GPU Nvidia abusing its position? The Geforce Partner Program.

[Soul_Est]

This was first covered at [H]ardOCP and then made its way around the web. Many YouTube channels have covered this as well including AdoredTV, Gamers Nexus, Hardware Unboxed, Jayz Two Cents The Good Old Gamer.

The [H]ardOCP article is here and the videos from the aforementioned YouTube channels are listed under their respective spoiler tags.

Spoiler: AdoredTV

Spoiler: Gamers Nexus

Spoiler: Hardware Unboxed

Spoiler: Jayz2Cents

Spoiler: The Good Old Gamer

After going over all of these, it looks similar to the anti-competitive moves made by Intel or even JEDEC.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

 

[Phuncz]

This, along with the shady business going on towards AMD is just terrible for the consumer. Companies with a dominant market share go unpunished in their malpractice and stand above the law. There's even nothing that can be done before Nvidia has started this program, as no AIB company is even willing to come forth about it. The AIBs have even talked about pursuing legal courses together to get Nvidia not to do this because they see how anti-competitive this is.

It doesn't help that these documents can't be shared and Nvidia comes down hard on companies that leak these kind of documents (I wonder why). It's the mob mentality and there is no one that can do anything about it until it's too late.

 

[Kwirek]

Nvidia probably has legal footing, I mean they can't be dumb enough to have missed the earlier cases right? I'd expect anything else would be like waving a red cloth in front of EU watchdogs.

Personally I think it is low of them to do it. If they argued that the established gaming brands of the partners were so closely linked to Nvidia products that putting that brand on a competitor would almost be like fraud then I could see it - but that isn't the case.

 

[Soul_Est]

This, along with the shady business going on towards AMD is just terrible for the consumer. Companies with a dominant market share go unpunished in their malpractice and stand above the law. There's even nothing that can be done before Nvidia has started this program, as no AIB company is even willing to come forth about it. The AIBs have even talked about pursuing legal courses together to get Nvidia not to do this because they see how anti-competitive this is.

It doesn't help that these documents can't be shared and Nvidia comes down hard on companies that leak these kind of documents (I wonder why). It's the mob mentality and there is no one that can do anything about it until it's too late.

I saw that one as well. Probably needs a second thread created for it given the wealth of information surrounding it.

Given what Nvidia did to XFX in the past, I would not be surprised to see them do it again.

Nvidia probably has legal footing, I mean they can't be dumb enough to have missed the earlier cases right? I'd expect anything else would be like waving a red cloth in front of EU watchdogs.

Personally I think it is low of them to do it. If they argued that the established gaming brands of the partners were so closely linked to Nvidia products that putting that brand on a competitor would almost be like fraud then I could see it - but that isn't the case.

That is true in that we do not yet know if it this type of coercion is illegal but it certainly is immoral and will have desvastating consequences.

 

[EdZ]

After going over all of these, it looks similar to the anti-competitive moves made by Intel or even JEDEC.

This seems pretty far from the case of Intel paying companies not to use AMD CPUS.
In this case, the only restriction claimed is on using the same sub-branding (e.g. ROG Strix) for both Nvidia and AMD cards, if they want to be a member of the GPP program. There is no restriction on the same manufacturer simply having two different brandings for Nvidia and AMD cards, as many already do, therefore there is nothing in the GPP preventing an AIB partner selling GPUs from both vendors. Most already have 3-4 different brands in order to stratify 'low end' and 'high end' offerings for the exact same GPU, and will cycle brands in and out regularly (often with each generation).
But even for brandings that are currently shared, the solution is very simple: use the existing branding for AMD cards, and create a new branding for Nvidia cards as promotional funding for brands is part of the GPP. Keep the existing branding, get a new branding, and have Nvidia pay for it.

Looking at a selection of GPUs available now (using UK sites, but I don't think the US market really has different branding) most GPUs don't even have a distinct 'gaming' branding, being sold with the manufacturer name, the GPU model, and then at most a suffix (e.g. "Superclocked", "FTW", "Twin Storm", etc) that will refer to either an aftermarket cooler and/or the position of that SKU within the lineup of a single GPU model, rather than a 'gaming' branding that all GPUs from that manufacturer are sold under. More interestingly, AIBs that manufacture cards fro mboth vendors are already in the minority and appear to have been for some, with the majority being single-vendor AIBs (e.g. EVGA stick to Nvidia parts, XFX and Powercolor stick to AMD).

It really seems to be rather a storm in a teacup.

 

[Soul_Est]

This seems pretty far from the case of Intel paying companies not to use AMD CPUS.
In this case, the only restriction claimed is on using the same sub-branding (e.g. ROG Strix) for both Nvidia and AMD cards, if they want to be a member of the GPP program. There is no restriction on the same manufacturer simply having two different brandings for Nvidia and AMD cards, as many already do, therefore there is nothing in the GPP preventing an AIB partner selling GPUs from both vendors. Most already have 3-4 different brands in order to stratify 'low end' and 'high end' offerings for the exact same GPU, and will cycle brands in and out regularly (often with each generation).
But even for brandings that are currently shared, the solution is very simple: use the existing branding for AMD cards, and create a new branding for Nvidia cards as promotional funding for brands is part of the GPP. Keep the existing branding, get a new branding, and have Nvidia pay for it.

