nVidia's GPP program is just a legally enforced GITG from hell?
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
- Status
Wow!!
This is very unprofessional.
AMD is certainly no Saint - no company is - and I do believe what he is telling about AMD pressuring him (after all we all know about the viral shills campaign) but putting it out in the way he is doing is pretty much vicious. Especially since he said at the beginning that that person is not at AMD anymore (without giving a time frame of when he left) .
Nevertheless, I could live with that. It's not the first time and won't certainly be the last we will hear things like this from both NVIDIA and AMD.
However, he crossed the line.
Telling people to not trust other reviewers is going a whole floor above! He is pretty much throwing mud at other people's work with no proof whatsoever. This is borderline a declaration of war.
If this keeps escalating, I fear I have no option but really quit PC gaming for good! I will not fund a culture of toxic aggression, where it should be a culture of fun.
Gaming Consoles are famous for its rabid fans, but you don't see Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo promoting the hatred you see between NVIDIA and AMD.
I've always been an NVIDIA guy because I admire their culture of innovation and pushing the boundaries both in gaming and outside gaming.
I admire those who take risks and initiative and AMD lacks a bit on that respect. Their products seem to me like run of the mill standard hardware that do the job, they are alright but lack any sort of "wow factor".
What I mean is that I like to know that the same hardware I use for gaming, a trivial purpose, is used to do good as well (e.g. Research). A symbiotic relationship that really exists with NVIDIA because of their own effort (e.g. CUDA) but is absent on AMD, who were expecting for OpenCL to fall on their arms.
But this current environment? No, I'm not buying any more hardware from either company while this war is going on.
I am sorry, I don’t understand exactly what you are asking. BRIT referred to the “time when Microsoft was sued”, which is would be time period I was referring to. You even highligted the correct part. My only guess is that you are under misapprehension exactly what Microsoft’s relevant market share was at the time, which was over 97%. That number included Macs, making you assertion above factually incorrect:
Source
You assertion about graphics market share is somehow, amazingly, doubly factually incorrect.
The last available data shows that for descrete cards specifically, Nvidia has 66.3% market share to AMDs 33.7%, as I stated before.
Source
However, descrete graphics represent less then 40% of overall PC graphics market. NVidia’s overall share of PC graphics market is a whopping 18.4%, compared to AMDs 14.2%
Source
I find it borderline incomprehensible that in this magical age we live in, where Google is very much a thing, the grasp of basic, wildly publicized facts is so alarmingly tenuous.
I choose to list (and link to) the complete page from the European Union, so i would not be accused of "cherrypicking" bits & pieces. I also said that i believed nvidia were in violation of 2 of the points under "Abuse of a dominant position", i did not accuse them of being a cartel. It's not my fault that you're incapable of reading what i actually wrote, and choose substitute it with your own reality.
No, not really. AMDs marketing material asserts that PC gaming market is but a subset of the overall gaming market. They are the ones quite literally telling people to go ahead and lump it all together and while you are at it, marvel at how dominant they are.
So more like oranges and assorted citrus salad. More than anything though, I find the dichotomy of AMD fans painting the company as a downtrodden bit player facing a “monopoly” VS the company’s own messaging portraying itself as dominant juggernaut quite humorous.
There is a big difference here you do not seem to grasp.
1) Amazon does not have a dominant position like Nvidia has. I can get pretty much anything Amazon sells from a dozen other different shops/stores. However, when it comes to gaming/gfx-cards, you can only really get them 2 places, Nvidia or AMD.
2) Shell is the same thing, there are not only 2 oil/gas companies selling. Even here in Norway we have Circle K, Shell, Esso, St1, Uno-X, XY and i'm fairly confident it's the same were you are living.
So the big difference here is the fact that there are only 2 vendors for gfx-chip/cards, and one of those has a 60-70% marketshare for gaming cards. That is what makes what nvidia is doing into "abuse of a dominant position".
I responded to all the points you chose to include in your message to me under the not enters unreasonable assumption that you considered all of the text pasted as as relevant to the discussion at hand. If you didn’t intend to imply that anti-cartel provisions were relevant (and I perfectly willing to accept that, obviously at the time your reasoning for including that part was not clear to me otherwise I would not have taken the time to respond), I am fully ready to move on from this part of the discussion. Sorry for this misunderstanding.
I can see how Amazon can be viewed as having a dominant position. But that is not enough to open a process on them. They have to be actively doing something to hurt its competitors through discrimination or forcing of conditions. Amazon Prime does not do either of those. You can order exactly the same items to your heart's content and pay the shipping costs if you do not have Prime. Plus a Prime subscription also gives you things you otherwise would not have like Prime Video and Music. Amazon does not force Prime on anyone or puts them at an unfair disadvantage product wise if you don't have it.
