Nvidia facing 51 lawsuits...AMD in there too...

[n7]

I find it interesting how this threads brings out the nV devotees.

It's not that complicated actually.

nV & ATi (now AMD) have gradually been f*cking us over more & more every new generation.

If you actually believe they're not making craploads of profit on 8800 GTXs, 8800 Ultras, or even HD 2900 XTs (though likely not as much here), i'm gonna have to say you might be a little delusional.

Also, the mid range has increased in price also; everything has really, since we now have flagship cards @ $900-1000 CND ( thanx nV :roll: )

 

[Modular]

Originally posted by: n7
Also, the mid range has increased in price also; everything has really, since we now have flagship cards @ $900-1000 CND ( thanx nV :roll: )

Thanks nv, or thanks AMD/Ati...or maybe both 🙂

Bottom line is that R600 is not what AMD wanted it to be at this point. It was released late and is no competition for the GTX, let alone the Ultra or any OC'd GTX. If they had come up with a competitive card on timethen we would be seeing better prices all around.

 

[Nelsieus]

Originally posted by: n7
I find it interesting how this threads brings out the nV devotees.

It's not that complicated actually.

nV & ATi (now AMD) have gradually been f*cking us over more & more every new generation.

If you actually believe they're not making craploads of profit on 8800 GTXs, 8800 Ultras, or even HD 2900 XTs (though likely not as much here), i'm gonna have to say you might be a little delusional.

Being as neither company's margins are 100+ percent right now, I'm gonna have to say you know little of what you speak. Blunt rhetoric like "they're f****** us" is quite dramatic, but unfourtunately that's all you're providing - baseless drama.

According to nVidia, G80 was roughly half a billion dollars to develope, and I'd imagine R600 was probably around the same. That's on top of production costs, tape-outs, and all the other extra variables that you seem to know little of.

Which is why I chuckle when I see such outlandish claims... 😉

Nelsieus

 

[n7]

I chuckle seeing you reply too, since you also have nothing to back your claims up.

nV says? :laugh:

Do you believe everything companies say?


As i mentioned before, i have purchased cards directly from ATi at special discounts before, & i know they weren't offering these extremely low prices to thousands of retail employees below cost.

And based off the fact that i could get 9800 series, X8xx series, X1800 series, & X1900 series cards for sometimes less than half MSRP price right after launch, that tells me all i need to know.

So sorry, but oddly enough, i likely have more to back up my statements than you do.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: n7
I chuckle seeing you reply too, since you also have nothing to back your claims up.

nV says? :laugh:

Do you believe everything companies say?


As i mentioned before, i have purchased cards directly from ATi at special discounts before, & i know they weren't offering these extremely low prices to thousands of retail employees below cost.

And based off the fact that i could get 9800 series, X8xx series, X1800 series, & X1900 series cards for sometimes less than half MSRP price right after launch, that tells me all i need to know.

So sorry, but oddly enough, i likely have more to back up my statements than you do.

I'm sorry, but why should anyone believe what you say? What proof do you have to back up your claims?

Is N7 says more valid than nV says?

At least we can look at the audited financial statement of Nvidia to see if their gross margins increased drastically over the last couple of years. What do you have as proof?

Actually, if they made the claim of a half billion dollars in R&D for the 8 Series to stock analyst or during a stockholders meeting, aren't they in big trouble if this turns out to be false? Like a shareholder lawsuit?

 

[fern420]

price fixing and NVIDIA, say it isnt so......they have only been doing it for the last 10 years. its what happens when there are only two players in the game and more than a few willing to pay anything for top of the line.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: wahoyaho
I hope they drop their prices back down to where it should be ><

I hope they dont. If Nvidia and AMD are forced to drop video card prices drastically, who do u think will be the real loser? We will.

Nvidia and AMD will no longer be inclined to put millions upon millions of dollars in R&D. GPUs will fail to make the same kind of advancements in such short product cycles. The only thing that will come out of this will be that mid range offerings will become the new high end.

My $0.02

Because time and time again history has shown us that you get the best innovation when you have no competition and pricing pressure...oh wait, you seem to have got some pretty fundamental economic theory ass-backwards 😉

Competition (and the price pressure it brings) drives R&D, otherwise, why try harder?

