Nvidia CEO Celebrates FTC's Case Against Intel
Nvidia Chief weighs in on Intel's FTC strife.
Yesterday news broke that the FTC was investigating Intel. Soon after, Nvidia CEO Jen Hsun Huang sent out a company memo informing the troops that this kind of event could "transform the industry." Read Huang's full memo below.
Hi everyone,
The U.S. government announced today that it has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel. This is an action the industry needs and one that consumers deserve. And it’s one that can completely transform the computer industry.
The facts are clear. The FTC has charged that Intel has used its monopoly illegally to stifle innovation, to keep prices for their products inflated, and to unfairly block competitors. The FTC believes that millions of consumers have paid more and received less quality in return–and that companies and their employees have been forced out of markets where Intel has been threatened.
Intel is fully aware that great graphics have become one of the most important features for consumer PCs, the fastest-growing segment of the PC market. Even more alarming to Intel is the revolutionary parallel computing technology in our GPUs that is being adopted by software developers across the world. The more successful we became, the bigger threat we were to Intel’s monopoly. Instead of creating competitive GPU solutions and competing on the merits of their products, Intel has resorted to unlawful acts to stop us. The FTC announced today that this isn’t acceptable.
Nothing this complicated gets decided quickly. It will take months for the FTC case to be heard by an administrative judge who will then recommend a ruling back to the FTC. And it’s possible that this decision could be appealed. But today is a huge step forward for all of us that will begin to re-level the playing field.
Today’s FTC announcement highlights the industry-changing impact of the GPU and the importance of our work. Our innovation is making the PC magical and amazing again. I can now imagine the day when Intel can no longer block consumers from enjoying our creation and experience computing in a way we know is possible.
Keep innovating...
Jensen
- Report: Google to Design Chrome OS Netbook
- AT&T Crippling Flashmob Organizer Backtracks
- Wednesday Deals: Nine Days Till Christmas!
- Microsoft: EU Deal Will Require 'Significant Change'
- Intel to FTC: We Didn't Do Anything Wrong
- McDonald's to Offer Free WiFi Starting 2010
- EU Ends Microsoft Antitrust Probe; Hello Browsers!
- Wada: Final Fantasy XIV a Serious WoW Rival
- Intel Sued by FTC Over Monopoly Issues
- Nvidia: Tegra 2 is Coming
- Intel Shows Off the Best Core i7, i5 Case Mods
- JooJoo Company Responds to TechCrunch Lawsuit
- Bluetooth 4.0 Specifications Unveiled
- Dell's Latitude On Flash Boots Laptop in Seconds
- LaCie Intros USB 3.0 Dual-Drive RAID
- Hasbro Suing Atari over D&D License
- Friday Deals: One Week Left Till Christmas Day!
- Nvidia's Cartoons Continue to Poke Fun at Intel
Thank you Jen for your measured reaction.
My guess is what you wanted to say was
"That'll teach you b*tches to screw up our chipset division. Also, please send me your Larrabee prime blueprints, I'm out of TP. Bwahahahahahaha!"
I wish Nvidia would stop popping the champagne corks and focus on how it can compete with AMD/ATI. Nvidia is falling behind in price and performance. FOCUS PLEASE, Nvidia!
I agree with sstym, BUT, this does seem a little hypocritical coming from the same company that decided, if you're using a competitor's GPU, "No PhysX for YOU!"
My guess is that the FTC's observation of Intel paying off AMD as a sign of their guilt. Additionally, sense AMD's cases have been dropped the FTC is free to subpoena anyone and everyone now with out the restrictions that another pending case would cause (evidence being withheld or blocked for example).
What exactly is the FTC charging Intel with, and on what grounds? I'd say that nothing I've heard so far - which is why I'm asking - sets off any "evil corporation" bells in my head. Look at the their processors and SSDs. Are they the best performing pieces of kit out there? Yep. So why shouldn't they command a price premium? It's not the government's job to make sure that no company gets too far ahead of any others. Besides, having Intel products priced high means more room for other companies in the lower price-tiers, where consumers (at least) seem to be putting their cash these days. Zipzoomflyhigh, do you have a link to any further information about this "stealing, bribing, and copyright infringement?" I know they made that big settlement with AMD, and that's that. No double-jeopardy, that issue is solved, so the FTC shouldn't try to go after them for that. Would love more information...
Summation of Nvid's CEO comment:
Yes!! Thank you FTC for giving us a scape goat for our lack of innovation.
Does Nvidia's CEO know that they do not compete in the CPU market? Does he know that if Intel keeps a monopoly and hinders innovation of CPUs that it actually helps him if the mainstream adopts parallel computing of GPUs? Where do you think people will go if a CPU upgrade does nil, but a GPU upgrade improves performance?
Will someone please get him a neck cone to prevent his foot from entering his mouth!?
Good memo to boost employees moral. Cunsumers deserve innovation. Competition from these companies makes sure that cunsumers always benefits.
consumers - sorry
Nice, another line of dialogue has been added.
Intel: Ok AMD we are sorry, you can have some pie.
AMD: Thank you.
FTC: CAN I HAS PIE TOO?!
Nvidia: Pssss, hey FTC. Get a big piece so I can have some too.
Not good for nVidia to gloat. If this passes, nVidia is next on their list.
My Dell XPS1330 laptop died this week. Reason? Nvidia GPU "bumpgate" death. NV clearly knew of this issue and covered it up to the detriment to consumers. I don't want to hear a single word from them about fair business practices as NV are some of the biggest hypocrits in the industry. My 6800GT sans advertised video features says hello as well. Maybe NV should be investigated as they have a long history of similar practices, anti-competitive behavior, and actions that harm consumers. Not only do you have PhysX, but there is a long list of actions like their SLI lockouts, developer bullying (e.g. removing features that benefit competitors), and driver hacks that hurt AI. Their influence on review sites is also pretty staggering.
