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

[CSI PC]

Unfortunately I am not sure it is technically illegal.
But if AMD finds evidence it is or a deliberate attempt at anti-competitive behaviour their best best is not to go court generally IMO but take it to the European Comission, they love doing fines/compensation and slapping down on larger companies if they feel it is warranted.
Cheaper approach by AMD and the fine IMO is more likely to be heavier with penalties accrued if the offending company fights the results, and not sure the timeframe would be any slower tbh.
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/overview/factsheet_fines_en.pdf

 

[Gelanin]

For those interested, here is some information about what the European Union considers illegal contacts, agreements and abuse of a dominant position.
(Link: https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/sell-abroad/free-competition/index_en.htm )

Now, the most stand out part to me is this bit under the "Abuse of a dominant position":
- Discriminate between customers
- Force certain trading conditions on your business partners.

This is certainly what Nvidia is doing now, so it should be reported imho.

Illegal contacts and agreements
These agreements are known as cartels. They are forbidden because they restrict competition. They can take many forms, and need not be officially approved by the companies involved. The most common examples of these practices are:

• Price fixing
• Market sharing
• Agreement on customer allocation
• Agreement on production limitation
• Distribution agreements between suppliers and re-sellers where, for example, the price charged to customers is imposed by the supplier.

All agreements and exchanges of information between you and your competitors that reduce your strategic uncertainty in the market (around your production costs, turnover, capacity, marketing plans, etc.) can be seen as anti-competitive.

Even disclosing this kind of strategic information unilaterally via mail, phone or meetings could be seen as infringing this rule.

To be on the safe side:

• Do not fix prices or other trading conditions
• Do not limit production
• Do not share markets
• Do not exchange strategic information about your company.

Some agreements are not prohibited - if they can be justified as benefiting consumers and the economy as a whole. One example is agreements on research & development and technology transfer. These cases are covered by the Block Exemption Regulations .


Abuse of a dominant position
If your company has a large market share, it holds a dominant position and must take particular care not to:

• charge unreasonably high prices which would exploit customers
• charge unrealistically low prices which may drive competitors out of the market
• discriminate between customers
• force certain trading conditions on your business partners.

 

[patienceofasaint]

A 15 year old account was allowed to derail this topic on the very first page.

Distortion of the facts is rewarded by likes from the senior forum members.

IMO that is damaging to the reputation of this website.

 

[Picao84]

A 15 year old account was allowed to derail this topic on the very first page.

Distortion of the facts is rewarded by likes from the senior forum members.

IMO that is damaging to the reputation of this website.

First. this thread has already 7 pages, so I don't know why you need to point out something on page one.

Second, this is not a website but a forum where people you know, discuss things freely. If you are looking for censure of someone who does not share your views, you have come to the wrong place (thankfully!!).

Third, if you are talking about the point of this happening when competition drops the ball, there is no distortion of facts there. It is no secret that AMD has been behind NVidia on market share (this is a fact, not a distortion) quite a while (recovering now thankfully) and that gives power to NVidia to be able to pull these stunts. If the market would be balanced with 50% market share for each, NVidia would have no power to do this as most likely it would damage them, making OEMs more open for business with AMD.

Fourth, this is only your third message here and you are already trying to fuel flame wars. Does not really show you in a good light, does it?

 

[BRiT]

A 15 year old account was allowed to derail this topic on the very first page.

That always seems to happen when you have fanboys defending their beloved company.

 

[Picao84]

That always seems to happen when you have fanboys defending their beloved company.

You have the reverse as well, with new accounts created by fanboys or shills to push either company's views. The post he refers to (or at least the one I think it is, given the 15 year old account clue) did not derail the thread at all, it barely got anyone answering it, and yet this new user chooses to focus on that? Now, now, a fanboy would not do that, would he?

 

[BRiT]

Old, new, their behavior is the same... The only difference is how known their bias is.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Sapphire situation is NOT a strawman sigh.
(...)
But dropping that now as it is nothing to do with the current discussion.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

When I pointed that AMD allegedly going to change their naming scheme to include the architecture on it (as in Vega 64, Navi 96, etc.) was a bad idea because of diluting the Radeon name, many of you considered it was "fine", no problem at all, or even better!

Who considered it fine?

I personally think AMD's naming has been a mess since GCN2 cards came up, as they're unable to keep a friggin' naming scheme for more than 2/3 years. Vega is even worse because now we have the Vega 10 which is the chip codename for Vega 56, Vega 64, Vega FE, MI25, etc. and an actual, completely different iGPU whose public name Vega 10. It can't get much worse than this.

Now, the most stand out part to me is this bit under the "Abuse of a dominant position":
- Discriminate between customers
- Force certain trading conditions on your business partners.

I for one think these are both spot on.

A 15 year old account was allowed to derail this topic on the very first page.
Distortion of the facts is rewarded by likes from the senior forum members.
IMO that is damaging to the reputation of this website.

And 8-month accounts with 6 posts are allowed to attempt starting gratuitous flamewars.
You really want to talk about what's damaging to the reputation of this website?

