Topic: advertising first, product second

[Matthew]

Excellent sounding machine. Bravo to you for staying clear of the Intel/Nvidia monopolising crooks. With those two it's always advertising first, product second.

Because buzzwords like "Eyefinity" and selling cards in a gun case is totally not advertising first...

[Crash]

I hadn't really heard about those, especially the last one.
I know that eyefinity is a clever, multi-monitor-for-games setup that ATI pioneered. I don't see how making a technology and then giving it a name is "marketing first".
Interestingly, it was XFX that sold an ATI-5970-series based card in a gun case. XFX is one of ATI's licencees and not the ATI company itself. Plus, the idea was sweet!
I'm sure the Nvidia fanboys are irritated they didn't get the same.

But, having had Intel and Nvidia systems exclusively in my last two machines (up until last year you didn't get much choice in the matter with gaming notebooks), I can fairly state that what, especially Nvidia state on paper and what their products do in actual fact are two different things.

Now, having said that, those products have been very good overall and I certainly don't regret the purchases but I don't like people to think that Intel and Nvidia are their only options, or that inflated price equates to superior quality to the extent that those products become the only sensible options, because they aren't.
The best machine I've ever had is still an Athlon_64, which is 8 years old. I gave it a new ATI card last summer (AGP) and it still runs a treat. It might be antiquated in terms of speed but still comes in very useful and has never given me any hardware trouble.

What interests me more than buzzwords and packaging is companies' attitudes and when Intel settles with AMD for billions over its anti-competitive, monopoly-building practices, that what interests me.
Another thing I've never forgotten was how Microsoft broke its arrangement for ATI to co-develop the DirectX10 technology. If that arrangement had held, ATI was clear that it would deliver DirectX10 for Windows XP and wouldn't have to break compatibility as Nvidia had to.

Your examples seem a little ill-informed (or distorted) and ... perfunctory in comparison.

[-<WillyP>-]

Your examples seem a little ill-informed (or distorted) and ... perfunctory in comparison.

You gave a very limited example and presented it as if we should extrapolate your results to the the entire company. I have an Intel chip that is more than 15 years old works fine. Does that automaticly mean Intel is superior, and your AMD is inferior? No, of course not.

Excellent sounding machine. Bravo to you for staying clear of the Intel/Nvidia monopolising crooks. With those two it's always advertising first, product second.

Because buzzwords like "Eyefinity" and selling cards in a gun case is totally not advertising first...

He responded to you doing exactly what you are saying he did. I don't know about "Eyefinity" or selling cards in a gun case, but it is pretty clear what he meant, that other companies employ tactics that might be described as 'advertising first'. Yet you don't offer any support for your claims that Intel and Nvidia are crooks and that there is something wrong about the marketing tactics used by them.

[Scyphi]

Basically what WillyP's getting at is do your research before you go making claims such as this.

[Crash]

Excuse me? What is it about anti-competition that you don't understand? Surely that is an example that does show negatively on the entire Intel company.
Perhaps you would like to do some reading about it, because I know what I'm talking about.
However, how that would necessarily impinge on the quality of a product, especially one that's 15 years old is beyond me, infact your entire argument is beyond me too. Certainly, my message has never aimed to go in that direction and I find it disingenuous of you to suggest that it did.

NVIDIA
-------
Have you read my post? I'm saying that I have experience of products purchased by me, personally, where the advertising has not corresponded to Nvidia product's true functions. If you'd like me to enter into detail then I can.

INTEL
------
Certainly, Intel are monopolising crooks (I have supplied support for this, contrary to your claim ("and when Intel settles with AMD for billions over its anti-competitive, monopoly-building practices, that what interests me.")). - That has been all-but-proven in a court of law in the United States. Otherwise Intel would never have settled. They only did that to pay less in settlement than the damages that the court were sure to award - certainly not out of charity.

You're not telling me that such an enormous and landmark case is not more substantial evidence than what one individual reseller (totally divorced from ATI themselves) did to market an individual product.
Your other poster has actually (although I think unintentionally) lied or distorted the truth in saying that ATI did that, because they did not.
And with Eyefinity all they did was to invent a feature and give it a name. How are those examples more substantial than a landmark case?  What further evidence [ should I have to supply / would you like me ] to supply?
On the other hand, I haven't distorted or misunderstood the truth because the examples I have given are true, accurate (although lesser-known, perhaps) and more serious.
Don't tell me to do my research on that basis, please.

ARGUMENT
-----------
All I was saying is that I have owned both sides - I've been very pleased with both sides. I wasn't trying to say that AMD is superior in many cases. Certainly at the moment, they are going through hard times and have been since 2007. I worked near their corporate HQ in Dresden for a year and it was heartbreaking to see them cut as many jobs as they had to. So again, please don't tell me to do my research or whatever. I happen to know a fair bit about what I'm talking about.
What I'm trying to say, is that Intel and Nvidia are not the only, sole options and I think if you looked back at my message in that light, you would understand it better.
I'm trying to equalise and support the position that there is not just one viable combination in PC-puchasing (ie Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU) rather than what you seem to have somehow inferred from my message (which is to raise one above the other), which is not what I was doing.  That would simply be ridiculous and yet you seem to have interpreted the message in that way.

