Kaby Lake-G is, according to Intel, meant for new thin gaming laptops and it includes a discrete non-NVIDIA GPU > It can't be sold under established gaming brands by companies who joined GPP
nVidia's GPP program is just a legally enforced GITG from hell?
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
What @Alexko said.
From what I've seen, the GPP terms would prevent Asus from launching a future ROG laptop with a KBL-G, or Gigabyte from launching a future Aorus laptop, or MSI with a future Gaming series.
All of them have models with a 45W Intel CPU + 64W GTX1050 Ti, which would be direct competitors to a 100W Kaby Lake GH with Radeon GPU. Models with 15 CPU + 53W GTX1050 would be direct competitors to the 65W Kaby Lake GL, I guess.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
The Hades Canyon NUC is actually the exception to the rule. Kaby Lake G is a mobile solution, and most of Intel's marketing slides referred to gaming performance comparisons with various nvidia GPUs, from the GTX950M to the GTX1060 Max-Q.
And Intel's own KBL-G announcement start with the following sentence:
Even if KBL-G was mostly a custom-order from apple, it seems pretty clear to me that Intel was looking at enthusiast gaming laptops when they announced Kaby-Lake G to the PC market.
One curious coincidence is that we have Dell XPS and HP Spectre laptops with Kaby Lake G in the market already. Which companies did pcper report they refused to sign up for GPP? Dell and HP.
The XPS and Spectre aren't for enthusiasts, as they have Alienware and Omen for that, but future laptops could bundle a KBL-G.
This interpretation is completely incorrect (and seems to be the crux of unfounded outcry throughout the treat). Without even having to get into multi-tier supply agreements, which, I assure you, are very much a thing, you as a rank-and-file consumer can easily observe by just how off-base you are via the existence of such thins as retail shopper clubs and credit cards, which grant members multiple perks, such a lower prices, reward points, priority access, etc. You know why various regulatory commissions are not inundated by complains as to why someone has to pay 50 cents more for a gallon of milk at a supermarket than the Shoppers Club member, or why someone is getting priority seating on the airplane? Because it's about equal access, not equal participation.
It's up to Nvidia to offer materially uniform program to its partners to fulfill its anti-discriminatory obligations. It's up to each partner to evaluate the terms and determine whether the program is right for them. In fact, they can not demand universal participation (now that would be illegal), simply offer everyone an opportunity to join. As an AIB, if the main thrust of you complaint is that you refusal to participate in a voluntary program but really want all the benefits of the program, it's going to be a very shortFfinding of Fact hearing.
Nvidia obviously does not have a monopoly on the "graphics card". Their market share in the last reported quarter for add-in cards was 66%, which, while substantial, clearly is not a monopoly. Furthermore, the specific market where they have the share lead is but a subset of overall PC graphics market, which in itself is but an small fraction of overall GPU market. Term like "monopoly" is dramatic but not an accurate reflection of the market realities in notoriously fickle industry where one product cycle can dramatically alter the competitive balance. The comparison with the soda market, while imperfect, is actually pretty apt: up until recently, Coca-Cola has over 50% of global soft drink market share and routinely exceeding PepsiCo's market share by the factor of 2.5-3x.
@Geeforcer
I guess you did not notice that fact that i mentioned that i believed they were clearly in breach of two of those law/regulations, both part of the "Abuse of a dominant position".
As for the others, i do not know.
- Discriminate between customers
Nvidia is certainly disciminating between those who sign up for GPP and those who do not.
- Force certain trading conditions on your business partners.
Those who sign up for GPP is certainly forced to certain trading conditions, like having their primary gaming brand exclusively lined up with nvidia.....
I guess you did not notice that fact that i mentioned that i believed they were clearly in breach of two of those law/regulations, both part of the "Abuse of a dominant position".
As for the others, i do not know.
- Discriminate between customers
Nvidia is certainly disciminating between those who sign up for GPP and those who do not.
- Force certain trading conditions on your business partners.
Those who sign up for GPP is certainly forced to certain trading conditions, like having their primary gaming brand exclusively lined up with nvidia.....