Looking at a selection of GPUs available now (using UK sites, but I don't think the US market really has different branding) most GPUs don't even have a distinct 'gaming' branding, being sold with the manufacturer name, the GPU model, and then at most a suffix (e.g. "Superclocked", "FTW", "Twin Storm", etc) that will refer to either an aftermarket cooler and/or the position of that SKU within the lineup of a single GPU model, rather than a 'gaming' branding that all GPUs from that manufacturer are sold under. More interestingly, AIBs that manufacture cards fro mboth vendors are already in the minority and appear to have been for some, with the majority being single-vendor AIBs (e.g. EVGA stick to Nvidia parts, XFX and Powercolor stick to AMD).

It really seems to be rather a storm in a teacup.

I do agree that what I stated in that sentence was a reach. What I am concerned about is Nvidia pulling another move like they did with XFX. What you proposed as a solution is pretty interesting and would cause Nvidia to rethink this strategy.

 

[Phuncz]

Nvidia probably has legal footing, I mean they can't be dumb enough to have missed the earlier cases right? I'd expect anything else would be like waving a red cloth in front of EU watchdogs.

That's just it: if Kyle Bennett didn't out this story and sticking his journalistic neck out, it would have flown by without anyone noticing until long after. It's these kinds of contracts that Intel had with OEMs: "give us exclusivity, we give you all the benefits."
Or to put it differently: "shut out any competition, we'll pay you handsomely to compensate. Everyone else will be doing it, don't be the one left out and become obsolete."

 

[Kwirek]

That's just it: if Kyle Bennett didn't out this story and sticking his journalistic neck out, it would have flown by without anyone noticing until long after. It's these kinds of contracts that Intel had with OEMs: "give us exclusivity, we give you all the benefits."
Or to put it differently: "shut out any competition, we'll pay you handsomely to compensate. Everyone else will be doing it, don't be the one left out and become obsolete."

Well, the one sticking their neck out is the journalists source - for a journalist this is an opportunity. And since we now live in a world where some regulatory bodies are at least slapping the wrists of dominant companies it creates a climate more receptive to outing stuff like this.

 

[EdZ]

Well, the one sticking their neck out is the journalists source - for a journalist this is an opportunity.

Given the source in this case is AMD (as per Kyle's article) said neck isn't all that far out.

Actually, that raises a good point: if the AIB partners themselves had a problem with that clause, and got together to make a big fuss about it, they could use public outcry to force Nvidia to strike that clause from the contract while reaping all the other benefits. Unless they expect that they have more to lose than to gain in the event Nvidia just decide to pull the plug on GPP altogether; or they just don't have any real problem with it in the first place.

Nvidia pulling another move like they did with XFX

I've actually found it pretty hard to figure out what went on there in the two years between XFX starting to sell ATI cards and Nvidia finally removing them from the partner program. There's little on record of substance, and plenty of other vendors at the time were selling cards from both Nvidia and ATI without issue.

 

[Phuncz]

Well, the one sticking their neck out is the journalists source - for a journalist this is an opportunity. And since we now live in a world where some regulatory bodies are at least slapping the wrists of dominant companies it creates a climate more receptive to outing stuff like this.

I wouldn't look at it like it's another piece of sensational journalism, since he now burned his bridge with Nvidia. No more free cards for him ahead of review embargo but get in line at the store like everyone else. I'm not seeing any other media outlet sticking their neck out (except Ryan from Anandtech) finding out more, except just linking back to HardOCP's article.

 

[Kwirek]

No more free cards for him ahead of review embargo but get in line at the store like everyone else.

Nvidia said that, or has there been an event already?

 

[jmarin]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-ends-geforce-partner-program,37008.html

Saw this and thought I'd share

 

[jtd871]

There's nothing stopping them from lying about ending it.
There's also nothing stopping them from letting it lie for a month and then very quietly starting something like it again.
They've already shown that they're not above trying to abuse their effective monopoly with this and their "workstation card" policy, so I trust them about as far as I can throw them.

 

[Soul_Est]

^ Exactly this. Especially given how Raven Ridge Mobile and Kaby Lake G systems were affected by this (either releasing with gimped hardware or not releasing at all).

 

[tinyitx]

When a company is without long term serious competition, it can do a lot of 'bad' things.

ATI/AMD needs to really get their acts together long enough to force a change, fundamentally.

It has been a very long time since the glorious days of Radeon 9800 Pro.

 

[EdZ]

^ Exactly this. Especially given how Raven Ridge Mobile and Kaby Lake G systems were affected by this (either releasing with gimped hardware or not releasing at all).

