I reached out to an Nvidia representative regarding this story, and he pointed me back to their blog post, particularly the line
"The program isn’t exclusive. Partners continue to have the ability to sell and promote products from anyone."
The Nvidia representative added that "The program is transparent and beneficial to gamers, and we have nothing further to add at this time."
The bottom line is that if they don't sign with the program then they will at minimum not see significant increase in profits, and likely decrease in profits. Heavily simplified but that's what it boils down to.
If you read the Forbes articles, or one of the many articles, then the answer of the potential issue is already spelled out, so why don't you just indicate what you think isn't a problem? Or why not state that you simply don't believe those allegations? All of those things are perfectly reasonable responses given there's only one source pointing out this information currently. But I find it hard to believe that you managed to copy/paste that line from the Forbes article while completely missing any sign of dissenting opinion.
I don't see anything wrong with protecting a brand or product. Much like Amazon not selling Google Chromecast or the specificity of how Netflix operates with it's brand and the restrictions it places on joint partnerships in its B2B relationships.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia-geforce-partner-program-amd-impactGraphics card companies can then have as many brands as they like, so long as they are separated along green and red boundaries. That means Asus could have a Republic of Gamers Mars brand, which only sells Nvidia, but also a Republic of Gamers Ares brand that is exclusively AMD-based. GPP isn’t going to stop any company from selling AMD GPUs as specifically gaming graphics cards.
Pretty sure XFX had other issues with Nvidia. Several other manufacturers (MSI, Gigabyte, Asus, etc) sold both fermi and radeons. Nvidia did not do anything to them.I seem to recall Nvidia blocking long time partner XFX from selling Fermi cards because they started to sell Radeons at some point!?
That may be, but seems quite apparent that the ultimate loser would be Nvidia here. Is it not in their interest to ensure their products are sold? Why embark on a policy that may limit or hamper the manufacturers sales or marketability of Nvidia cards if they are not a GPP partner?If they don't sign the manufacturer loses out on social media and engineering support, marketing, game bundles, and more. This is what's being held over the manufacturer's head as extortion.
If they are not a partner they are going to continue to sell nvidia and or amd cards just as they have done until now,where do you see the hampering?That may be, but seems quite apparent that the ultimate loser would be Nvidia here. Is it not in their interest to ensure their products are sold? Why embark on a policy that may limit or hamper the manufacturers sales or marketability of Nvidia cards if they are not a GPP partner?
The 'hampering' is what others are suggesting and speculating (including KBennet), not me. Until we've seen the actual documentation, its all speculation up to this point. Nvidias blog post re GPP is quite benign on the matter. KBennet is claiming to know more and that something terrible is in the making.If they are not a partner they are going to continue to sell nvidia and or amd cards just as they have done until now,where do you see the hampering?
Pretty sure XFX had other issues with Nvidia. Several other manufacturers (MSI, Gigabyte, Asus, etc) sold both fermi and radeons. Nvidia did not do anything to them.
From Pcgamesn:
https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia-geforce-partner-program-amd-impact
If it's really just that, i don't see a any problems in this program.
We don't really know all the details of how it's going to go down. But with the limited info we've seen I don't think the interpretation in the above link is correct. Most likely gaming brand means gaming brand(s) in the end.
Delivered multiple advertising campaigns for 30+ clients including…
* Publishers: Blizzard, EA, Sega, 2K, NCSoft, Ubisoft
* Indies: Paradox, Rebellion, Iceberg, Firefly, Introversion
* Hardware: Alienware, Nvidia, Turtle Beach
On the right side big nvidia advertisment and in their about secion
Biased peaces of ish
The FTC settlement goes beyond those reached in previous antitrust cases against Intel in a number of ways. For example, the FTC settlement order protects competition and not any single competitor in the CPU, graphics, and chipset markets. It also addresses Intel’s disclosures related to its compiler – a product that plays an important role in CPU performance. The settlement order also ensures that manufacturers of complementary products such as discrete GPUs will be assured access to Intel’s CPU for the next six years.
MSI, Gigabyte and Asus are the only manufacturers who make both Nvidia and AMD cards. They probably make up the bulk of Nvidias GPU sales. Not sure why Nvidia would target the 3 big names in the business with GPP. Would think Nvidia needs them more than the other way around and should be careful in making unreasonable demands of them. OTOH, Evga, Zotac and other Nvidia-only smaller players in the business should have no problem with GPP. Would be funny if the big 3 refused to sign up to GPP. What could Nvidia do? Restrict their chip supplies or other support and hurt their own revenue in the process? Something fishy about this whole story.
AMD may not even need a proprietary GMI link.
They just have to design powerful enough iGPU for APU, and lock it down to just few PCIe lanes, from the CPU - for example 8, and its game over in mobile world for Nvidia if both x86 CPU vendors will lock them out.
That is soooo silly. Can't Apple just create Ephone? Can't Microsoft just create glass OS? That is so ignorant and silly its unbelievable one would even spew such stupidity.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.
It would be the "gaming" brand. So even if Asus was to create ROG 2.0(which would cost Asus a ton of money, tons of time, tons of resources, needless complications) the new brand would have to be essentially "non gaming" brand, basically a brand for the "casual" player, or whatever, basically anything with the word "Gaming" would be off limits, which is almost EVERYTHING when we are talking about graphic cards.I did offer my opinion (sorry you missed it) and read all the articles thanks. I stated exactly what I wanted.
It seems pretty benign to me. It only provides companies that exclusively use NVidia chips a 'priority' status and only once those customers have as many as they want/need.
It looked like an implementation of a "favoured trading partnership".
Haven't seen any concern with NVidia adjusting their production schedule to restrict the supplies, therefore it probably shouldn't be considered illegal. There is no proof of foul play just lots of hot air.
By itself, this policy doesn't seem to threaten the consumer. We'll have to see if Nvidia tries to get all draconian with this before the consumer sees an impact.
lot of speculation about non-GPP not getting allocation up front, or restricted allocation, or anything else as quoted "Partners continue to have the ability to sell and promote products from anyone."
As for GPP, as a partner, your brand needs to be nVidia only. For example - Asus couldn't sell ROG Strix GeForce and ROG Strix RX580s like they do now. The way I read that, it doesn't mean Asus can't sell AMD products. nVidia products would have to have their own distinct branding: either nVidia keeps the Strix lineup and AMD gets something new, or vice versa. I assume it would also apply to motherboards, PSUs, etc. Not that nVidia produces those products, but they very much want the branding to uniquely identify with GeForce, and at least in the case of motherboards, you are then promoting Intel or AMD CPUs, which aren't direct competition to nVidia, but both of which do compete with nVidia in the GPU market.
I don't see anything wrong with protecting a brand or product. Much like Amazon not selling Google Chromecast or the specificity of how Netflix operates with it's brand and the restrictions it places on joint partnerships in its B2B relationships.
This is how preferred partnerships work across the whole world. B2B for B2C >>>> This is how we want our product sold to protect it's integrity, if you want "in" here are our rules and guidelines.
Gigabyte already have Aorus, they can't just willy-nilly create another gaming brand,
From Pcgamesn:
https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia-geforce-partner-program-amd-impact
If it's really just that, i don't see a any problems in this program.