Which is funny, because the material difference in the contracts would pretty much be the only solid actionable item of all the ones that have been put forth so far. So, if Kyle does have the actual evidence of term variance that be tantamount to partner discrimination, he should be ALL means publish the discrepancies. In my estimation, if these discrepancies exist, they would deal with fair market value of product line that is being segrigated. If that's the case and any AIB feels that the contract terms undervalue their brand relative to that of their peers, then yes, they would have the cause to negotiate with Nvidia to redress the issue, and failing that, take up the issue with a mediator or make a regulatory complaint. I don't believe any of the issues highlighted so far have mentioned material contract variances or brand value assessment issues. I will concede that if these do come to light, Nivida will face regulatory scrutiny (as they should), I have just not seen any so far.
.
LOL, I am responding to the post as presented by the OP. If there is any "mixing" of concepts going on, that would be on him/her since they are the ones who chose to include competently irrelevant anti-cartel provisions in their list of statutes Nvidia is allegedly violating.
It is my assertion that it's not obvious at all. Stipulations of branding segmentation or exclusivity are extremely common contractual provisions among various industries and in general to not constitute bonafide restrictions of trade unless they specifically address terms and conditions of supplier agreements with competing parties.
Two things.
1) It's certainly within Nvidia's right to issue reasonable conditions to their resellers. I already explained in great detail why, in my opinion, the request for branding segmentation is reasonable, legal, and to be frank, the only logical (from ROI perspective) stipulation.
2) I am just curious, what is your bases for comparison? Have you in fact read an actual, existing AIB supplier contract between Nvidia and an AIB? To claim material alternation so egregious as to constitute abuse, you would need to keen understanding of the existing language so if you are willing to cite your before-and-after (GPP) sources, I would be more then willing to go through both sets of T&Cs and give you my assessment; however seems it's pretty clearly simply speculation grounded in animosity towards a cetain IHV.
You are conflating Intel's restrictions on AMDs supplier contracts with resellers to Nvidia's contractual terms addressing their own product marketing. Besides the very obvious difference (Intel was stipulating terms for supplier's relationship with a thrid party, VS GPP two-party stipulations), the method that Intel employed, which was tantamount to kickback payments in exchange for refusal to buy parts from AMD has absolutely no analog here. When evidence comes to light of Nvidia putting cash on the barrel preventing AIBs from building AMD-based cards (HP famously refused FREE AMD CPUs to keep the checks coming), or requiring them to only sell high-end Nvidia cards, we can revisit this case to see how much of it applicable to GPP, but until then, in my opinion, none of it really is.
Here is my prediction: Based on the all the evidence that I have seen so far, I would be very surprised to see any viable legal action taken in regard to GPP; I would be fully astounded to see parties actually prevail against in unlikely even that it ever is Nvidia.
Actually, this is pure theatrics. They have the contact information of every single AIB, what they are doing here is marketing in form of plausibly-deniable accusations. I would argue based on the facts as currently known AMD lacks sufficient standing to survive a preliminary hearing.
What's really funny is that you unironically bring up AMD-Intel agreement, a potential oligopoly with total platform control and as such massive potential for collusion, market sharing and bundling implications in the same post where you bemoan Nvidia's alleged transgressions. There were some potentially troubling statements made during the announcement regarding possible competitive delineation that may cause trouble for both down the road.
Actually Kaby Lake-G doesn't limit what graphics chip/card/controller you can use with the system, it just comes with 2 of them but nothing is preventing one from utilizing the remaining PCIe lanes for NVIDIA card.
I think you have chosen to completely ignore my explanation regarding what constitutes customer discrimination. They have to offer similar terms to all the customers, who then can decide whether to participate. But, if you are not convinced, let me point how Amazon is "discriminating" between the customers who are Prime members and the ones who are not and how likewise Shell is "abusing" the consumers who do not have their corporate credit card with 15 cents/liter higher prices at the pump. I will wait right here while you give Brussels a call and bring the matter to their attention.
...