I like Nvidia... they have done great things to make graphics technology better, and eventually I hope that GPGPU / parallel computing will be much more widely used. They're right, as soon as Intel saw them as a threat, they pulled their typical BS monopolistic tactics. I hope the FTC takes it to those bastards...
But, Nvidia's marketing department seems to have a collective mindset pulled straight out of... really mean middle school students. They're not going to do anything blatantly evil, but only because they don't have the ability to. If a developer gets support from Nvidia, suddenly AA features go missing for ATI products, or DX10.1 support is pulled. Pulling PhysX support for users who have an ATI GPU, just because they know that they're current videocards are inferior.
Intel needs to be punished, but Nvidia probably shouldn't gloat so much. We know they're assholes too.
Daekar, they are referencing leveraging tactics to OEMs, Server Builders, etc. (Dell, HP, Asus, etc.) And offering them steep discounts IF they did not buy X amount of other product and only make X product available through certain small channels. (For example, I believe there was something with HP and only being able to use AMD chips in servers for 'X' sized business otherwise they wouldn't be able to offer such steep rebates and price reductions).
Nice, another line of dialogue has been added.Intel: Ok AMD we are sorry, you can have some pie.AMD: Thank you.FTC: CAN I HAS PIE TOO?!Nvidia: Pssss, hey FTC. Get a big piece so I can have some too.
FTC: Only if you let PhysX work with AMD
Yes, it would be appropriate for the FTC to go after Nvidia because of their Physx lock down. It restricts consumers choice.
Besides, one would think Nvidia has its hands full preparing to launch the new geforce 300 series. Apparently not...
Stop the party and come up with a new gpu. You Guys have fell off I am going with Ati next build.
If You want physX...buy Nvidia.Why would they want it to work on AMD cards? You have a choice christop. Its like saying it isnt fair that some ps3 games wont play on your xbox360.boo hoo
what does physx have to do with ANY FTC case? if it were mine and i had to BUY Ageia to obtain the tech, i wouldn't hand it over freely to the side of the aisle that continuously mocks its existence, would you?
opps..sory.I ment backin5.
This will hurt innovation if anything. Imagine a world without Intel...
If You want physX...buy Nvidia.Why would they want it to work on AMD cards? You have a choice christop. Its like saying it isnt fair that some ps3 games wont play on your xbox360.boo hoo
Some people prefer to have an ATI GPU as their main graphics processor, and a cheaper Nvidia GPU like a GT 220 as the PhysX co-processor.
This guy is just a big douchebag. I seriously cringe at every word that comes out of his mouth. I cant wait to see the results of his douchebaggery catching up to him.
I like Nvidia, and depending on the game, I prefer their GPU. But their CEO is a jackass.
I think you have to be an a$$hole to stay in the business. But man, some are just complete morons.
Maybe that's why I never own any Nvidia's card. I just don't want to get infected.
If You want physX...buy Nvidia.Why would they want it to work on AMD cards? You have a choice christop. Its like saying it isnt fair that some ps3 games wont play on your xbox360.boo hoo
It isn't that people were complaining they couldn't use their ATI card for Physx, it's that Nvidia was blocking people from using Physx if a competitor's card was present on their system at all, even if your system had an Nvidia GPU for the Physx. Of course it holds the real purpose of giving people less reason to buy ATI in case they sell a more powerful GPU (oh look) desirable as a main card.
Ofc he does who benefits the most from this Nvidia
esp when the ruling on this can be used aganist AMD
Can't stand that douche. He has been so unprofessional and snide in the past. Nvidia is behind the game right now. ATI is where it is at. We'll see if that hold in 12 months.
Daekar, they are referencing leveraging tactics to OEMs, Server Builders, etc. (Dell, HP, Asus, etc.) And offering them steep discounts IF they did not buy X amount of other product and only make X product available through certain small channels. (For example, I believe there was something with HP and only being able to use AMD chips in servers for 'X' sized business otherwise they wouldn't be able to offer such steep rebates and price reductions).
Well, making exclusivity agreements is OK, ie "We'll give you a discount, but only if you agree to use only our processors." I don't see what's wrong with that, and it's common in every industry. If you're correct in your summary of the issue, that's what they've done, with some specifics thrown in: "We'll give you this price if you don't buy from AMD." It comes to the same thing. If they go after Intel for this, then they must logically prosecute every company, large or small, that puts exclusivity provisions in their contracts. Are there any flaws in that logic?
I hate intel, I hope they burn in h**l
That's the way it's meant to be played for a fool!
Cheers!
Well, making exclusivity agreements is OK, ie "We'll give you a discount, but only if you agree to use only our processors." I don't see what's wrong with that, and it's common in every industry. If you're correct in your summary of the issue, that's what they've done, with some specifics thrown in: "We'll give you this price if you don't buy from AMD." It comes to the same thing. If they go after Intel for this, then they must logically prosecute every company, large or small, that puts exclusivity provisions in their contracts. Are there any flaws in that logic?
I work for a business that does exactly this. If you push a certain volume, or sign exclusive partnerships, etc you get additional rebates. This is pretty much standard in every business.
What is really being said by these commisions is that MS and Intel et al must stop competing in the traditional manner. This is why Apple avoids litigation over browsers, media players, etc. They aren't big enough to warrant "concern" and can make these deals until they are "too big" at which point it "hurts" the competition. Really a gray area.
@Daekar: Exclusivity agreemnets are not that cut and dry. They are barely legal at best. Especially when you make one with everyone and when you do it to force a competitor out of the market. Its called unfair competion, google it. Here's the wiki article for all its good for...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_competition