It's only a problem because there is a monopoly in the gpu market already...if we had healthy competition amd would just do a counter offer or their own ad campaign but because amd is too weak we are supposed to believe that every other company should play with their hands tied behind their backs and hopping on one foot...
In your example ford would just go to michelin but in the PC market there is no other player, if the companies want help, ads and money (or in fact, just enough product for their business) they have to use nvidia.
I said in the near beginning of my post, "Imagine there's only Goodyear and Michelin." Yes, the fact that there is near monopoly is exactly the problem here. The rest of your section is irrelevant, as it's obviously your clearly biased opinion. Believe whatever you want there, as it's irrelevant to anything going on here.
Link or it didn't happen,most lawsuits were settled out of court so no legal ruling was issued so we do in fact do not know.
Multiple courts have upheld the EU's hefty fine for anti-competitive practices. A fine that Intel has already paid. On the latest (and last) appeal, it got moved back to a lower court to adjust the dollar amount. Stay tuned on that. A successful and paid application of a fine for anti-competitive practices occurred link, or not. If you'd like to see it yourself, use your Googlin' powers. I'm not interested particularly in dragging things up for someone who already shows clear bias.
Okay, but when do incentives become punishment? If Nvidia had announced that GPP partners, in recognition of limited production capacity, will get preferential allocation of GPUs, why is that a punishment of non-GPP computer manufacturers rather than an incentive for GPP partners? (Granted, this isn't what happened here, because Nvidia hasn't admitted to preferential allocation, but I'm curious why it would be bad if they were upfront about it as a perk of the program).
I think the real driving force behind why this program seems dodgy is because we are all assuming that Nvidia actually has a nefarious purpose - that their true goal is to damage AMD rather than to improve the quality of products using its GPUs. That very well may be true, but I'm not sure this program is that bad if it isn't true (and whether it is true will be difficult to prove).
While I appreciate your holistic point of view, I hope it's fairly obvious to you at this point that no matter what answer you get, it means
literally zero on this forum vs. the quagmire that is anti-trust laws and anti-competitive law, especially on companies dealing on an international level. Unless you've got a lawyer on here already well-trained in anti-trust law, you aren't going to get any answer on this that has any solid authority.
On the surface, its a giant sliding scale, and that's why we have courts. Look at protected classes.
"I'm not selling you a cake. I just don't really feel like it." - Totally fine.
"I'm not selling you a cake. I don't serve people who buy AMD Cards." - Totally fine.
"I'm not selling you a cake. I don't serve men who wear cardigans." - Totally fine.
"I'm not selling you a cake. I don't serve gays." - Not fine.
The reason something happens is one of the major factors behind situations like this, and that's up for courts (or settlements) to decide.
"If you join our partner program, we'll give you $1,000." - Totally fine.
"If you join our partner program, we'll give you $1,000, and give you Engineering Time to help you develop systems, but the model you sell has to only use our GPU." - Probably fine.
"If you join our partner program, we'll give you $1,000, and give you Engineering Time to help you develop systems, but your whole gaming line can only use our GPUs." - Depending on market position this can be a tough position to take.
"If you join our partner program, we'll give you $1,000, and give you Engineering Time to help you develop systems, but your whole gaming line can only use our GPUs, and if you don't join, even though you have the same capability to buy GPUs as your competitors, we'll with hold GPU's from you." - If this is going on, that can be a problem.
Like I said, it's pretty much foregone that
someone will likely be looking into this. Over the coming years, if NVIDIA chooses to pursue this course, the highly paid lawyers on each side and the associated court systems will likely decide the legality.