I am actually pretty surprised, because I quite sure that I am having this discussion with a fair number of professionals who likewise live in the cooperate world and as such have at least a cursory familiarity with tiered supply agreements and contractual marketing stipulations. At my previous employer, the difference between top and bottom tier unit pricing was 27.5% depending on the order volume. The reason why neither European Commission nor FTC SWAT teams are busting down the CFO's doors is because the terms were offered openly and uniformly to all clients. I am sure the ones in bottom tier would love nothing more than get top line discount; and they could, as long as they were willing to cut us a check for the appropriately seized order. Furthermore, our contracts contained a multitude of marketing resurrections: as a re-seller, you could not put our corporate logo or product trademark on a retain box alongside, say, a large Nazi swastika, a client who did so would see their supply agreement terminated 5 seconds after the offending landed in front of GC.
Ouch, right in the Irony Plexus!
That includes APUs and Gaming Consoles, which are totally different markets than discrete graphics cards.
Plus like I said the crux of the matter will depend on authorities definition of Dominant Position. On a market where there are only two competitors, having 2/3 of the market can be considered a dominant position. Coca-Cola might have 50% of the market, but it does not share the soft drinks market only with Pepsi. There are thousands of soft drink manufacturers, especially if you include local ones of each county. Virtually every country in the world (and even regions!!) have local soft drink producers.
Regarding Amazon Prime, it is AGAIN a bad example. They are not discriminating anyone. Do you even use it at all??? Amazon Prime is a paid service where you get not only discounts but also free delivery and a streaming service with free TV shows and movies. Next thing you will be telling me that Netflix is discriminating customers by having different price tiers with different number of devices at the same time ..
But don't worry, if Autorithies fine NVIDIA and I do believe that European ones will, we'll be here to see you struggle and whine about it being "unfair".
Last edited:
I am not the one who chose to unify all of them to stress the CRUSHING MARKET DOMINANCE!!!1 over the competitor. I am, however, looking forward to the bright legal minds of B3D taking up the plight of the disenfranchised consumers who all ever wanted to game on Nvidia hardware only to be denied that ability due to exclusive supply contracts AMD has cruelly locked their biggest re-sellers into.
LOL, because I have been the one whining in this tread, clearly. You got me!
What will you do if Nvidia does not get penalized?
What the fuck are you on about? You were the one sharing the image, so you take the answer and put it where the sun does not shine on you!!
Rollo, is that you? The style is starting to feel familiar...
In any case, be happy on ignore.
Last edited:
First of all, I always appreciate eloquent, well-weighted responses.
Second, if you don't see the irony of you (objectively incorrectly) calling Nvidia a monopoly, while AMD is putting out marketing material saying how 1) PC gaming market should not be considered as a stand-alone market but instead in cojunction with console gaming market and B) boast about their incredibly dominant position, I can't help you.
I believe at the time MS was sued they had well over 90% of the relevant market share while the closes conveyor held less than 3%. Quite a bit diffent from 1/3-2/3 duopoly that AMD and Nvidia find themselves in. But, let’s also remember that MS got sued not for having a monopoly in of itself but for abusing this position by not only bundling IE with Windows (back in the days prior to every OS coming with a browser and no one betting an eye anymore) but also leveraging close API integration not accessible to completing products into features and performance competitors could not match.
A possible analog to this would be if Nvidia developed a VR headset and bundled it with its video cards in an attempt to leverage their currently dominant possition into a different market while also optimizing their GPUs to performs to deliver superior performance only when paired with their own hardware.
Only if you count consumer PC marketshare and don't include Macs. No more than couple messages ago you were saying how even AMD thinks PC shouldn't be counted alone and what not, which one is it?
Dominant market position doesn't require 90% and AMD/NVIDIA on the graphics front is closer to 1/4-3/4 or even 1/5 - 4/5 than 1/3 - 2/3 you're suggesting
edit: considering the usual market share numbers are AFAIK only for consumer products, it's probably even higher percentage for NVIDIA if you include professional GPUs
Some people here should be on a circus, considering the jugglery they are capable of just to defend a company. There is no discussion or conversation possible with someone who is so bent on one conclusion that he/she distorts the facts to fit his view.
- Status
Similar threads