 

[Picao84]

I personally think AMD's naming has been a mess since GCN2 cards came up, as they're unable to keep a friggin' naming scheme for more than 2/3 years. Vega is even worse because now we have the Vega 10 which is the chip codename for Vega 56, Vega 64, Vega FE, MI25, etc. and an actual, completely different iGPU whose public name Vega 10. It can't get much worse than this.

Excuse me? Was I speaking a with a different ToTTenTraz here?

https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/2002188/

I like this (name of architecture + 2-digit performance number) better than 3 numbers + suffix, where the first number didn't even dictate the generation and features (I'm looking at you, Pitcairn-based 300 series).

 

[CSI PC]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Do you ever try to understand someone's context you do not like or do not like their POV, or are you seriously baiting?
Again the context of Sapphire was NOT a strawman but not part of the most recent posts.
When I say "But dropping that now as it is nothing to do with the current discussion."
THE current discussion is around the RECENT posts, which was initiated regarding ASUS/MSI/Gigabyte and reports from some users on other sites.
It was freaking obvious the context of Sapphire goes back to earlier discussion about Nvidia creating exclusivity/tiers/favouring certain partners over others with this program/etc all raised by various posters and with factual data points I provided in comparison for Sapphire.
Happy to remove this post if you decide to remove your sarcastic response.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Excuse me? Was I speaking a with a different ToTTenTraz here?

I like the name they got for the end consumer.
I hate that it overlaps with ASIC codenames, and that was what I was criticizing.

In 5 years It went from:
- "something Islands" codenames = 4 numbers consumer product (Tahiti = HD7970)
to
- "something islands" codenames = 3 number + prefix consumer product (Hawaii = R9 290)
to
- "arch codename with number for performance indication" = 3 number + prefix consumer product (Polaris 10 = RX 480)
to
- "arch codename with number for performance indication" = "arch codename with a different number for performance indication (Vega 10 = Vega 64)

And at the same time they were apparently still keeping the islands names as Polaris 10 keeps appearing as Ellesmere and Polaris 11 as Baffin in the drivers.

I like that the consumer sees arch-name + number for performance. It's clear, round and you don't have to know exactly which number means what. It's better than 4 numbers or prefix + 3 numbers IMO.

But the codenames (which honestly only matter to the 0.01% of enthusiasts, and most importantly to AMD's internal organization (or lack of thereof))? OMG those have become a mess.

Do you ever try to understand someone's context you do not like or are you seriously baiting me?

I took two sentences from the same post. The first says it's not a strawman (it is). The second agrees it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, proving it's a strawman.

AMD never created a Radeon Partner Program that coerced AIBs into dropping nvidia from their most marketed gaming sub-brands (the subject at hand).
Trying to come up AMD's relationship with Sapphire for developing the reference PCBs, selling the Pro line exclusively, etc. is a strawman you came up with, in order to apologize for GPP.

 

[CSI PC]

I took two sentences from the same post. The first says it's not a strawman (it is). The second agrees it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, proving it's a strawman.

AMD never created a Radeon Partner Program that coerced AIBs into dropping nvidia from their most marketed gaming sub-brands (the subject at hand).
Trying to come up AMD's relationship with Sapphire for developing the reference PCBs, selling the Pro line exclusively, etc. is a strawman you came up with, in order to apologize for GPP.

IT IS NOT a strawman IF YOU LOOK AT IT IN CONTEXT WHEN IT WAS MENTIONED!
You do understand why it cannot be compared to the recent posts and changes to the website at Gigabyte or say naming at MSI, but can be compared with aspects of partnership tiers/relation benefits with AMD over other AIB partners/business practice benefits/production-logistics benefits/etc?
Those factors were contributors to earlier discussion and again you keep on using current situation as a strawman for a historic post looking at the other comparable factors earlier in the thread.
WTF am I apologising for GPP, I did not want to jump to conclusions until we started getting a clearer picture.
Some peoples bias for AMD is head banging.
BTW do my recent posts suggest I am apologising for GPP???
FFS.
Gratz on making me swear so much
FFS again

Edit:
What Nvidia is doing can be compared to what AMD has with Sapphire to some extent, however yes Nvidia is looking to do this on an "industrial scale" for want of a better word and that has ramifications further exacerbated by how either brands or model naming is influenced by GPP but also worth noting how this is being handled is not universal due to differences seen between Gigabyte and MSI approach.
Before this all partnerships were done on an individual basis and some partners were getting benefits greater than others and in different ways; I gave a big indicator with regards to two AIB partners with Nvidia who could release signed drivers to allow 1.25V, albeit only available through back channels.
That is just one example and such tiers/benefits would apply in various ways across most partners and also done by both AMD (Sapphire is the biggest example but benefits in many ways relative to other AIB partners with AMD) and Nvidia.
However that does not excuse branding/naming influencing or impact that unfortunately is not consistent as two AIB partners so far have approached this very differently, or the mess and headache/overheads it is creating for AIB partners.

We are so off-tangent with the current discussion now.

 

[Malo]

Things are getting heated here.