There seemed to be what I hope incidental misunderstandings of what those two examples represent, which is perfectly acceptable customer discrimination within companies own customer base. I chose Amazon and Shell because they are fairly well known but the concept applies regardless of size. I also included a relevant example from personal experience to further clarify the issue.
As I stated, repeatedly, what constitutes customer discrimination is not what customer choses to accept but what you chose to offer them. As a supplier, it would be illegal for me to offer customer A 1,000 units at unit price x while ask customer B to pay me 2x for the otherwise identical order. I am fully within my rights to offer a 20% discount for orders over 15,000 units, 15% discount for H2 Vs H1 delivery dates, and a 2% discount with production que priority, expedited handling and air freight delivery thrown in (good for 30 day lead) if you are willing to prominently feature “industry-leading, highest rated <my components> by <my company>”. If you are a reseller who only needs minimal 1,000 order in March and doesn’t want to do co-branding, you are much worse off, price-wise, then someone ordering 17,000 units in July and willing to exteslivly feature our brand. All perfectly legal, because the same offer has been extended to everyone. It does not matter if I have .9% or 99% market share, it’s about giving all your clients the same reasonable opportunity.
It is my accretion that same exact concept applies to GPP. As long as all AIBs have the same fair opportunity to participate, there is no customer description.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Going back to Kaby Lake G, notebookcheck is doing their own research already:
Where are all the Kaby Lake-G laptops? Nvidia's GeForce Partner Program may be to blame
I OTOH am actually surprised some people are giving you the time of the day given this behavior and the sheer bias that is present even in your own username.
I can't help but imagine how a user who named himself Radeoner would be treated if he came to the Vega thread and try to defend AMD Marketing team's terrible handling of reviewers during the Vega launch, using similar tactics:
That would be so fun!
You're the one here trying to somehow pass as some legal expert by trying to do point-by-point critiques, but at the same time you can't seem to distinguish the difference between cartel formation and abuse of dominant position by a single entity (or you can't read section titles.. not sure which is worse, honestly). And you did so by writing whole testaments arguing about how the rules meant for dominant position don't fit the rules for cartels.
Well duh, they're a different set of rules for different cases.
You literally didn't know what you were talking about, and you just acknowledged as much. Let that sink in.
nvidia knows this, AIBs know this, AMD knows this, investigators will know this.
nvidia has over twice the market share of its nearest rival in discrete GPUs and has well over 40% of marketshare. Therefore, rules for dominant position abuse apply.
Besides, GPP only happened because nvidia is in a dominant position.
If we were in the era of Intel vs. Matrox vs. 3dfx vs. nvidia vs. ATi vs PowerVR in discrete graphics cards, AIBs would receive nvidia's GPP with a laugh and a walk through exit door.
nvidia threatened AIBs with taking away GPU allocation and marketing funds (et al) if they didn't kick AMD out of the AIB's best-selling gaming sub-brands.
And they only succeeded because they're in a dominant position.
To summarize:
.- nVidia forced their partners to push their closest competitor to a situation that will unavoidably result in less sales to the competitor and more sales for nvidia, and they were only able to do that because they have a dominant position in the market.
This is what GPP is.
And nobody cares about your coca-cola strawmen, BTW. It has nothing to do with 3d graphics or CPUs or anything that goes into a computer.
You're free to create a thread in the general forums to protest about coca-cola, though.
Where are all the Kaby Lake-G laptops? Nvidia's GeForce Partner Program may be to blame
Some unnecessary ad-hominem attacks/flamebaits here, among others.
I OTOH am actually surprised some people are giving you the time of the day given this behavior and the sheer bias that is present even in your own username.
I can't help but imagine how a user who named himself Radeoner would be treated if he came to the Vega thread and try to defend AMD Marketing team's terrible handling of reviewers during the Vega launch, using similar tactics:
Radeoner said:
That would be so fun!
He has a copy of one agreement with one AIB with him. The AIB who provided him with it asked him not to publish it because the AIB said all contracts between different AIBs are different and this particular AIB didn't want to be singled out by nvidia.
The OP pasted the text from EU's page under the correct titles, with proper formatting. And when he re-posted it, there was a clear sentence saying:
You're the one here trying to somehow pass as some legal expert by trying to do point-by-point critiques, but at the same time you can't seem to distinguish the difference between cartel formation and abuse of dominant position by a single entity (or you can't read section titles.. not sure which is worse, honestly). And you did so by writing whole testaments arguing about how the rules meant for dominant position don't fit the rules for cartels.
Well duh, they're a different set of rules for different cases.
You literally didn't know what you were talking about, and you just acknowledged as much. Let that sink in.
Most seem to disagree with you notion of "reasonable".
