As far as I can tell, so far you've only presented the "nVidia sells more GPUs" -mantra. I'm at least presenting you logical causations, and even provide links that explain them and how they've come to be. You've done no such thing.
Please elaborate, at which point does my logic falter? And please tell me what indicators? If there are many, then surely you should be able to dish out some?
No, it actually doesn't PROVE that FreeSync is cheap, it only indicates it. There is naturally still some non-zero engineering cost for the manufacturer. It's just in a different league when compared to G-Sync, because it doesn't require a separate module. But it DOES prove that manufacturers are more keen on implementing FreeSync over G-Sync. Unless we include the fringe possibility of an unknown force behind the scenes that coerces all the manufacturers to do so, or something of similar nature.
Also, "happy to devalue their trademark"? Please elaborate. Yes, they want it to be implemented on monitors that support their tech. And they are indeed branding it as an inexpensive alternative to the overpriced G-Sync. As for HDR: AMD have set the minimum requirements for the different FreeSync categories, and manufacturers play ball with it. G-Sync has its own requirements, and manufacturers play ball with it, as well, but on a smaller scale. It's called differentiation.
Again, please do elaborate what you mean by all the indicators.
Thanks. I already am. I think the difference between us is that you only see the market, prices and shipments in a small scope, from an adjacent market, and draw your conclusions from them, without even taking any of the other stuff into account. Then again, you shouldn't take my statements as God's words, either. They're just forecasts based on my own interpretations. If I was always 100% right, I would make a fortune in the stock market.
I already commented on the price differences on the end of my previous message, please read it again. Ok wait, I'll give you an example, so we can put this to rest:
Store A (you) has debt they have to pay back to their investors, and rent to pay, and three slacking employees that you need to pay wages to.
Store B (someone else) is next door, and it owns the property it's in (no rent), is free from debt, and only has one cheap but skillful trainee handling the inventory and sales.
These factors (among others) mandate the stores' profit margins. Store A has more liabilities, so even if you get the same monitor for the same price as Store B, you have to set the prices higher to stay profitable. So the £300 monitor you both received from the manufacturer or the middleman, you'll have to set the price for £500, whereas Store B can sell it for £400. Now you have a different price between the stores, and Store B might still make even more profit than you.
Let's expand it to the price cuts:
If the said monitor is starting to lose interest among the customer base, and you have LOADS of them at the warehouse, you have to decide whether to sell them now at a small loss, or at a bigger loss a year from now. Or even worse, in five years get stuck with a merchandise that nobody wants, anymore, potentially having to PAY to send them to scrap yard.
So your example of a store that sells the monitor for a different price is an anecdotal evidence, at best. And I think someone already said something about those, as well...
In general, your message was avoiding all the questions and requests for clarifications. All your message basically says, is: "Nuh-uh, nuh-uh! YOU are!"
