[HardOCP] GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

[Tweak155]

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/03/08/geforce_partner_program_impacts_consumer_choice

The most concerning portion I came across:

NVIDIA will tell you that it is 100% up to its partner company to be part of GPP, and from the documents I have read, if it chooses not to be part of GPP, it will lose the benefits of GPP which include: high-effort engineering engagements -- early tech engagement -- launch partner status -- game bundling -- sales rebate programs -- social media and PR support -- marketing reports -- Marketing Development Funds (MDF). MDF is likely the standout in that list of lost benefits if the company is not a GPP partner.

Seems like it could be legal-battle-starter, no? I imagine these have significant financial impacts?

 

[Krteq]

Another dirty tricks? Like really?

They have great products and huge profits, why are they still doing things like this?

There is no doubt that NVIDIA GPP has some striking similarities to what Intel has done in the past that has been deemed "anticompetitive conduct" by the Federal Trade Commision. We would not be surprised to see regulators in the US, Europe, and Asia want to take a closer look at GPP as well.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Oof. So what what kind of -gate are we calling this one? Green-gate?

 

[realibrad]

Oof. So what what kind of -gate are we calling this one? Green-gate?

Nvidia grabbing em by the...

 

[Phynaz]

Oof. So what what kind of -gate are we calling this one? Green-gate?

Hard Gate.

The "article" is nothing but rant, with no sources at all. If the GPP program is bad for consumers they should have at least explained what the GPP is and why it's bad.

As far as I'm concerned, this is just Kyle off his meds again.

 

[Bouowmx]

"Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce"

If ASUS is an NVIDIA GPP partner, and it wants to continue to use NVIDIA GPUs in its ROG branded video cards, computers, and laptops, it can no longer sell any other company's GPUs in ROG products. So if ASUS want to keep building NVIDIA-based ROG video cards, it can no longer sell AMD-based ROG video cards, and be a GPP partner.

What prevents the creation of separate branding for the hypothetical NVIDIA GPP agreement?

 

[Glo.]

If anyone would ask about credibility, ask one another question.


Is there any brand that would benefit from exposing this to the public, and creating any "problems" for Nvidia? Who would benefit from exposing this information, and creating changes that would stop anti-competitive approach.

Currently - there might not be a company. The only ones, who could benefit from this - are consumers.


Think about this point of view.

 

[richaron]

How could exclusivity agreements and the threat to remove support from brands dealing with competitors possibly be illegal?

It's not like simply supporting partners who buy your products is enough for most companies... </s>

 

[amenx]

The terrible thing about this is when you find out that many of AMDs cards have the term 'gaming' in their model names. What a mess it would for a GPP partner to deal with.. what, rename these models? Seems 'gaming' is a very marketable term for GPUs, so I can see that as putting AMD at a disadvantage. What a sneaky, douche move by Nvidia.

 

[krumme]

Another dirty tricks? Like really?

They have great products and huge profits, why are they still doing things like this?

They do it because its good for profit and because they can.
The bigger they get the more agressive monopolizing behavior we will see.

 

[Malogeek]

What prevents the creation of separate branding for the hypothetical NVIDIA GPP agreement?

They could make another branding, sure. It just couldn't be targeted or marketed to gaming at all. So no advertising with AMD on sites like newegg for gaming cards, no game bundles, probably limited utilities allowed that aren't targeted to gaming. What's to stop Nvidia from turning around and saying anything with more than 1 fan or non-reference is considered gaming?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Hmm. Sounds like Nvidia is really, really, concerned with Intel/AMD's "Kaby-G" CPUs, MCMs with Intel CPU cores, and AMD Vega M GPUs. With that solution, who needs NVidia anymore on a laptop.

 

[Bouowmx]

They could make another branding, sure. It just couldn't be targeted or marketed to gaming at all. So no advertising with AMD on sites like newegg for gaming cards, no game bundles, probably limited utilities allowed that aren't targeted to gaming. What's to stop Nvidia from turning around and saying anything with more than 1 fan or non-reference is considered gaming?

From NVIDIA:

The program isn't exclusive. Partners continue to have the ability to sell and promote products from anyone.

From article:

partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce."

'its' is not within quotes. I understand: a graphics card manufacturer can have a NVIDIA-only brand and have a co-existing AMD brand. Why was the example using ASUS ROG? Why not ASUS as a whole?

 

[richaron]

I understand: a graphics card manufacturer can have a NVIDIA-only brand and have a co-existing AMD brand. Why was the example using ASUS ROG? Why not ASUS as a whole?

Lol I don't see how you missed the point. The article talks about a manufacturer and "it's" gaming brand, it also talks about being a manufacturer when "your" gaming brand must be exclusively nVidia or else they will withhold support.

This is an attempt to strong-arm manufacturers into branding all their "gaming" products as nVidia. If the manufacturers sell any "gaming" products from competitors it appears nVidia are threatening to withhold:

high-effort engineering engagements -- early tech engagement -- launch partner status -- game bundling -- sales rebate programs -- social media and PR support -- marketing reports -- Marketing Development Funds (MDF). MDF is likely the standout in that list of lost benefits if the company is not a GPP partner.

*from initial article

So for example if a manufacturer markets an AMD product under their "gaming" line it appears they will loose out on a bunch of stuff including engineering support, social media/PR support, and marketing funds.

Sounds like extortion to me.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Hmm. Sounds like Nvidia is really, really, concerned with Intel/AMD's "Kaby-G" CPUs, MCMs with Intel CPU cores, and AMD Vega M GPUs. With that solution, who needs NVidia anymore on a laptop.

