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

[Deleted member 2197]

Because NVIDIA doesn't care if it sells 1 million chips via Company 1 and Company 2 or only via Company 1.

I thought that was AMD's current model?

It sounds like the "new" branding setup forces both Nvidia and AMD to have a vested interest to ensure Company 1 and Company 2 both have chips to support AIB brand name products. If only Company 1 receives chips there is no point in Company 2 having a brand name for that chip.

 

[CSI PC]

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!

Just because this thread is about GPP, it does not mean you get the right to ignore context and nuances that apply aspects/angles to it and others; makes one a hypocrite otherwise.
Anyway you are using this as an excuse to ignore what AMD did with Vega launch in the context of the very recent AMD speech posted by someone else, which exactly makes my point.
You and the same 2 jumped on me for pointing out how the AMD speech (posted in here by one of them) was bordering on marketing rather than sincerity if AMD were not careful and I needed to give a reason why, which has caused 3 of you to go into a frenzy defending AMD or saying I am posting a strawman because it does not fit your own narrative/POV, clearly it was not a strawman and had relevance but that has not stopped you 3 from posting repeatedly against it or as one poster did claiming OverclockersUK are liars (I had to then link GamersNexus article which backs them up) much earlier on.

Grall posting on the subject is fine along with few others, the posting by a couple I do see as an attack because the hostile response and the speculation was used as facts (and not caring about the detail/nuances) and they do not apply the same level of critique towards AMD on subjects they can be frowned upon.

 

[lanek]

I thought that was AMD's current model?

It sounds like the "new" branding setup forces both Nvidia and AMD to have a vested interest to ensure Company 1 and Company 2 both have chips to support AIB brand name products. If only Company 1 receives chips there is no point in Company 2 having a brand name for that chip.

You take in account both company ( 1 and 2 ) are in the GPP program, if company 2 is not, only company 1 will got the chips and sell GPU's. Second company will sign in, or seen the company 1, eat his marketshare... Or can decide to sold toasters instead.

 

[Picao84]

Just because this thread is about GPP, it does not mean you get the right to ignore context and nuances that apply aspects/angles to it and others; makes one a hypocrite otherwise.
Anyway you are using this as an excuse to ignore what AMD did with Vega in the context of the very recent AMD speech posted by someone else, which exactly makes my point.
You and the same 2 jumped on me for pointing out how the AMD speech (posted in here by one of them) was bordering on marketing rather than sincerity if AMD were not careful and I needed to give a reason why, which has caused 3 of you to go into a frenzy defending AMD or saying I am posting a strawman because it does not fit your own narrative/POV, clearly it was not a strawman and had relevance but that has not stopped you 3 from posting repeatedly against it or as one poster did claiming OverclockersUK are liars (I had to then link GamersNexus article which backs them up) much earlier on.

Grall posting on the subject is not an attack, the posting by a couple of others I do see as an attack because the speculation was used as facts (and not caring about the detail/nuances) and they do not apply the same level of critique towards AMD on subjects they can be frowned upon.

Breaking News! Water is wet! ANYTHING that comes out of any company is Marketing, no matter how good will it feels like! What the hell is your point? Yes, AMD is no better than NVIDIA and vice versa! Can we proceed to discuss GPP now for what it is?

You have already stated twice here that your beef here is with people attacking NVIDIA and not having the same stance with AMD. Yet you don't want to be seen as an apologist, and worse, you send PMs to people asking to revise their posts and agree with you! What are you really doing here CSI?

 

[digitalwanderer]

Grall posting on the subject is fine along with few others, the posting by a couple I do see as an attack because the hostile response and the speculation was used as facts (and not caring about the detail/nuances) and they do not apply the same level of critique towards AMD on subjects they can be frowned upon.

I'm sure Grall will appreciate your permission for him to post, but comparing the "critique towards AMD on subjects they can be frowned upon" I don't feel appropriate to this thread unless you can bring up something of a comparable scale that AMD has planned/done/tried that compares to the GPP.

