ludi wrote:There's certainly nothing wrong with co-marketing or even exclusivity contracts on principle, but when you control 70+% of a market sector (discrete GPUs in this case), then terms like these are easily weaponized against non-participants:
Right, but look at what that journalist pointed out from that list:
HardOCP wrote:MDF is likely the standout in that list of lost benefits if the company is not a GPP partner.
Which is funny, because it's probably the least objectionable/weaponizable for the graphic cards makers (things like sale rebates, for instance, are much more troubling in theory), but, uh, that's the kind of stuff that indirectly funds his journalism, right?
ludi wrote:Again, not saying they will be, and still keeping a really big "allegedly" in front of all that, given the source.
On this we agree, those sorts of things could be problematic, yes.
I'm just coming from the part where I address the few specifics he actually goes into, for lack of anything else to even sink my teeth into.
cegras wrote:The difference being nvidia would withhold things like sales rebates and marketing funds - both seem like monetary incentives to me.
The former, ok, maybe, but it's also not something that our journalist went into at all, despite how on the face of it that's exactly where he *SHOULD* have gone: It's the most similar to the Dell/AMD/Intel fracas he kept swinging around. It's a rather striking omission, you see?
The latter? uhhh, yeah, I mean, if you are not part of a marketing initiative, no, you won't get those marketing funds...?
EDIT: I really have to reiterate this, it's *REALLY* bizarre to do this:
HardOCP wrote:As you might recall, we have seen onerous terms such as those contained in GPP to have many similarities to Intel's once monopolistic business practices (versus AMD) in withholding MDF to partners. The results of that situation were huge multi-billion dollar fines for Intel. GPP has some striking similarities.
This is backwards, the AMD/INTEL thing was literally about sales rebates to Dell for not selling AMD chips (in fact, the SEC sued Dell because they were falsely categorizing these rebates as
actual sales revenue)
...but yet, here we are saying the issue was Market Development funds....
Uh.. weirdnesssssssssssss