I never made it sound like a fact. My first had "it seems" not "it is: and my second post stipulated that it's just an observation. In any case, even though there might be some things that point to foul play it's impossible to prove. It's also impossible to prove otherwise. Obviously if there was no perception of Nvidia crippling hardware physX titles no one would be riled up. If there was proof then everyone would be riled up. Right now there is only an unprovable perception, so it makes sense that it riles up people but to a lesser degree, especially whith other physX drama
That's perfectly fine with me. I didn't insinuate that you did; simply that it's the kind of tone I get from almost everyone who chooses to bring it up. I wear way too many tinfoil hat layers to be pointing fingers here but I don't hold it against anyone unless I have proof shenanigans took place.
The car analogy was extreme, granted, but it was valid. Marketing your product as something that it isn't is false advertising, but it doesen't work the other way around. Not advertising your product's limitations doesen't magically get you off the hook in this kind of situation. Here's a less extreme example: Imagine if Half-life 3 came out without the ability to run on Windows 7, people bought the game assuming (as they should) that it would, and Valve's reponse afterwards was "well, we never advertised that HL3 would run on Windows 7".
I'm still not convinced. Do nvidia cards have a risk of failing catastrophically as part of a feature it was designed for? Because that's the analogy I'm looking for, some feature that's advertised as something it was designed to do but fails to live up to that promise (whether by exploding or just not doing anything), not something it happens to be able to do and then was disabled for whatever purposes.
Also, this is starting to stray a bit too far from the point but if half life 3 did come out without windows7 support as a conscious decision, it would be fine with me; your example raises eyebrows because windows is what runs games almost everywhere so people would expect it to run on windows that but had it been lack of support for linux, nobody would have cared because they wouldn't expect it like I personally don't expect nvidia to make something that'd directly benefit ati. I don't have a game box here but I went to check real quick and I'm pretty sure that my adobe cs5 box specified windows as a requirement but didn't directly state that it wouldn't run on a linux machine even if it does also technically have windows on the drive as well. There's plenty more of special cases like that don't warrant suing them for.
Yes it does. On the box it's advertised to perform PhysX. You don't actually figure out that it can't run phsyX coupled with an ATI card unless you search the nvidia website. And the justification on the website "complicated technical connections that only exist between Nvidia cards" is completely, demonstrably false.
Look, we could be arguing the wording and the scope of what they are obligated to represent but at the end of the day, the card is designed to run as a primary vga card. Saying it should also be able to do this because the wording has a loophole and that obligates them to do it is making an assumption that merits a bit of investigating before purchasing. Do ati 5xxx cards run eyefinity desktop windows like those fancy pictures on the back of the box while in a second slot while I run a game on my primary nvidia card? I'm not asking this to be cute, I honestly don't know. If they don't, that's a case for someone to go and look for fine prints too. I'm also pretty sure my new 1600 ddr3 kit won't run full speed when I pair them with the old 1033 epilda in the other 3 slots either, even though the package doesn't say anywhere that it can't run full speed in this special circumstance. Neither can my old motherboards boot on a usb drive, even though I'm somewhat sure all it'd take is a bios revision.
And of course, I'm not gonna be able to get a perfect example where it's 100% clear that it's possible but disabled on purpose, or not disabled on purpose but technically shaky but I don't think it means that nvidia has some obligation of covering every single special case in what would be a monolithic wall of fine print. Plus, as far as I know, nvidia cards can run as a physx card with an ati card as of now since nvidia did restore the beta driver that could do that; so strictly technically speaking, they do have the support everyone seems angry that they omitted to disclaim once in the past.
No. Not creating an "adaptor" for two things that otherwise *do not* function together is not the same as taking two things that *would* normally function together and sabatoging one of them so they no longer do. Not adding something != taking something away.
Sabotaging is a word that'll get you the chicks' attention but selectively disabling features isn't exactly new or illegal in this context as far as I know. What if the said car manufacturer had instead engineered the radio's shape so that it couldn't be retrofitted to improve its competitors' models then simply said that they don't fit, even though they could if they wanted to? I know a few companies that do that, albeit not actual car radios... but they do it solely to prevent people from buying their low end stuff and use it outside of what they meant to bundle it with.
Let's get things straight. I *do not* beleive there will be a lawsuit. To reiterate my stance, AMD could sue Nvidia anytime they wanted to but will not because Nvidia is shooting themselves in the foot by stiffling PhysX adoption. The last thing AMD wants is for PhysX to work with ATI cards.
That being said, if PhsyX ever does really take off, which is the giantest of long-shots, then you'll definitely see a lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that a common misconception is that anticompetitive law can only be used against big companies. From wikipedia because looking up the actual laws is outside the scope of a forum post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law
"Competition law, or antitrust law, has three main elements: ...
banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position."
That last part is why AMD could sue Nvidia at any time. If phsyX ever does take off they could sue nvidia under the first part (and obviously have an eaiser time making their case)
This is your interpretation of an incredibly vague line from wikipedia. I could sue the crap out of everyone and their pet turtles for anti-competitive practices if that's all it took.
It's really easy to build a case of outrage on that but once you're asked for some precedents in court, it might very quickly collapse. If so many people really feel this is a case, why haven't they sued nvidia for it already? It's not like they'd spare them because they appreciate their contributions to the field or anything and if they're so confident that they'll nail nvidia, why wait til someone else does it?
I'm still not convinced there's a case; maybe someone asked a lawyer friend or something and knows. I'd love to know as well. But until I do know, I wouldn't order a boat with my share of the damages if I were you.
Again, apples and oranges. Discontinuing support for a product is *way* different than continuing support but removing the functionality that was previously there to run alongside a completely unrelated part made by your competitor. It's not even apples and oranges. It's apples and chicken soup.
Would you still have the same opinion if it weren't nvidia we're taking about? Because to me, the case of my old laptop not being supported with newer apps anymore feels very much the same as if I were to have an ageia card that's somehow said to be supported but not for new titles (what does that even mean and what's the difference?): I still can't use those new titles be it because the guys who wrote the old drivers decided it'd be a waste of time, or because there's some evil cat-stroking guy deciding that he won't support old drivers. You can't take something away that never existed; if it existed, the aforementioned old drivers would be able to run the newer titles if you simply didn't upgrade them.
Or heck, it's quite easy to point and say 'you're doing it wrong' than find someone who's actually doing it right; riddle me this, which company still is supporting a product that it has previously acquired and works to improve one of its direct competitors' in a task the latter wasn't designed for? On the top of my head, I can't think of any but I'm hardly an authority on the matter and I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion if I find out this is a required practice but sincerly, those altruistic apples that would give up marketshare for the sake of their competing produce are starting to feel like a one of a kind fruitjob in a world of ruthless oranges.
)
Facebook
Twitter