The problem isn't the first iteration with the Vega GPUs. It's what happens when Intel throws out the Vega GPU, put its own GPU inside (with far deeper integration), pairs its latest CPU tech (not last gen CPU), and starts offering such products at aggressive prices.

Even then, though, that's only really relevant to gaming notebooks and possibly all-in-ones. Not at all relevant to AIB card sales, which is where the serious money in PC gaming GPUs is.

 

[Bouowmx]

Lol I don't see how you missed the point. The article talks about a manufacturer and "it's" gaming brand, it also talks about being a manufacturer when "your" gaming brand must be exclusively nVidia or else they will withhold support.

If the article talks about such topics, then quote the relavent text.

Can a manufacturer not have multiple gaming brands? As described in article (incomplete as it sounds), GPP does not specifically deny such accommodation.

 

[richaron]

If the article talks about such topics, then quote the relavent text.

Can a manufacturer not have multiple gaming brands? As described in article (incomplete as it sounds), GPP does not specifically deny such accommodation.

Sure, the article doesn't state specifically that it's the manufacturer's only "gaming" line of products must be AMD only. It does imply it a couple of times (which I mentioned), and obviously nobody has a full version of the contract so... Yay? Except all you've basically done is pointed out an unlikely "loophole" in what should be still universally condemned predatory practices.

In the unlikely event you're correct it's still extortion and it's still illegal. GG? From the wording of the article it's unlikely there will be a clause allowing multiple "gaming" brands (*my interpretation), and it's unlikely a manufacturer has multiple "gaming" brands. But even if these are both the case then the manufacturers are still being pressured as to which products they can sell in which line, and nVidia's competitors are still being forced out of associated brand image, all with the threat of extortion hanging over them.

So if your argument ever becomes relevant, when you read my post again you can just insert a little "a" into my previous statement to turn "gaming brand" into "a gaming brand":

Lol I don't see how you missed the point. The article talks about a manufacturer and "it's" gaming brand, it also talks about being a manufacturer when "your" gaming brand must be exclusively nVidia or else they will withhold support.

This is an attempt to strong-arm manufacturers into branding all their "gaming" products as nVidia. If the manufacturers sell any "gaming" products from competitors it appears nVidia are threatening to withhold:

high-effort engineering engagements -- early tech engagement -- launch partner status -- game bundling -- sales rebate programs -- social media and PR support -- marketing reports -- Marketing Development Funds (MDF). MDF is likely the standout in that list of lost benefits if the company is not a GPP partner.

*from initial article

So for example if a manufacturer markets an AMD product under their "gaming" line it appears they will loose out on a bunch of stuff including engineering support, social media/PR support, and marketing funds.

Sounds like extortion to me.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Hard Gate.

The "article" is nothing but rant, with no sources at all. If the GPP program is bad for consumers they should have at least explained what the GPP is and why it's bad.

As far as I'm concerned, this is just Kyle off his meds again.

Why do you find this surprising?

The limit for wanting more money doesn't know its limits. This is the case for all successful companies. It's like a natural balance for society. Unlike the belief that only the fittest survive, the strongest usually tend to become complacent, allowing other weaker ones the chance to be top again. That's how the once hugely successful companies that have stood for centuries get toppled in mere few years by startups.

Legal reasons aside, the marketing dollars, the technical assistance, are all about control of the ecosystem.

 

[Samwell]

In the unlikely event you're correct it's still extortion and it's still illegal. GG? From the wording of the article it's unlikely there will be a clause allowing multiple "gaming" brands (*my interpretation), and it's unlikely a manufacturer has multiple "gaming" brands. But even if these are both the case then the manufacturers are still being pressured as to which products they can sell in which line, and nVidia's competitors are still being forced out of associated brand image, all with the threat of extortion hanging over them.

The legality part of the article smells fishy for me. AMD told Kyle to write an article about it and then he writes it's probably illegal and amd could sue Nv. But why is AMD then not suing NV and just asking websites to create some stories?
Intels marketingprogram Intel inside had comparable stuff and wasn't illegal. Does this program more than that? Hard to know at the moment.

 

[TheELF]

high-effort engineering engagements -- early tech engagement -- launch partner status -- game bundling -- sales rebate programs -- social media and PR support -- marketing reports -- Marketing Development Funds (MDF). MDF is likely the standout in that list of lost benefits if the company is not a GPP partner.

Hm so nvidia is investing a huge amount of money into advertising here and your argument is that this advertising money should benefit amd/intel as well??? How does that make any sense?When did amd or intel ever advertise for nvidia?

 

[Krteq]

PcPerspective is also in

At this time NVIDIA has not responded to inquiries and the OEMs and AIBs which [H] spoke to declined to make any official comments; off the record there were serious concerns about the legality of this project. Expect to hear more about this from various sites as they seek the transparency which NVIDIA Director John Teeple mentioned in his post.

PcPerspective - The GeForce Partner Program has some Kool-Aid it would like you to try

 

[PhonakV30]

ok , I really don't get this article.What exactly mean of this ? does that mean ASUS can't use ROG brand for AMD cards and only for Nvidia , right?

 

[kondziowy]

So I postponed buying anything Nvidia for 5 years, now I add another 5 to make it 10 years.

 

[Dribble]

Nvidia is strong-arming certainly, but anyone who says "illegal" is obviously off on one. They have an abundance of lawyers, it's very obviously not illegal or the lawyers would have stopped it and the competitors would be suing.

 

[Tweak155]

Nvidia is strong-arming certainly, but anyone who says "illegal" is obviously off on one. They have an abundance of lawyers, it's very obviously not illegal or the lawyers would have stopped it and the competitors would be suing.

I wonder why companies ever get sued for anything, then...