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

[digitalwanderer]

Why is this thread kind of hidden in the "PC Gaming" section, instead of being in the "Graphics and Semiconductor Industry" section ? That is a much more "visible" place and, in my opinion atleast, where it belongs.

I'll take the blame for that one since I posted it to PC Gaming. It was the closest I could figure, I never even thought of the GaSI forum because that's where the smart people usually post so I try to avoid getting it noisy with my junk. Sorry.

Feel free to move it, rename it, or whatever. Also if Beyond3D has a front page someone might want to post a blurb on it or something, it seems all the rage lately.

 

[Kaotik]

https://www.kitguru.net/components/...nt-stop-board-partners-from-selling-amd-gpus/

Considering that building a new gaming brand takes time and money, are the companies going to do that though?
I wonder how NVIDIA would react if, say, ASUS would keep ROG for Radeons and make new "PROG" (People's Republic Of Kor..Gamers) for GeForces but would do zero effort to promote the new brand

 

[CSI PC]

And Kyle is saying that MSI and Asus have signed on to the program.

Just to add and separate to the debate of the wrongs.

It is not really a surprise that both MSI and Asus have signed as they are also crucial partners in the mobile space with Nvidia, not only with the higher rig gaming laptops but even down to 1050 mobiles.
All of which will need heavy engineering partnership between them and Nvidia to improve the thinness/ergonomics/efficiency/marketing against the potential of an Intel-AMD collaboration product evolving or more powerful APUs from AMD, both those situations are designed to squeeze Nvidia in this segment and to a certain extent down the line in mainstream dGPUs market as well.
Both those AIBs are also heavily committed to the world record/benchmarks scene.
Which is why I would also expect Galax to sign up as well; like Asus they already have some kind of higher technical relationship with Nvidia as was seen with the signed non-retail BIOS-driver for their top tier GPU (on the right GPU would be over 1.2V even on air but bad idea/water/nitrogen) available from back channels.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

I wonder how NVIDIA would react if, say, ASUS would keep ROG for Radeons and make new "PROG" (People's Republic Of Kor..Gamers) for GeForces but would do zero effort to promote the new brand

I think Nvidia just wants the brand separation and the AIB's will decide the naming part. I don't think Nvidia cares one way or the other about the name just as long as resources (ie, marketing dollars, promotions, etc...) they provide specifically target their products without any competitor spillover that might have the same branding. There also might be a perceived notion of support/excellence that they only want associated with their products, and is probably true for AMD products as well. Branding is primarily used for distinguishing these differences.

 

[AlNom]

Feel free to move it, rename it, or whatever.

rwar

 

[digitalwanderer]

Kyle on The Full Nerd this morning talking about it:

 

[lanek]

Considering that building a new gaming brand takes time and money, are the companies going to do that though?
I wonder how NVIDIA would react if, say, ASUS would keep ROG for Radeons and make new "PROG" (People's Republic Of Kor..Gamers) for GeForces but would do zero effort to promote the new brand

The problem with their Asus example is not really Ares and Mars... Both are individual GPU, not brand... but both are ROG. Ultimately and as you say it, you will have ROG = Nvidia, and maybe xx for AMD...

 

[CarstenS]

Coincidence? Asrock probably going to launch „Phantom Gaming“ line of graphics cards:

https://twitter.com/x/status/974648852375465984

Now, given the close ties between Asus and Asrock, Asus' RoG-brand and the topic of this thread...

 

[CSI PC]

Coincidence? Asrock probably going to launch „Phantom Gaming“ line of graphics cards:

https://twitter.com/x/status/974648852375465984

Now, given the close ties between Asus and Asrock, Asus' RoG-brand and the topic of this thread...

Aren't they fully independant now from Asus?
Pegatron is the parent company (of Asrock) and Asustek completely ended the ODM relationship with them in late 2012 and also sold their stake in Pegatron same year, the more recent OEM manufacturing orders would require them bidding for business with Asustek such as with notebooks; I think but could be very wrong.

Yeah the timing does seem to be in context of the GPP, although may be an AMD exclusive partnership in response but considering how soon this is going into effect they probably have been discussing this for awhile but could come to market quicker than say the GPP; I wonder at what stage AMD became aware of the GPP proposal.

 

[CarstenS]

On paper.
For example, Pegatron is still largely held by Asustek and it's key personell.
http://www.mzcan.com/taiwan/4938/irwebsite/index.php?mod=majorshareholders
(pegatron's own site seems inaccessible atm). And look up Asrock's chairman...