The more profit they make the more they can spend on R&D though.. How much is their price inflated? Probably something like $50. How much do you think the profit margin is to begin with? I don't know about you, but I don't mind paying a little bit extra vs the extreme lowest price with virtually no profit. Now, it would be nice if they made good drivers, and didn't disable half the pipelines on their otherwise awesome notebook graphics cards.

I fail to see how you think non-compete agreements make them more motivated to put out bettter products.

Izzactly.

There is no point in spending money on R&D if you haven't got any competition, and certainly no sanity in spending MORE on R&D in the absence of a competitor.

I don't recall saying that prices were inflated, but without competition you will see higher prices, and less innovation, than with competition, and that is something that has been demonstrated ad nauseam.


I shall attempt to explain this:

Wreckage is the CEO of a video card company (for arguments sake, let us pretend this company is Nvidia).

Nvidia is wiping the floor, essentially it's the only video card manufacturer in town.

It has a current top card called the 11TYBILLIONGTXTX.

Wreckage says to himself: 'Lolz, we r teh 1337, ev3ri1 els3 r p00!'

But then he says: 'hMMM, we cud b 3v3n m0r3 1337!

He invests 11tybillion dollars of nvidia's vast profits on a card called the 11TYBILLIONGTXTX+1, which is indeed even more elite.

There's still no competition, and sales bob along cheerfully, with a nice little bump for a new product.

However, the Shareholders say : Lolz, we're not stupid, Wreckage just wasted 11tybillion dollars of our dividends on R&D, when he could have just redesigned the hsf logo, bumped the core 5mhz, and subsequently achieved a far better sales-R&D outlay ratio in the absence of any competition'.

They then say: 'Bye Bye Wreckage, Hello Mr New CEO Business guy who understands economics, lolz'

Wreckage: 'but, but, we r 3v3n m0r 1337!'

Shareholders: 'Security, please escort this man off the premises'

Now obviously i exaggerated some aspects of that example, but surely you can see how much more important R&D becomes in a competitive marketplace? There's actually a purpose to innovating, rather than just doing enough to keep people interested and rake in the cash...

This example also totally skips over pressure on prices, which again is created by competition. Clearly you base your price in a market environment on what is competitive with your competition (duh!), while still assuring continuing R&D to maintain or ideally increase your market share, or you'll simply end up out of business.

 

[soybeast]

Sad is the day when such compassion is felt for corporations. The fact of the matter is, if they broke the rules, then what they're doing is illegal. Now while there are many laws that don't make any sense, I think it's pretty clear why antitrust laws exist and that much thought has gone into making them. Of course, sometimes having a monopoly or collusion between companies isn't detrimental to the market and consumers. This is part of the reason why currently cable companies have monopolies in their own territory (whether this has actually helped is another debate).

However in this case, there doesn't seem to be any clear evidence that collusion has been helping the consumer. Rather the evidence would seem to point to the contrary. For example, increasing price of the high-end, decreasing quality of the mid-range (8600 gts), stagnant prices on the high-end for the past 7 months (not terribly unusual, except that this has clearly broken a trend in the GPU market).

If you find you are happier paying 20-50% more than you would have to, more power to you. For the rest of us, we would rather not get pwned by another money hungry corporation. Oil companies and the military industry seem to be filling that void quite fine thank you.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: soybeast
Sad is the day when such compassion is felt for corporations. The fact of the matter is, if they broke the rules, then what they're doing is illegal. Now while there are many laws that don't make any sense, I think it's pretty clear why antitrust laws exist and that much thought has gone into making them. Of course, sometimes having a monopoly or collusion between companies isn't detrimental to the market and consumers. This is part of the reason why currently cable companies have monopolies in their own territory (whether this has actually helped is another debate).

However in this case, there doesn't seem to be any clear evidence that collusion has been helping the consumer. Rather the evidence would seem to point to the contrary. For example, increasing price of the high-end, decreasing quality of the mid-range (8600 gts), stagnant prices on the high-end for the past 7 months (not terribly unusual, except that this has clearly broken a trend in the GPU market).