How on Earth would GPP, a program about marketing and sub-branding of GPUs, affect Intel and AMD's release of SoC packages?

There's "I don't like Nvidia doing so well in the market" and there's "Nvidia are generic evil Hollywood villains!". Not every company's mistakes can be blamed on another company being 'evil'.

 

[Phuncz]

You seem to have missed the not publically disclosed benefits that GPP was all about, namely the “marketing” kickbacks for not selling a competing product, “priority” allocation (“sorry non-GPP partner, no more stock”) and optimization for GPP partners only.

This was not a “Let’s make Gaming great again” campaign, maybe publically but behind the curtains this move was to ensure a monopoly position for the foreseable future.

 

[EdZ]

I'd take all the 'it's not public but we totally heard Nvidia were doing this' allegations with a hefty pinch of salt. Plus, the "“marketing” kickbacks for not selling a competing product" was not something anyone actually accused them of, the claim was that they wanted segregation of sub-brands between Nvidia and AMD cards, as Asus did with the 'Arez' brand (which also made it clear that the 'Nvidia is stopping OEMs from using the "gaming" brand on AMD cards!' claim was a bunch of nonsense, as those have "GAMING" printed right on the box and in the product name, and are indistinguishable from the 'ROG' version apart from a sticker-swap).

And regardless, how on earth would GPP affect products from a completely different market segment, released by companies not partner to GPP at all? Even GPP partners like Asus only did a sticker-swap for GPUs, their monitors, motherboards, etc remained unchanged.

 

[Phuncz]

Plus, the "“marketing” kickbacks for not selling a competing product" was not something anyone actually accused them of

It was in the first article Kyle Bennett wrote about this, risking a lot of his direct and indirect income on:

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.

(color emphasis mine)

MDF is basically the same anti-trust tactic which Intel was found guilty over, namely if an OEM brand would only sell Intel-based systems they would get "financial compensation".

the claim was that they wanted segregation of sub-brands between Nvidia and AMD cards, as Asus did with the 'Arez' brand (which also made it clear that the 'Nvidia is stopping OEMs from using the "gaming" brand on AMD cards!' claim was a bunch of nonsense, as those have "GAMING" printed right on the box and in the product name, and are indistinguishable from the 'ROG' version apart from a sticker-swap).

Strawman argument, the point was not that the box for an Nvidia GPU would not look anything like a box for an AMD GPU but that competing products (including Intel GPUs) cannot exist in the same game brand as the Nvidia GPU products.
The "GAMING" brand item was not for Asus, which has ROG. Coincidentally Asus had all AMD Radeon cards moved to the AREZ brand recently in a sudden burst, while MSI removed AMD cards from their GAMING brand (info), and Gigabyte removed them from the AORUS brand (info). It may be a sticker-swap now, it would not have been in the long run, considering how big those gaming brands are.

And regardless, how on earth would GPP affect products from a completely different market segment, released by companies not partner to GPP at all? Even GPP partners like Asus only did a sticker-swap for GPUs, their monitors, motherboards, etc remained unchanged.

Strawman argument, there is no one arguing how GPP was influencing other markets than the GPU market (desktop and mobile, perhaps enterprise). GPP wasn't even known publically a month ago and the brand that seemingly became a GPP partner only just started to apply the requirements.

The fact is there is no place in a free market for shutting out competition by forcing companies to sign a no-compete EDIT: I meant "anti-trust" agreement that punishes everyone (non-GPP Nvidia partners) who doesn't sign in. How Nvidia dealt with this by accusing the media of lying (Trump tips his hat) instead of believing in its project. There has been no news at all that even begins to explain how the media was wrong about this. But on the other hand we have OEM and AIB partner community/product managers that can't or won't talk about GPP. Because that's what you do about a project that's good for everyone: you make everyone shut up about it.

 

[EdZ]

Strawman argument, there is no one arguing how GPP was influencing other markets than the GPU market

I was replying to this:

^ Exactly this. Especially given how Raven Ridge Mobile and Kaby Lake G systems were affected by this (either releasing with gimped hardware or not releasing at all).

MDF is basically the same anti-trust tactic which Intel was found guilty over, namely if an OEM brand would only sell Intel-based systems they would get "financial compensation".

It was not the same at all. Intel were paying companies to outright not use AMD CPUs. Nvidia was not preventing OEMs. in any way, from selling AMD GPUs. The MDF was 'payment in kind' rather than just cash: GeForce exclusive brands would get promoted by Nvidia either via direct marketing (e.g. the splash screens shown in the GeForce Experience installer) or being featured in purchased ad spots. That was why Nvidia wanted the 'exclusive branding; in the first place: to avoid paying for marketing of AMD cards.

The fact is there is no place in a free market for shutting out competition by forcing companies to sign a no-compete agreement that punishes everyone (non-GPP Nvidia partners) who doesn't sign in.

This was not a no-compete agreement.