Radeon cards being kicked out of the pre-established gaming sub-brands == drastically reducing Radeon sales, because the gaming sub-brands represent the majority of sales for each AIB.
nvidia knows this, AIBs know this, AMD knows this, investigators will know this.
It's a dominant position.
European Commission said:
nvidia has over twice the market share of its nearest rival in discrete GPUs and has well over 40% of marketshare. Therefore, rules for dominant position abuse apply.
Besides, GPP only happened because nvidia is in a dominant position.
If we were in the era of Intel vs. Matrox vs. 3dfx vs. nvidia vs. ATi vs PowerVR in discrete graphics cards, AIBs would receive nvidia's GPP with a laugh and a walk through exit door.
nvidia threatened AIBs with taking away GPU allocation and marketing funds (et al) if they didn't kick AMD out of the AIB's best-selling gaming sub-brands.
And they only succeeded because they're in a dominant position.
To summarize:
.- nVidia forced their partners to push their closest competitor to a situation that will unavoidably result in less sales to the competitor and more sales for nvidia, and they were only able to do that because they have a dominant position in the market.
This is what GPP is.
And nobody cares about your coca-cola strawmen, BTW. It has nothing to do with 3d graphics or CPUs or anything that goes into a computer.
You're free to create a thread in the general forums to protest about coca-cola, though.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
April 18, 2018:
NVIDIA's Response To GPP - Its All Rumors! - in which he suggests Kyle was paid to do the GPP story
April 23, 2018:
Why I No Longer Accept Review Samples From AMD! - in which he suggests all other reviewers are following orders from AMD and he's so much better than all of them
Yeah this guy is totally based.
So you're using AMD marketing department material as evidence of how Nvidia is not leading an anticompetitive cartel against AMD in the discrete graphics market segment?
That's interesting, if not particularly believable logic. Forgive me if I never take a single thing you say seriously ever again.
Are you actually referring to the consoles as exclusive supply contracts that Nvidia has been rejected from? You actually think that these consoles begin by Sony and MS begging AMD for their hardware only to have papers ensuring exclusivity? Of course they're exclusive, once you choose the hardware you're stuck with that since it's a closed system. That's why it's exclusive, not because of some relation to market dominance or competitive behavior.
Whilst that marketing image is true technically, it's irrelevant to this discussion as we are all intelligent enough to understand it doesn't apply to the PC gaming market, where discrete is king.
Apparently he does not think so. That is why I simply told him to f**k *ff and put him on ignore list. Not available to be mocked and insulted on a serious discussion.
Not sure what to make of those articles myself, because Kyle uses the April 18th video to make his conclusion-facts for the recent article on "NVIDIA Starts Disinformation GPP Campaign", which has been picked up by various other sources since then.
It would then bring into question the Kyle article "NVIDIA Starts Disinformation GPP Campaign"
Bold is mine.
https://www.hardocp.com/news/2018/04/18/nvidia_starts_disinformation_gpp_campaign/
No other source is referenced by Kyle from what I can tell regarding the payment accusation.
Elric stated he was withholding the Nvidia source (if all true the Nvidia employee is a bloody inept petty idiot) as Elric has known them for some time and later on mentioned Brian I thought in a separate context (may be the same person Kyle has had contact with in the past).
But Elric's April 18th video was mostly on how he has been burned/cut off by the Nvidia source he thought was friendly with due to their work engagement over many years, which is rather arselike by the Nvidia contact by text (made worst that it seems the idiot possibly texted the accusation regarding Kyle's payment but the video is not clear apart from Elric being rather upset and understandably so).
Kyle seemed quite content to use Tech of Tomorrow/Elric's April 18th video to do his own article concluding deliberate misinformation by Nvidia, and Kyle's is now doing the rounds on various sites *shrug*.
If it was an Nvidia employee they need to be slapped heavily including any others involved within the company spreading directly (more liable) such accusations unless they have proof Kyle was paid.
And I just realised his name is not Eric but Elric doh.
Last edited:
This is my honest qualitative assessment of some of the theories being advanced here, repeatedly, as well at the motivation behind them. I consider them of low quality, in my estimation primarily due to per-existing animosity toward Nvidia, that clouded objective evaluations of facts at hand. If you find this position offensive, so be it.
Did.. did you just launch into a textbook ad-hominem attack on my handle (Which, not that I owe anyone an explanation, I picked as lighthearted jab at just-announced Geforce almost 20 years ago and hard since the forum background was black and you had no idea what B3D was) right after criticizing me for algendly simular transgression, which I will point out was actually not directed at one person in particular? You don't find that least bit ironic?
In other words, he has no actual evidence that the agreements are materially different between AIBs, correct?.