If you find you are happier paying 20-50% more than you would have to, more power to you. For the rest of us, we would rather not get pwned by another money hungry corporation. Oil companies and the military industry seem to be filling that void quite fine thank you.

Sad is the day when being sued = being guilty.

If they are guilty then they deserve what they get. But until they are proven guilty.....

 

[golem]

Izzactly.

There is no point in spending money on R&D if you haven't got any competition, and certainly no sanity in spending MORE on R&D in the absence of a competitor.

I don't recall saying that prices were inflated, but without competition you will see higher prices, and less innovation, than with competition, and that is something that has been demonstrated ad nauseam.


I shall attempt to explain this:

Wreckage is the CEO of a video card company (for arguments sake, let us pretend this company is Nvidia).

Nvidia is wiping the floor, essentially it's the only video card manufacturer in town.

It has a current top card called the 11TYBILLIONGTXTX.

Wreckage says to himself: 'Lolz, we r teh 1337, ev3ri1 els3 r p00!'

But then he says: 'hMMM, we cud b 3v3n m0r3 1337!

He invests 11tybillion dollars of nvidia's vast profits on a card called the 11TYBILLIONGTXTX+1, which is indeed even more elite.

There's still no competition, and sales bob along cheerfully, with a nice little bump for a new product.

However, the Shareholders say : Lolz, we're not stupid, Wreckage just wasted 11tybillion dollars of our dividends on R&D, when he could have just redesigned the hsf logo, bumped the core 5mhz, and subsequently achieved a far better sales-R&D outlay ratio in the absence of any competition'.

They then say: 'Bye Bye Wreckage, Hello Mr New CEO Business guy who understands economics, lolz'

Wreckage: 'but, but, we r 3v3n m0r 1337!'

Shareholders: 'Security, please escort this man off the premises'

Now obviously i exaggerated some aspects of that example, but surely you can see how much more important R&D becomes in a competitive marketplace? There's actually a purpose to innovating, rather than just doing enough to keep people interested and rake in the cash...

This example also totally skips over pressure on prices, which again is created by competition. Clearly you base your price in a market environment on what is competitive with your competition (duh!), while still assuring continuing R&D to maintain or ideally increase your market share, or you'll simply end up out of business.

Didn't you just go off on a wild tangent about a lazy dominant company? I thought you were responding to non compete agreements and collusion? Anyway a dominant company with a superior product doesn't really need to make non compete agreements because by definition, they don't have competition and can set whatever price they think the market will bear. As far as I know, this isn't illegal.

 

[Jules]

I dont see the big deal. If you don't wanna pay for the cards because they are to expensive then don't.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth
I dont see the big deal. If you don't wanna pay for the cards because they are to expensive then don't.

It is a big deal if Nvidia and AMD are price-fixing, because that is illegal. But a lot of people are making wild claims based on these lawsuits. Prices can naturally go up based on the forces of supply and demand, it doesn't have to be something illegal.

 

[fern420]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: soybeast
Sad is the day when such compassion is felt for corporations. The fact of the matter is, if they broke the rules, then what they're doing is illegal. Now while there are many laws that don't make any sense, I think it's pretty clear why antitrust laws exist and that much thought has gone into making them. Of course, sometimes having a monopoly or collusion between companies isn't detrimental to the market and consumers. This is part of the reason why currently cable companies have monopolies in their own territory (whether this has actually helped is another debate).

However in this case, there doesn't seem to be any clear evidence that collusion has been helping the consumer. Rather the evidence would seem to point to the contrary. For example, increasing price of the high-end, decreasing quality of the mid-range (8600 gts), stagnant prices on the high-end for the past 7 months (not terribly unusual, except that this has clearly broken a trend in the GPU market).

If you find you are happier paying 20-50% more than you would have to, more power to you. For the rest of us, we would rather not get pwned by another money hungry corporation. Oil companies and the military industry seem to be filling that void quite fine thank you.

Sad is the day when being sued = being guilty.

