[Warning: Inquirer] Nvidia And AMD Accused Of Price-Fixing

Boogle · 25 May 2007 at 08:45

mulpsmebeauty said:
I'm not sure I agree with your logic on that one. You're saying it's the consumer's fault if they pay for a price fixed product? Sounds a bit like blaming the victim to me.

^ What he said

If both products charge the same price, then its not like you exactly have a choice. Its like car price fixing, if all the cars in each class are the same price and have close to the same features - then you don't have much choice do you?

ihatelag · 25 May 2007 at 09:12

All they need to say in court is that the high prices are attributed to R&D costs to produce the technology for those cards. Then those prices are fully justified.

Sparky · 25 May 2007 at 09:15

Boogle said:
^ What he said

If both products charge the same price, then its not like you exactly have a choice. Its like car price fixing, if all the cars in each class are the same price and have close to the same features - then you don't have much choice do you?

Of course you have a choice! Wait 3 months and get 1 then when its 25% cheaper

Killajaz · 25 May 2007 at 09:22

Boogle said:
^ What he said

If both products charge the same price, then its not like you exactly have a choice. Its like car price fixing, if all the cars in each class are the same price and have close to the same features - then you don't have much choice do you?

Yes you do which was essentially what I meant. If you wait a little, prices will drop and fluctuate more. Consumers want it NOW. If I was the supplier I would bank on it obviously, which is what ATI and NV are doing.

If indeed there is hard evidence proving a cartel then I agree they have taken it a step too far as it is not fair business practice.
In the end it all comes down to greed from both the supplier and consumer...
We all want as much as possible for as little as possible. People will go very far to get what they want at a price they believe to be right.

I will wait and see the outcome of any investigations and trial.

Schnippzle · 25 May 2007 at 09:37

ihatelag said:
All they need to say in court is that the high prices are attributed to R&D costs to produce the technology for those cards. Then those prices are fully justified.

I know you say that knowing that its not true, because ofc, if this was the case, then how the hell could they be filing profits?

IMO they should take a leaf out of CO-OP's book and become non-profit organisations who invest all their profit in developing new solutions.....or lowering their prices

Boogle · 25 May 2007 at 09:48

CS||nuTs said:
Of course you have a choice! Wait 3 months and get 1 then when its 25% cheaper

If only that were true. Often the price only drops a little. Usually they just replace the card with a new one to keep the price the same.

mrthingyx · 25 May 2007 at 10:09

IT would be interesting to see if this is a written admission.

If it is, they're going to have to defend themselves very vigourously...

Sparky · 25 May 2007 at 10:14

Boogle said:
If only that were true. Often the price only drops a little. Usually they just replace the card with a new one to keep the price the same.

So you buy the one you was going to?You feel you have to have the latest Tech then that is fine,just dont complain when they charge what they do.

Black Dragon · 25 May 2007 at 10:18

Who cares, we DO choose to pay an arm and a leg for the hardware, christ most of us are using graphics cards that way outstrip what the software can even do!

zytok · 25 May 2007 at 10:25

you need to remember that particularly in America (increasingly now in Britain) you can get sued for pretty much anything and usually lose. If a guy in the US can get $3m for crashing his camper-van after setting it to cruise control and then going to make a cup of coffee whilst moving then who's to say what can happen?

Boogle · 25 May 2007 at 10:31

CS||nuTs said:
So you buy the one you was going to?You feel you have to have the latest Tech then that is fine,just dont complain when they charge what they do.

You're not reading what I wrote. I'll try to make it simple:

Graphics card is due for price drop because it has been out for a while.

Instead of dropping the price, they stop manufacture and sell as much inventory as possible so there are only a few left.

Release a new card with a different name, at the same price point. May or may not be faster (both have been known to make slower cards).

So if you're lucky you'll find a card thats good value, but it'll be in constrained supply. Usually the prices for each class are static. Unless you think the (example) X1900XT is miraculously a lot cheaper right now?

Squink · 25 May 2007 at 10:36

I'm really struggling to understand why people are excusing the idea of price fixing as the buyer's fault (note that I make no specific mention of ATI or NVIDIA

) - "hey you paid the price, so it's fine. It's YOUR fault". If I can afford to pay £400 for a product to support a hobby that's good. Would I rather pay £300 for that same product because of market competition? Sure I would. Is it right that I paid £400 because 2 companies got together and decided they were going to aim their premium products at this price point? Erm...no it isn't. Is it my fault I can afford to pay £400 to fill my leisure time rather than £300? No that's not my fault either.

Sparky · 25 May 2007 at 10:38

I know exactly what you are saying,due to not being quite as thick as you seem to think i am! The thing you don't seem to understand is you do have a choice.You either buy it,refuse to buy it,buy a 8800GTS instead of a GTX [for example] or get 1 second hand when somebody else paid full price.

Seems quite simple to me.

Boogle · 25 May 2007 at 11:28

CS||nuTs said:
I know exactly what you are saying,due to not being quite as thick as you seem to think i am! The thing you don't seem to understand is you do have a choice.You either buy it,refuse to buy it,buy a 8800GTS instead of a GTX [for example] or get 1 second hand when somebody else paid full price.