Sure all companies do a bit of stuff that no one likes and it's not illegal, but point me to one thing any other company has done that is comparable to what nVidia is attempting with the GPP. Do that and you can lecture me about what is and isn't apprapo to this thread.

 

[CSI PC]

I'm sure Grall will appreciate your permission for him to post, but comparing the "critique towards AMD on subjects they can be frowned upon" I don't feel appropriate to this thread unless you can bring up something of a comparable scale that AMD has planned/done/tried that compares to the GPP.

Sure all companies do a bit of stuff that no one likes and it's not illegal, but point me to one thing any other company has done that is comparable to what nVidia is attempting with the GPP. Do that and you can lecture me about what is and isn't apprapo to this thread.

You realise I had to point that out because of what Picao said to me in previous post and that the recent posts are specifically around the speech by Scott? - this does have context beyond Nvidia and GPP.
Nothing about permission so no idea why you are saying that but perspective on who has been most consistent and reaction to the level of detail they are arguing about with GPP and that is Grall.

Coming back to what your responding to all comes back to the recent posts to do with the Scott speech posted by another in this thread: "restrict or block your ability to market and sell Radeon based products in the manner you and your customers desire"
It is relevant beyond GPP; or do you feel it is fine for an IHV to instruct AIB partners to sell majority of their launch Vega GPUs to select retailers to keep price within SEP (those with the $100 rebate) and then importantly-context later on do a speech about no restrictions to sell and no restrictions to customer desire? - You do not see how it risks on bordering marketing rather than sincerity?
If that was Nvidia would the same people complain?

 

[Deleted member 13524]

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.

It's a strawman through and through and you're desperately trying to derail the thread by insistently trying to change the subject from GPP to something else.

Just because this thread is about GPP, it does not mean you get the right to ignore context and nuances...

That you're making up to derail the thread.


Which is consistent with your general participation in this thread.
You've been pushing the "but AMD does things too!" narrative since the very first sentence in the very first post in this thread.
And then you tried your luck with the "but Sapphire and AMD do things too!" narrative.
Now it's "b-but Vega launch!".

None of it has to do with GPP and no one is taking that crap, so you just keep changing your goalposts to the next-less-mediocre comparison.
Give it enough time and you'll be trying to make this about Raja going to Intel.

 

[Geeforcer]

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

And..? I am honestly not sure which part of my post this is supposed to be in response to. If an AIB comes to them with check at hand for a great unit price, they will fill the order if they have the capacity.

 

[CSI PC]

Breaking News! Water is wet! ANYTHING that comes out of any company is Marketing, no matter how good will it feels like! What the hell is your point? Yes, AMD is no better than NVIDIA and vice versa! Can we proceed to discuss GPP now for what it is?

You have already stated twice here that your beef here is with people attacking NVIDIA and not having the same stance with AMD. Yet you don't want to be seen as an apologist, and worse, you send PMs to people asking to revise their posts and agree with you! What are you really doing here CSI?

Then maybe the original post of Scott speech should not had been posted/supported by those now criticising me for putting it into perspective.
Now you really have taken it off-tangent; you know why you were asked in PM as I said it did not make sense to post showing why context was wrong, it would be petty for me to post everything from it but now your not showing it in the right frame nor did I expect you to agree with me.....
Not sure the PM you raise is a great example because you were defending AMD in that very PM even when multiple links from other reviews/data showed otherwise and you felt reviewers were wrong (subject not related to this thread).
But don't you think this really should not had been raised-said in this thread and kept private or at least raised in the right thread?

Especially as you said in same PM about that person "notorious for having a pro AMD attitude", and it is that member who is actively involved here without consideration on context/nuances.

 

[Geeforcer]

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

If that were the case, there only would be one or two AIBs. The fact that these company exists and are successful enough to continue as going concerns demonstrated quite clearly that you are NOT going to sell 1 million chips via just Company 1, but only perhaps 800,000. As such, as an IHV you are not going to forego this additional revenue which is your number one growth metric.

