIDIA is doing with GPP. If you want to discuss again VEGA launch shenanigans, create your own thread for it!