CONCLUSION
------------
I maintain my claim, based on the evidence presented that Intel is a crooked, monopolising firm that exercises economic duress on its customers to the intentional detriment of AMD because the court proceedings showed that they had and it was common knowledge in the industry.
I also maintain my claim that Nvidia markets its products in a misleading way at times, which I have never experienced in ATI. This contention is borne of personal purchasing experience and I would welcome some *actual* evidence, rather than just someone's personal objection to XFX's (an otherwise unrelated company's) packaging strategy, which actually refutes this. I'm sure it exists, it just hasn't been supplied yet.

I mean, what is the actual counter-argument there, anyway? "They put it in a packaging box that looked like a submachinegun and yet the GPU inside doesn't fire bullets?". How is that even a counter-example of what I'm saying (although I admit, I could/should have been clear about that in my first post), which is that Nvidia and Intel for that matter have a history of advertising their products in a misleading way? What is misleading about the shape of the box to a person with ordinary common-sense?

You've basically written two short paragraphs, both of which are either completely wrong or feature substantial inaccuracy. Pardon me for saying but I thought the owner of the site would treat the users with some greater degree of care, respect and courtesy than that.

[Kaiaatzl]

This activates the curiosity of my inner psychology student.
I sense there may be more to this than you're letting on .
It sounds like the way I feel when youtube videos of Descent make Rebirth out to be the only port, and don't even mention D2X-XL.  Sure, Rebirth is a good port, but so is D2X-XL and if people have a choice I get... pissed off if people who should mention they have a choice don't.

But as a psychology student I can't make judgements or take sides or anything.

[Crash]

Well, I'll tell you what I think that is.
It's a reaction to people who second-guess you and tell you to do *your* own research, when it's actually their argument and understanding that appears to be limited. Although I admit that I am very touchy when it comes to that but that is borne out of long experience and associated disappointment and confrontation.

I encourage you to psychoanalyse me, please. I took an A-level in psychology for two years and it was the greatest waste of time I've ever entertained, so I encourage you to lift my disillusionment in a sense.

Actually, I particularly enjoyed "evolutionary psychology". I found that to be a most entertaining element of the course.

Ah, looks like your message changed a little... I completely agree. I'm just admiring the OP's willingness to say with confidence, "well, AMD yeah, that sounds like a good deal and it should work really well". And I hope it does for him because there's nothing worse than an unstable machine.
I'm just saying that because I don't think, especially Intel is a particularly ethical firm, to say the very least.

My motivation for saying that comes from my time convincing St-Andrews University to develop an ethical investment policy whereby they refused to invest in unscrupulous firms. It took a huge amount of effort where University officials would make meetings and never show up to them to respond to our campaign and concerns.
I think ethical investment is an important issue. I haven't purchased (knowingly) anything from Nestle for example for ... about a decade and I'm 25 years old.
That's part of what drives me in this issue.

If anyone wants to attribute any other motives then they're welcome to do so and I'll happily debate them.

[Scyphi]

Nice impromptu research paper, Crash. 

And in my defense, I only made my above comment because WillyP had made it sound like somebody was being presumptuous about the matter, and I didn't know enough about the subject to say either way, so I opted to clarify his point (because I worried it got diluted in his post unintentionally) just because I felt a need. Otherwise, this is a matter I won't take sides in, at least not until I become much more educated on the subject at hand.

Now, at risk of further derailing the thread, I gotta ask, why haven't you (knowingly) purchased anything from Nestle?

[Crash]

Sorry for clearing my magazines into half the forum members and then reloading and emptying them again over what was just a misunderstanding. I was not having a good day on Sunday and I apologise. You should award yourselves a free copy of X-Bomber on me. Sorry.

I'm sure we can manage another little detour.

Nestle - if you look up "baby milk marketing", "Third World countries" and "Boycott" in conjunction with Nestle as well the "World Health Organisation" you'll be on the fast track.
When it comes to seriously endangering the lives of children in third world countries to the extent where many, many have been proven to have died as a result, for a profit, that's when my regard for a firm truly hits rock bottom.
It's a scandal that the issue is not more widely reported given that the issue has never gone away over the decades and in some respects has grown worse because they're simply evading international WHO rules by bribing African Doctors and officials to market their dangerous product for them instead. According to The Guardian and Care2.com, Nestle are now developing a kind of Nespresso-like system that will help them do the same thing even more effectively although for the time-being it is restricted to it's parent country; Switzerland.

You can also find some interesting videos of their CEO / Chairman on Youtube espousing some rather shocking views; some verging toward Neo-Naziism unless the Nestle PR division has been hard at work.

Nestle are also very keen on anti-union practices or "Union-busting".

Until I'm satisfied that things have changed (and that will take a lot given the stakes), I will never knowingly purchase another Nestle product. The problem is that Nestle products are sold under other names (for example when I was in Germany, I was unaware that 'Moewenpick' icecream was a Nestle product and so I bought a tub of that by accident but when I saw the logo on the bottom, I returned it to the supermarket (the principle behind which, I have to say, the Germans didn't really understand but I pressed the point and got my refund)).