This “crap” you are referring to is the refusal to pour resources into the brand where the expenditure also benefits your competitor. Also known as “decision any rational business owner makes 100% of the time”. I am sure AMD is upset that Nvidia’s marketing dollars are not going to tangentialy benefits their sales, but guess what, it’s their job to actually compete. Go out, offer better terms to AIBs.

 

[Kaotik]

If that were the case, there only would be one or two AIBs. The fact that these company exists and are successful enough to continue as going concerns demonstrated quite clearly that you are NOT going to sell 1 million chips via just Company 1, but only perhaps 800,000. As such, as an IHV you are not going to forego this additional revenue which is your number one growth metric.

This “crap” you are referring to is the refusal to pour resources into the brand where the expenditure also benefits your competitor. Also known as “decision any rational business owner makes 100% of the time”. I am sure AMD is upset that Nvidia’s marketing dollars are not going to tangentialy benefits their sales, but guess what, it’s their job to actually compete. Go out, offer better terms to AIBs.

Seriously, NVIDIA could probably literally force you to sacrifice your own family and you would still try to twist it to be a positive thing.

NVIDIA is forcing AIBs to give NVIDIA exclusivity to AIBs gaming brands they've spent millions and millions of dollars and years of time into without giving anything back. They're saying if you don't join, you'll lose all the usual benefits you had before and most likely will find that your GPUs got lost in the mail on new launches while all the other AIBs who joined GPP still get theirs.

 

[Grall]

Nothing about permission so no idea why you are saying that but perspective on who has been most consistent and reaction to the level of detail they are arguing about with GPP and that is Grall.

Please... I'd appreciate if you would leave my name out of your posts; I feel I've been quite clear on my position on this matter, and it doesn't mesh cleanly with your *ahem* creative rethoric. I wouldn't want anyone to get the false impression I agree with you or endorse your opinions.

Thanks.

 

[Geeforcer]

Seriously, NVIDIA could probably literally force you to sacrifice your own family and you would still try to twist it to be a positive thing.

NVIDIA is forcing AIBs to give NVIDIA exclusivity to AIBs gaming brands they've spent millions and millions of dollars and years of time into without giving anything back. They're saying if you don't join, you'll lose all the usual benefits you had before and most likely will find that your GPUs got lost in the mail on new launches while all the other AIBs who joined GPP still get theirs.

It’s a positive thing for Nvidia who no longer waste their resources helping the competition and negative for AMD, who no longer gets to a free ride and would need offer a compelling alternative, sure. Guess what though, that’s exactly how adversarial competitive system works. AMD is more then free to present a counteroffer to AIBs, right? You don’t get to decide that investing additional resources is inconvenient and costly, refuse to complete and declare things “anticompetitive”. Both companies have one job, which is to maximize their revenue and market share. I

Moving past concern-trolling (it’s funny how so many forum participants that regard Nvidia’s products with open disdain are now positivly shaken that an AIB may have to wait a little longer to recive the shipment of that inferior junk instead of heralding the opportunity for AMD to fill that void and rake in cash) and armchair legal theorizing, the facts as they stand are:

1) AMD products are and will remain available from many, many AIBs, including multiple AMD-exclusive ones. This has no material impact on anyone’s ability to buy AMD-based graphics card.
2) AIBs are free chose to participate in GPP.
3) AIBs a free to invest as much resources as they and their partner (AMD) desire in a parallel brand.
4) Nvidia will prioritize its investment where it yields maximum return.
5) So should AMD.

 

[CSI PC]

Seriously, NVIDIA could probably literally force you to sacrifice your own family and you would still try to twist it to be a positive thing.

NVIDIA is forcing AIBs to give NVIDIA exclusivity to AIBs gaming brands they've spent millions and millions of dollars and years of time into without giving anything back. They're saying if you don't join, you'll lose all the usual benefits you had before and most likely will find that your GPUs got lost in the mail on new launches while all the other AIBs who joined GPP still get theirs.