 

[Anarchist4000]

ASRock was also releasing mining oriented products(motherboards, PCIe extenders, etc), so getting an AMD GPU in the lineup isn't surprising. May or may not be related to GPP, but also possible it's a way around it.

 

[CSI PC]

On paper.
For example, Pegatron is still largely held by Asustek and it's key personell.
http://www.mzcan.com/taiwan/4938/irwebsite/index.php?mod=majorshareholders
(pegatron's own site seems inaccessible atm). And look up Asrock's chairman...

Ah so they reduced their holding below controlling levels rather than fully selling, was over 25% back in 2012.
Here are the board structures and they are different apart from Yang who is on all three boards, all with different chairmans so not sure what I am missing unless looking historically when they were closer:
Pegatron: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapId=44006094
Asustek: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapId=25170
Yang: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=2907748&capId=23737948&previousCapId=25170&previousTitle=ASUSTeK Computer Inc.

Not sure what Dr Yang's position means in context of the discussion as it could have various conclusions due to his background and also timing of positions.
Once the GPU products launch maybe a good investigation article for a publication such as PCGameshardware and the relationship between the three companies these days (Asustek-ASRock-Pegatron)

 

[CarstenS]

Asrocks chairman Ted Hsu might of course be only coincidentally sharing the name with one of the four buddies who where the founders of Asus after they left Acer together, but I doubt it. That's a tightly knit group of businesspeople over there in Taiwan. And the business relations surely are not all accessible via linkable sources on the internet.

 

[CSI PC]

Asrocks chairman Ted Hsu might of course be only coincidentally sharing the name with one of the four buddies who where the founders of Asus after they left Acer together, but I doubt it. That's a tightly knit group of businesspeople over there in Taiwan. And the business relations surely are not all accessible via linkable sources on the internet.

Chairman of the board at ASRocks is Hsiu-Tien Tung, was a former founder of Asus yeah but still with it being split they can still be a totally separate businesses entity (they both would compete for business in some areas against each other and bids would need to be from a disconnected relationship) - it would still take part of the organisation with it, one that stands out though is the guy on all 3 boards Dr Yang.
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/board.asp?privcapId=23737948
More details on him being current chairman: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=414516287&capId=23737948

Did you use Wiki or is it me missing something?
It is all freaking convoluted between those 3 companies with the history so I am not going to try and make sense of it lol.
Maybe these days it is comparable to same situation as AMD with GlobalFoundries when that was spun off; fair to say GlobalFoundries does not do any favours for AMD.

Edit:
Looks like two of the founders went on to be Chairman with each of the companies, but that makes
sense as they are all senior management.
Chairmans:
AsusTek, Ted Hsu
Pegatron (parent company of ASRocks), T.H. Tung
ASRocks, T.H. Tung

T.H. Tung is Hsu-Tien Tung

Edit 2:
I think some of the relationship does fall back onto funding/investments where the founders do converge, these are the investment companies.

Edit: correct way round for T.H Tung name.

 

[CSI PC]

As it was a very late edit, just to say it is interesting that the founders/chairmans do converge with some businesses, but that is entirely the investment arms suggesting funding/investments still linked either between the founders or historically the companies but that is separate to the business entity of each company in context of AsusTek/Pegatron/ASRocks.

 

[CarstenS]

Wow, it gets better with every switch of position... and yeah I did look it up on wiki initially. Second former Asus founder running Asrock now, while being owned by Pegatron, which he was COO before.

 

[CSI PC]

Wow, it gets better with every switch of position... and yeah I did look it up on wiki initially. Second former Asus founder running Asrock now, while being owned by Pegatron, which he was COO before.

I named the founders and which of the 2 companies they are Chairman or boardmember for in an Edit, but the information was always there to read if drilling down the links I provided earlier; added it as an edit as some sites had incorrect information.
Well the point is they are not on the same boards apart from the Investment arms (more recentily identified but pain in the arse to do) and that is separate to AsusTek/Pegatron/ASRocks business entities.
I only pointed out a) the boards are independent and b) the chairmans/etc was not correct from what I could tell.
I did add more information about the Chairman following that in post #109 (which I did go back to tidy up as I focused too much on the wiki situation my bad) but come on all the info is visible if you look at the links I provided and drilled down them (I was also double-checking with some other reliable references), I am not switching positions.
Is it surprising that some senior management would move to the spun off companies?
If senior management did not move the company would have problems with stock market confidence.
Why would the founders all remain in the 1st company, makes sense that they would also be integral to any restructuring.
To put it into perspective usually when a company is taken over there is interest to keep said senior management or some of them at least in a senior position in the company they just joined, same goes with engineers/R&D/etc, same principle when divisions are spun off.