Seems quite simple to me.

So lets say a company releases new blue paper. Another company also decides to release blue paper. It turns out quite successful due to being more readable. Both companies slowly release improved forms of the paper, slowing increasing the apparant quality. They soon find out that people are willing to pay a lot more money than they're currently charging and slowly increase the price they charge while the actual cost overall remains static to them.

Now, you could buy surpluss blue paper from other companies at a cheaper price. Or the tiny amount of stock (if u can find it) before the release of an improved batch, again at a cheaper price. But the vast majority of people have to pay the price either company is charging.

So, in this scenario is it fair that the two companies can keep raising prices, even though cost isn't neccesarily increasing? Sure there is the choice to just go for normal white, but it isn't as readable as the white. At some point the blue will surely become too expensive, but chances are the two paper companies will keep the price just below that point for the majority of their target market. This is artifically raising prices since the competition part of capitalism is being taken out of the equation. Either company could severely cut the price of the paper, but why should they? They have a nice symbiotic relationship going on where their profits are shooting through the roof.

zytok · 25 May 2007 at 11:47

I have to say that I wish Ferrari's were cheaper as well but as I can't afford one, I have to manage with a Peugeot 206 instead. Maybe Ferrari could decide to dominate the market and do everyone a favour by mass-producing them and selling them for £50K to price Lamborghini out of the market. On the other hand if everyone decided to boycott Ferrari in protest at their prices, they might decide to drop them but as long as a few people are happy to pay £100K+ for a Ferrari, they'll keep selling them at that.

People complaining about the prices of top-end nvidia and ATi cards and threatening to sue them are about as bad as the people who sued McDonalds for making them fat....

Boogle · 25 May 2007 at 11:53

zytok said:
I have to say that I wish Ferrari's were cheaper as well but as I can't afford one, I have to manage with a Peugeot 206 instead. Maybe Ferrari could decide to dominate the market and do everyone a favour by mass-producing them and selling them for £50K to price Lamborghini out of the market. On the other hand if everyone decided to boycott Ferrari in protest at their prices, they might decide to drop them but as long as a few people are happy to pay £100K+ for a Ferrari, they'll keep selling them at that.

People complaining about the prices of top-end nvidia and ATi cards and threatening to sue them are about as bad as the people who sued McDonalds for making them fat....

That's different. You're not dealing with two more or less equal products.

OK, lemme use some real world example. Recently RAM has been found to be price fixed a couple of times. Its not as simple as saying 'well, get slower/less RAM', the RAM was price-fixed. Are you saying that you don't prefer the lower RAM prices right now?

If NV/AMD are found guilty of price fixing, then that benefits everyone apart from NV/AMD. If they aren't guilty of it, then no one loses.

I remember when the fastest of fastest GPUs, at the very cutting edge, would be no more than £200-250.

Squink · 25 May 2007 at 11:56

zytok said:
but as long as a few people are happy to pay £100K+ for a Ferrari, they'll keep selling them at that.

There is no suggestion that Ferrari is price fixing is there - you are paying for soul, history, looks and performance. If you were paying for an absolute value (performance) you'd just pick up a 911 Turbo and save 30 grand. Would it be acceptable if you went to a Ferrari showroom and saw your dream car for £175000. Deciding that was too much you went to look at a Lamborghini and found that was priced at £175000. Thinking something was amiss, you went to look at an Aston and that was also £175000. You'd think that was a fair representation of a free market?

I don't know why I'm having to illustrate how price fixing is A Bad Thing

zytok · 25 May 2007 at 11:59

mulpsmebeauty said:
There is no suggestion that Ferrari is price fixing is there - you are paying for soul, history, looks and performance. If you were paying for an absolute value (performance) you'd just pick up a 911 Turbo and save 30 grand. Would it be acceptable if you went to a Ferrari showroom and saw your dream car for £175000. Deciding that was too much you went to look at a Lamborghini and found that was priced at £175000. Thinking something was amiss, you went to look at an Aston and that was also £175000. You'd think that was a fair representation of a free market?

I don't know why I'm having to illustrate how price fixing is A Bad Thing

because I for one am not convinced that they are price fixing. Just that to buy the best costs a packet. If you think it's too much, just get something cheaper. Top-end cards have always been expensive, remember paying £350 each for two Voodoo 2 12MB's in SLi many moons ago.

treebeard · 25 May 2007 at 12:00

zytok said:
People complaining about the prices of top-end nvidia and ATi cards and threatening to sue them are about as bad as the people who sued McDonalds for making them fat....

Yeah sure. They must love people like your good self who just bend over for them

There's nothing wrong with fighting back against corporate greed but we in this country are, unfortunately, well practised at queing in line and taking it.

zytok · 25 May 2007 at 12:01

treebeard said:
Yeah sure. They must love people like your good self who just bend over for them

There's nothing wrong with fighting back against corporate greed but we in this country are, unfortunately, well practised at queing in line and taking it.

I don't bend over, hence the reason I have a GTS instead of a GTX.