It's only through years of gentle, sustained attrition that my parents have begun to move away from Nescafe.

[Kaiaatzl]

What is the product that is endangering lives?
Is it the product itself or the process they use to make it?

[Crash]

Well baby milk formula is inherently dangerous for use in developing countries because the water used to dilute it is often dirty/contaminated. And so 'human milk' is better because the mother works as a human filtering system.
So, the sale of baby formula in developing countries is severely restricted on those grounds by the World Health Organisation who has made many criticisms of Nestle. But those criticisms have been ignored and the rules and restrictions have been bent to breaking-point.

So, to answer the question: it is the product. There is no real way of making the product which makes it anywhere near as good as the natural, free alternative that it seeks to replace and yet the marketing "puff" and blerb always states the opposite.  People are effectively told by the company that they're putting their children at risk by *not* purchasing and using Nestle's product and then the child dies from water-borne disease/poisoning.

Disgraceful

[-<WillyP>-]

You have misunderstood my point completion, and your further post underscores exactly what I meant. You have made some wild, extravagant, yet completely vague accusations, provided no verifiable facts and references, yet you say to IHateHackers:

Your examples seem a little ill-informed (or distorted) and ... perfunctory in comparison.

His comment was clearly off the cuff and perhaps sarcastic, I don't think he was seriously attempting to debate you based on eyefinity or gun case packaging.

My point is not whether you have built a good case, you are not required to do so in order to discuss these issues. But don't be the pot calling the kettle black.

[Matthew]

Basically my point was that AMD/ATI is no better than NVidia or Intel.

[Crash]

Well, again at WillyP - your understanding of facts must be different to mine entirely.
You keep saying I provide no support or facts. Just what is it that you would like?
And yet my understanding of your "point" if there is one is no clearer than it was previously.

I stated that Intel is a corrupt firm. It is a statement of fact that AMD sued them for it and Intel caved on the matter to the tune of $1.25 Billion and US competition bodies have seized upon Intel's practices as well. Those are verifiable facts which I have already stated. What is wrong with you? The fact that you either can't be bothered to read them, weren't aware of them yourself and therefore distrust them (and can't be bothered to look them up) or that you find them inconvenient in some way is not my problem.

I do accuse you of not actually reading my earlier post and then going on to accuse me of saying various things which I infact hadn't (ie that AMD was in some way superior to Intel in terms of product quality) and implying that I had omitted things (ie. facts) which I had infact provided on careful reading. Those are not wild allegations. They are not vague. They are specific and they are based on a reasonable interpretation of the thread infront of me.
how is that wild, extravagant, vague etc? Not that nice I'm afraid but I think a fair and reasonable interpretation. Now, if I'm wrong about that then please explain it to me and I will apologise if necessary.

I think you've started sounding a bit like a broken record and wind-up merchant. I provide plenty of evidence (although I can think of more issues relating to Intel (ie. intentionally slowing down their own products when working with those of competitors)) backed up by a legal case (two infact) and you accuse me of not stating facts. The thing is - where are your facts exactly? All you can do is criticise *me* for not stating facts - where are *your* facts? Where is *your* actual counter-argument? Apart from the seemingly fallacious argument of "Crash can't state facts".

I think IHateHackers points were probably seriously made but not entirely representative once you got into the detail. I see no evidence to suggest otherwise apart from your suggestion and it's interesting that you only now bring this possibility to light. Why not mention it before when you were defending them? I would have thought it as relevant then as it is now.

Now if you want proof and links to articles that's fine but that's a different matter. That's saying instead "Crash, I don't believe the facts as you've stated them. Either you're a liar or too unintelligent to interpret them correctly and so I want *proof* of what you say". Is that what you'd like because I'll be happy to go on a link hunt because I am not backing down over this but I would like to know which you think me; a liar or unintelligent or both.

And I'll tell you another thing, since you've risen to that too. If I still had the time to run my own forum, I wouldn't treat my members with the 'wind-up merchant' "where are your facts" attitude that you show me! I tell you that right now! I would treat my visitors with a damn-side more respect than that because I would actually read their posts carefully and take the points on board and debate them in a normal way.
And if you want an apology over that, forget it because it's true and maybe you should just deal with it as and admin rather than saying "oh well that's too vague for me to bother taking seriously".

[-<WillyP>-]

I stated that Intel is a corrupt firm. It is a statement of fact that AMD sued them for it and Intel caved on the matter to the tune of $1.25 Billion and US competition bodies have seized upon Intel's practices as well. Those are verifiable facts which I have already stated. What is wrong with you? The fact that you either can't be bothered to read them, weren't aware of them yourself and therefore distrust them (and can't be bothered to look them up) or that you find them inconvenient in some way is not my problem.

I have read all your posts and you have not presented a fact, it is your opinion that Intel is corrupt. It may or may not be a fact that Intel was sued by AMD. However, being sued does not make a company corrupt. Neither of which has anything to do with your original claim, which was that Intel and Nvidia are 'monopolizing crooks'.