I presume you might not have seen my response to the OP in regard to that matter. In summary, I was under the assumption that he included the text regarding anti-cartel provisions because he was under the impression that they applied to current situation and addressed the line items accordingly. He(?) subsequently pointed out that that was not the case. I explained my rationale and apologized for misunderstand, it was obviously not my intention to waste anyone's time, particularly my own, addressing topics not relevant to the discussion.
As far my legal expertise, or the lack thereof, all I can do is share my assessment of the subject matter based on my personal experience. I am not going to appeal to authority (and to be clear, I am not a lawyer and have never claimed to be) but I will mention that I work with GCs on very frequently bases specifically to determine what inputs rules and regulations present to revenue and expense models and how they they flow into scenario P&Ls. When discussion participants characterize SOPs I deal with daily as nefarious illegal schemes, I think I am well within my rights to provide feedback.
I don't believe this to be the case, but we are obviously not going to successfully litigate this here one way or the other. Branding segregation is SOP, participation is voluntary, etc, points that have been address ad noseum. It is definitely not Nivida's job to maintain or increase Radeon sales, that responsibility falls onto AMD.
Not that it's material but Nvidia actually no longer has 2-to-1 market share advantage. Furthermore, nothing is stopping AIBs from doing this exact thing right now. More importantly, nothing is stopping AMD from offering the AIBs this exact same deal: preferred product line exclusivity in exchange for similar level of support, correct?
I don't think even Kyle is claiming that Nvidia is going to take away GPU allocation (he mentioned "priority allocation" which is not the same and I would venture a guess is already addressed in the existing supplier agreements in one shape or form since not all orders can be fulfilled at the same time) and of course marketing funds are contingent on ROI Nividia can realize, which as I've stated repeatedly in the past I believe to be the crux of the matter.
You are certainly welcome to your interpretation. Here is mine:
- Nvidia is trying to maximize their marketing ROI via product line definition
- AIBs are have uniform opportunity to participate in the program
- Competitor has ability to present a counteroffer to all the potential participants
- Agreement does not impose pricing or quality restrictions on the AIBs contracts with the competitor.
While I find it unfortunate that you personally were not able to see the relevance of that example to the current situation, it is what it is. However, I think you are entirely off-base telling me what the content of my posts here should or should not be, especially under the grandiose presumption that you somehow speak for the entire population of participants. You are free not to read them if you so prefer.
The soda and food market is way different that it seems you think..... you have 3 leaders, Coca, Pepsi, Nestlé .... But other brands cover a good parts of the marketshare together... But Soda is only a part of what product thoses company. ( Nestlé is the world leader on Food company as example,, by revenue and other metrics ), In the 2000's Coca and Pepsi try to divert their activity, including as an example, Coca and Nestlé creating together an Ice Tea brand ( Nestea, who this year have been stopped by Coca and become FuseTea ( vs Nestea for Nestlé only ), and co venture in other drink type. ( water bottles etc ). Soda ( and specially Cola based Soda, is only a part of their activity ) Basically now it is just a brand inside other brands, for thoses company.
Just for give you a small example, as who is Nestlé, Nestlé owns over 8,500 brands in over 80 countries( it dont include brands who are owned by Nestlé but have keep the initital production line ( acquisition )
In the "x86 add-on GPU" market, theres only 2 opponents who sold chips to brands like Asus, MSI etc for product retail GPU's... And the specific relation between AMD,Nvidia in a so specific market is hard to compare with other markets..
Now i dont say GPP is legal or not, unethical and troubling for sure, but i have not time for go search on economic laws books and international law, for make any assumption on this.
Anyway in general, in a closed market like this one ( 2 actors ) and one try take to much control on their clients ( meaning Asus, MSI etc ) and who are too distributing competitors products ), it is really dangerous and potentially can lead to anti-competition cases. ( similarly as on price fixing ( Ebook case, Amazon, Apple, Penguin ), even if there it was quite different, as it was related on an practice of fixing price relative to competitors ).
( Sorry for my bad english )
Last edited:
No one here is a lawyer, so it's a hard discussion. I don't think you can take the x86 add-on gpu market as a single market and so the anti competitive laws won't handle this case, as amd and intel have integrated gpus and in total gpu sales intel is the sales leader. I would think Intel and Amd have a cartel with x86 and are enforcing it with anti competitive behaviour, as other companys can't enter the market and intel even forbid Nvidia to build x86 cpus. But as there never was a case, it seems closing the x86 market is legal. But if this is legal, i have no idea how authorithies are handling stuff like the add-on gpu market.
The GPUs actually aren't limited to x86, at least NVIDIA GPUs are available on Power-platform too and I'd suspect given drivers, they'll work on anything with PCIe (or other supported bus)
This thread is awful and you should feel ashamed if you posted in it.
- Status
Similar threads