Anyway like I said only the investment/funding arms show any relationship from what I can tell but importantly does not influence actual business entities, which could go back to them as founders and also before and at time of the spin off, and separately the fact Dr Yang is on all 3 boards who is not a founder and was appointed in 2016 so not sure what is going on there.

Personally I see it in same situation as AMD spinning of GlobalFoundries, which does not mean AsusTek would tell/guide ASRock to negotiate with AMD nor do each company owe any favours to the other when it comes to business, more likely IMO is management decision directly at ASRock to negotiate with AMD due to the separate business entity structure.
However I appreciate it is rather convoluted and sure maybe you are right that there is still influence by AsusTek on both Pegatron and ASRock.

Late Edit:
Just realised my perspective on distinct business entity is Asustek to that of Pegatron/ASRocks as per post #104 and #107
Just mentioning as I notice Carsten your commenting on same board for Pegatron/ASRocks and maybe we are looking at this from subtly different perspectives.

 

[CSI PC]

What makes the situation complex is that you have;
2002 ASRock was spun off from AsusTek
2008 AsusTek created 3 companies; Asus, Pegatron, Unihan Corporation
2010 ASRock became part of Pegatron
2010 Just after ASRock becomes part of Pegatron, Pegatron is spun off to be truly independent
https://www.engadget.com/2009/12/14/asustek-to-spin-off-motherboard-and-gpu-business-under-pegatron/
2012 Rumours had it Asus was looking to acquire ASRock with approval for bid from Pegatron board its parent company but never happened.
https://semiaccurate.com/2012/09/28/asus-makes-an-offer-to-buy-asrock/

To give an example how the founders kept a distinction and separation.
Ted Hsu;
1994-2008 director at AsusTek
2008-2016 at Pegatron Deputy Group CEO
2010-2016 director at Pegatron as well
2016-today director at AsusTek
The only one where there would be an overlap was Asustek-ASRock earlier on and quite awhile before it became part of Pegatron, maybe left ASRock at point T.H. Tung became a member of the board but speculating.

Separately the other founder overlap is T.H. Tung who is a member of the board at both ASRock (since 2006) and also Pegatron (since 2010); but makes sense as there is still a corporation link between them

 

[CSI PC]

PCGamesN has done a follow-up on their earlier article where they stated a partner could call the AMD brand gaming as well.
1st thought is that John Steeple at Nvidia with their blog and control shown on what information is being disseminated is being rather mule-headed and really not helping to clear the air at all, 2nd thought is that yeah still does not officially clear the air until Nvidia comes out stating the same points as PCGamesn
That said PCGamesn has now come out and said categorically Nvidia spoke to them with explicit definition how a partner can still brand both companies as gaming, which in a way opens Nvidia up to a lawsuit with PCGamesn if they did mislead them but then why does John Steeple have to be such a mule with Nvidia's response still.
The other thing is bizarrely PCGamesn were not allowed to state the information they gave in their original article was directly from Nvidia with the partner program further detailed; the article made it look like they were possibly jumping to some conclusions.

Here is the new article stating Nvidia has now given them permission to state it was them and to re-iterate their original article claim that a partner can call both brands gaming and flexibility how the partner decides to use which brand going forward with Nvidia (part of original article).
https://pcgamesn.com/nvidia-confirms-gpp-doesnt-prevent-amd-gaming-brands

So for now still not enough to satisfy everyone on this matter, but a reference point once we do get to see the results of the GPP once implemented; if it is implemented like this it should stop conspiracy reports saying Nvidia changed it because of Kyle and HardOCP.
This does not take away from the fact the Nvidia marketing gaming division is handling-managing this situation badly.

 

[Grall]

It also doesn't seem to clear up the fact that NV still wants to hog manufacturers' established gaming brand for themselves, and leave the competition (IE, AMD) to some also-ran B-series "gaming" brand that nobody will have heard of before and which won't match the premium gaming brand in prestige or matching peripherals (or engineering and marketing effort in general most likely.)

This is still fucking bullshit, and nobody should be fooled by NV's dirty, underhanded, anticompetitive actions. Preferably they should be slapped down by authorities, hard.