 

[Picao84]

But the codenames (which honestly only matter to the 0.01% of enthusiasts, and most importantly to AMD's internal organization (or lack of thereof))? OMG those have become a mess.

Ok. so in essence your original rebuttal to my post does not make sense. Just read what I wrote originally. I'm talking about having the architecture name in the consumer product name which you prefer, but I don't like. Same with having ROG, Gaming, whatever, its all pointless to me when IHV's already have their own brand names. IHV should just ban all that to help make purchasing a graphics card as simple as possible, but now its too late of course. If they would not have allowed it, we would not have the current debate and a much cleaner marketplace. Hindsight 101, I know, but I was never impressed by OEM brands and find it just a nuisance.

 

[Picao84]

Things are getting heated here.

So take off all your clothes!

Oh, wrong place....

 

[Mize]

Considering how hard Microsoft got thumped for similar antics a couple decades ago, is say Nvidia is doing wrong. Then again, US politicos and regulators are enabling monopolistic activities today, so Nvidia chose a good time to do this.

I personally think it's lame and will hurt consumers.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

You do understand why it cannot be compared to the recent posts and changes to the website at Gigabyte or say naming at MSI, but can be compared with aspects of partnership tiers/relation benefits with AMD over other AIB partners/business practice benefits/production-logistics benefits/etc?

It can't be compared in terms of partherships because nvidia isn't offering AIBs benefits in exchange for developing their launch reference cards.
nvidia is offering AIBs benefits in exchange for kicking AMD's graphics cards away from the premium gaming sub-brands that sell the highest amount of cards and have the highest rate of client loyalty because said sub-brands have been getting the largest Customer Acquisition Cost from AIBs themselves (not nvidia) for the last decade.

The first is a partnership built upon cooperation in creating value. The second is a partnership built upon kicking the competition from a position of equal standing in brand recognition.

WTF am I apologising for GPP, I did not want to jump to conclusions until we started getting a clearer picture.

I was not the first, nor the second user to point that out.
And I probably won't be the last.

I'm talking about having the architecture name in the consumer product name which you prefer, but I don't like. Same with having ROG, Gaming, whatever, its all pointless to me when IHV's already have their own brand names.

It's pointless to you and I'd say most people in this forum.
It's definitely not pointless in marketing terms for the great majority of users to whom the gaming sub-brands could mean almost as much as the IHV itself.

We're not discussing if Radeon cards being dropped from gaming sub-brands that have had the most amount of marketing investment throughout the last 10 years will favor your next graphics card purchase, or mine.
We're discussing if this can eventually make a sizeable difference in AMD's ability to compete on equal (as much as possible) grounds.

 

[CSI PC]

Things are getting heated here.

In my head with recent discussion

 

[CSI PC]

I was not the first, nor the second user to point that out.
And I probably won't be the last.

Ah your posting buddy kaotik...
And two people never called you biased towards AMD?
Sure great example you fall back on.

Although you claim I am apologising for GPP when my recent posts that can look at facts suggest otherwise instead of jumping to conclusions;
Notice both Gigabyte and MSI have totally different approach to branding/naming going forward if related to GPP, resulting in different impacts to consumer depending upon their behaviour;
MSI structure their website now just as Nvidia and AMD category but with Gaming models only for Nvidia while Gigabyte website is a Michael Bay trainweck in slowmotion but has Gaming models for AMD.
Retailers sell Gigabyte with Gaming or Auorus in the name of AMD GPUs while MSI no longer do (potential impact there if MSI consumer).
The impact is not universally consistent and will come down to consumer behaviour in how they get/percieve the information, making it difficult to fully gauge if this diverse approach carries on to the other partners, but again to reiterate it does have a negative impact but not pitchfork-windmill-frankenstein levels so far... really not sure how many times I can say that recently.

The only consistency/universal aspect that seems to be true with the GPP so far is the closer partner relationships and that instead of being individual where some gain/some lose but in different ways now you either are in or out.
Website structuring/brand-model naming aside do not kid yourself it was all an equal playing ground in the past, same with AMD and their partners.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Ah your posting buddy kaotik...
And two people never called you biased towards AMD?
Sure great example you fall back on.

1-

Being deliberately obtuse (repeatedly!) on this point does not change these facts.

2-

Oh ffs, give me a break with the f#%king apologism already!

3 -

Because that pretty much summarizes the majority of your posts in this thread (which started with a weird strawman argument about Sapphire). @Kaotik wasn't the first and won't be the last to point that out.

And I'm pretty sure there was a statement from @digitalwanderer saying the same thing, though that one was apparently removed, either by choice or lost through the thread merging.

And if you think @Grall is my posting buddy.. well, let's just say stuff exists in RPSC lol.

Although quite amusing you claim I am apologising for GPP when my recent posts that can look at facts suggest otherwise instead of jumping to conclusions;
(...)
But do not kid yourself there weren't tiers in the past, same with AMD and their partners.

I'm totally not apologizing for GPP but there were totally similar stuff going on with AMD and Sapphire.
It's okay man. We get you.