Bennett first clarified that NVIDIA was barely noticed on the official website of GPP on March 1st, because it appeared to be very reticulous and did not involve products. The reason why GPP attracted attention was that AMD was nervous. The latter linked to HOP. Several media attention and carefully figure out the NV's decision.
HOP then spent 3 weeks to prepare, and contacted 7 graphics card manufacturers, eventually wrote a long report.
Before explaining, let's first briefly understand the next GPP.
NVIDIA GPP project official blog original
According to NVIDIA's official statement, the participating GPP partners can obtain NV resources support, including omni-channel PR promotion, early access to new technologies, support from NV engineers, and participation in game product tuning.
NV also emphasized that GPP has no exclusive terms and that partners can join and withdraw at any time.
In fact, from these rigorous wordings, NV is simply trying to establish a closer relationship with the game/GPU-related customers/suppliers, better make products, hit the market, but when the HOP sees the entry conditions for registration , It is not so simple to discover things in a flash.
For example, where NV requires 'Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively with GeForce' (the game brand is exactly the same as GeForce's). We give a simple example. Asus has ROG as e-sports game brand, Gigabyte is Aorus, etc. If they want to become GPP , you have to make sure that the ROG/Aorus only has a GeForce graphics card.
Speaking of this, everyone should understand that NV is to be monopolized under the banner of cooperation plans.
Of course, the terms will not only be limited, but there is also sweetness. NV said that there are 7 types of resources that they provide to GPP partners. In addition to the three types of public disclosures mentioned above, in fact, they also include initial support, game binding, sales rebate, and corporate financial statement. Assistance and so on.
Since there are problems, then in the end who will join GPP, how many?
HOP said that the most intriguing place is here. All seven of his contacts declined to say whether he was a GPP member, saying that he would lose his job. However, for GPP, there is a consensus on three points:
1. Some terms are indeed unreasonable (suspicious to violate the law) 2. GPP will hurt consumer's choice 3, it will hurt the cooperation between the company itself and AMD/Intel.
According to Bennett's intuitive analysis, it can be asserted that there are only a few manufacturers that have not joined the GPP, that is to say, basically a brand with a certain fame tied to the NV GPP on a boat.
The experienced veteran now recalls that he noticed the signs of NV in an article written in 2016. At that time, Intel had released a signal to re-enter the GPU market (this matter has been confirmed by the official declaration), and NV was then Internal secret layout strategy, maybe GPP evolved from that time.
This explains that NV now holds a 70% share in the market alone. With a clear advantage for AMD, it has to intervene in the market through allegedly monopolistic behavior. It was originally feared that AMD and Intel would join hands in the GPU market.
This kind of plan is actually very difficult to say good or bad, and at least short-term certainty is not small. If the success hits Intel more than its tolerance for failure tolerance, forcing its active retreat is the best outcome.
As far as you say 'kidnapping', NVIDIA is not unconvinced. One of the premise in the industry that they sell high-end cards is that they must pack and sell a batch of low-end products.
In addition, Intel is also 'unfavorable'. In order to suppress AMD in the past, it used OEM rebates to win market share. It was revealed that the company had been fined 10 billion by the European Union.
However, when it comes to this, I feel distressed from AMD. It is a hard-working 'Technology Male'.