Isn't that too generalised apart from your point about Nvidia is forcing them (indirectly)?
Already IHV have a manufacturer calender schedule with priorites and there are benefits-tiers for partners ; is it pure luck Sapphire has so many launch GPUs available (showed an indicator in past what Overclockers were able to get for 4xx/5xx/Vega in past and they are one of the preferred retailers going by what AIB partners said about providing priority to rebate retailers) or say MSI/EVGA for Nvidia and how well all them and Sapphire manage to get custom models out quick.
Looking at product availability at launch makes this pretty clear that not all partners are equal in terms of provision, and this also applies to Elite tier partners for marketing-funds-engagement.

Asus has spent a lot on ROG over the years but also separately they have marketed Strix Gaming (which AMD cards will use), but how many of the other partner brand series comes close to it?

 

[Gelanin]

Reply to Geeforcer.

1) Partially correct. If you've already decided you want to buy an AMD card, sure it does not matter. However, if you're average joe, and want a decent gaming card you might just know that "Republic of Gamers" cards are good, so you go to a store to buy that, and you can only end up with a nvidia card.
2) No. If an AIB wants a piece of the nvidia sales pie, it needs to join GPP or it will be at a huge disadvantage.
3) Sure, but why should nvidia be able to "take" the original brand, why shouldnt nvidia be required to make the new brand since they're the ones who want a separate brand ?
4) Problem is, they are clearly breaking laws and regulations in the EU, and probably in the US aswell.
5) Not it it means breaking the laws & regulations.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Forbes' take on the story:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasone...ard-resellers-bullied-by-nvidia/#39824e9e2c00

AMD is rallying the troops and gathering ammunition (potentially for both legal and marketing purposes), and starting to make a serious stink about Nvidia's alleged anti-competitive tactics. They've now publicly mentioned that their partners have been talking to them about this.

Meanwhile Nvidia is still curiously silent on the issue, despite touting their program as "transparent." In my eyes, if something was so awesome and beneficial to gamers and board partners, wouldn't you want to scream about it from the mountain tops?

I think this is a good point.
Anyone willing to theorize why nvidia refuses to answer questions from journalists?

 

[digitalwanderer]

It is relevant beyond GPP

No, it isn't. That's my point that you seem to be missing it entirely and just as hard as you can. <sigh>

 

[CSI PC]

No, it isn't. That's my point that you seem to be missing it entirely and just as hard as you can. <sigh>

So your saying we cannot take what Scott said and how the statement possibly conflicts with historical behaviour (only up to 2 years ago) from the same company he represents and talking about specifically restricting sales and your customer desires?
That gives a free pass to any statement from both companies if it conflicts with prior behaviour.
BTW what is the definition of reseller from AMD (applicable to Scott's speech); board partners or distributors/retailers or both?

 

[Malo]

It’s a positive thing for Nvidia who no longer waste their resources helping the competition and negative for AMD, who no longer gets to a free ride and would need offer a compelling alternative, sure.

Both you and Nvidia are implying that consumers were being ripped off when buying a ROG and ended up with an AMD. Consumers decide if they want a certain AMD/Nvidia chip and either shop around for their best price/quality trade-off or look to their preferred board maker and design for their chosen chip this round.

Yet somehow now PC enthusiasts are buying ROG cards irrespective of what chip is on the board and Nvidia is awesome because they're ensuring the consumer is getting the best experience when they do. Aren't they cool?

What a load of shit.

 

[Grall]

It’s a positive thing for Nvidia who no longer waste their resources helping the competition

I'm unsure as to how this logic of yours is supposed to work. Then again, it is never difficult to find defenders of even the most egregious examples of market share abuse in this day and age.

Btw hahaha lol at your claim of AIBs being "free" to join NPP; yeah, free to get their arms twisted, because if they don't join they get penalized.