If they are guilty then they deserve what they get. But until they are proven guilty.....

hey i hear that but lets face it, 51 DIFFERENT lawsuits? something is definitely not up to par. id completly agree with you if it were just one or two suites, but 51!!!

something stinks at nvidia and i think its the BS they are spewing to cover their tracks. i cant wait to see how they go because if they rule against nvidia this could open the floodgates for a worldwide end user class action lawsuit that could bring them to their knees for all those people who bought a card in the last few years and still have a receipt.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth
I dont see the big deal. If you don't wanna pay for the cards because they are to expensive then don't.

It is a big deal if Nvidia and AMD are price-fixing, because that is illegal. But a lot of people are making wild claims based on these lawsuits. Prices can naturally go up based on the forces of supply and demand, it doesn't have to be something illegal.

I see.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth
I dont see the big deal. If you don't wanna pay for the cards because they are to expensive then don't.

If they are colluding to keep the prices high, then they are engaging in something illegal and hurting all of us who want to buy the hardware.

KT

 

[golem]

Sad is the day when being sued = being guilty.

If they are guilty then they deserve what they get. But until they are proven guilty.....

hey i hear that but lets face it, 51 DIFFERENT lawsuits? something is definitely not up to par. id completly agree with you if it were just one or two suites, but 51!!!

something stinks at nvidia and i think its the BS they are spewing to cover their tracks.[/quote]

51 does seem like a lot, and that number sort of jumped out at me too. I didn't read up on the article much. Is it 51 lawsuits from 51 different plantiffs and lawyers, or is it 51 plantiffs but just a few lawyers?

Remember it takes TWO to price fix. It can't be Nvidia alone.

 

[fern420]

Originally posted by: golem

Sad is the day when being sued = being guilty.

If they are guilty then they deserve what they get. But until they are proven guilty.....

hey i hear that but lets face it, 51 DIFFERENT lawsuits? something is definitely not up to par. id completly agree with you if it were just one or two suites, but 51!!!

something stinks at nvidia and i think its the BS they are spewing to cover their tracks.

51 does seem like a lot, and that number sort of jumped out at me too. I didn't read up on the article much. Is it 51 lawsuitS from 51 different plantiffs and lawyers, or is it 51 plantiffs but just a few lawyers?

Remember it takes TWO to price fix. It can't be Nvidia alone.[/quote]

it says 42 civil lawsuits so i do believe that means 42 different lawyers and plantifs. now it also says only 14 of those were for price fixing, the rest are for anti-competitive business practices. no matter what it sure doesn't look good, that means they have to prove themselves at least 42 different times in court and something tells me one of those judges will not find in their favor. ATI definitely played their part in it, id imagine they have a few lawsuits just for their name also.

it is a real kick in the pants for the guys who do want to buy the highend cards that cost as much as a new PS3, about 1/3 more than they should be. i found this very interesting since it seems they fixed the highend product prices more than anything. " In this case, many of the suits allege that AMD (then ATI) and NVIDIA artificially inflated the value of high-end and enthusiast components."


this also isnt just some frivelous lawsuits like some might assume, i found this fact very interesting also and it must of stayed on the downlow, truly if they are price fixing enough to get uncle sams attention, its out of hand:

"Late last year AMD and NVIDIA received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice alleging that both companies violated antitrust laws"

 

[golem]

it says 42 civil lawsuits so i do believe that means 42 different lawyers and plantifs. now it also says only 14 of those were for price fixing, the rest are for anti-competitive business practices. no matter what it sure doesn't look good, that means they have to prove themselves at least 42 different times in court and something tells me one of those judges will not find in their favor. ATI definitely played their part in it, id imagine they have a few lawsuits just for their name also.

it is a real kick in the pants for the guys who do want to buy the highend cards that cost as much as a new PS3, about 1/3 more than they should be. i found this very interesting since it seems they fixed the highend product prices more than anything. " In this case, many of the suits allege that AMD (then ATI) and NVIDIA artificially inflated the value of high-end and enthusiast components."

I guess it will be an interesting summer for both Nvidia and ATI. But remember, for it to be price fixing, AMD and Nvidia had to work together to set the prices. If they independently set their prices based on what they thought the market would bear, I believe that is legal. The anti-competion lawsuits, I have no idea what they are about so won't comment.