NVIDIA Forbids GeForce Driver Deployment in Data Centers

[xorbe]

That's bad when you manage to make Intel's antics look good.

 

[Fluffmeister]

Nice problem to have, everyone wants your products. Great efficiency and great ecosystem.

Think of the children!!!!!1

 

[lexluthermiester]

And are you sure this applies to commercial use? I.e. does a company also have the right to use things however it wants? Or is it just the consumers?

In the USA, and most of the civilized world, entities are treated as actual citizens, unfortunately. This status gives them the same, if not similar, rights.

What about typical software licenses?

They do not apply the same way. Any software that is required by or requires to function a specific hardware part, is legally bound to that hardware as a package. Manufacturers do not ever have the right to tell a private entity, be they are person, government, busines, etc., what they may or may not do with property they own. To lesser degree, the same applies to software as a stand alone product.

If you're right about NV, what stops companies from using non-commercial software?

Nothing, they do it all the time. It's not illegal or even unethical. The software dev can ask, they can even try to require that only commercial/business products be used in such environments, but statutory ownership/usage rights superceed those conditions and even copyright law itself.

In most cases (Microsoft, for example) a fully featured free version is available for learning. Why are companies paying millions for commercial SQL Server or Visual Studio?

Academic software is trickier, but at the end of the day, once you purchase academic software, it is yours to use in a manner that fits your needs. There are severe complexities that make software usage in a business/commercial environment somewhat iffy, but again that depends on use. In the context of NVidia's clauses, they state whatever they wish. What they can enforce is something else entirely.

This is an update to the GeForce EULA. How is this different to any other EULA enforcement case?

Just because something is in a contract doesn't automatically make it enforceable or even lawful. That's why consumer protection laws exist the world over. Those same laws generally apply to all consumers, including businesses. In this case, NVidia is blowing wind out their bum.

 

[notb]

In the USA, and most of the civilized world, entities are treated as actual citizens, unfortunately. This status gives them the same, if not similar, rights.

By all means, no. Not true.

They do not apply the same way. Any software that is required by or requires to function a specific hardware part, is legally bound to that hardware as a package. Manufacturers do not ever have the right to tell a private entity, be they are person, government, busines, etc., what they may or may not do with property they own. To lesser degree, the same applies to software as a stand alone product.

Can you support it with something? :-D
And you're wrong in the general statement that I've underlined. Manufacturers don't tell you what you can do. They tell you what you can't do - and they are allowed to do that - based on copyright.

The software dev can ask, they can even try to require that only commercial/business products be used in such environments, but statutory ownership/usage rights superceed those conditions and even copyright law itself.

Wrong again. Copyright is the fundamental ownership right. It is above the rights that the buyer/user has. Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.

Just because something is in a contract doesn't automatically make it enforceable or even lawful. That's why consumer protection laws exist the world over. Those same laws generally apply to all consumers, including businesses. In this case, NVidia is blowing wind out their bum.

Licensing is both enforceable and lawful. It has been for decades.
I just don't get how you missed that. What have you been doing for the last 30 years?

 

[londiste]

Consumer protection laws do not generally apply to all consumers. Or rather, they do, but businesses are not always defined to be part of consumers.

Enforcability is actually a really good question. I have a feeling that Nvidia has no plans to take this to court because that would just take too long. Cloud service provider likely has other contracts with Nvidia that will be used as leverage. Btw, Titans are almost exclusively sold by Nvidia themselves and warranty terms also state that datacenter usage voids warranty.

 

[remixedcat]

Hosting machines don't use Titans. This won't affect hosting costs one bit.


Or, you know, it could be that the data center companies advertise machines with desktop cards right on their websites...

it will because a lot more companies are offering them for compute ops. database performance is much faster.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Or rather, they do, but businesses are not always defined to be part of consumers.

True, and that's why I stated the term "generally". There are exceptions and whatnot. But many of those protections are there for business consumers.

Enforcability is actually a really good question. I have a feeling that Nvidia has no plans to take this to court because that would just take too long. Cloud service provider likely has other contracts with Nvidia that will be used as leverage. Btw, Titans are almost exclusively sold by Nvidia themselves and warranty terms also state that datacenter usage voids warranty.

The court option is always possible, whether or not it would succeed is going to depend on how good each legal counsel team is. Most companies would look at a loss of warranty status' as a part of the cost model. Not really gonna hold them back given the costs of the alternatives.

 

[londiste]

Also, I do not think the current TitanX case is the real problem Nvidia wants to tackle. Given the timing of EULA change, they want to prevent Titan Vs from being deployed in datacenters in large numbers.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Also, I do not think the current TitanX case is the real problem Nvidia wants to tackle. Given the timing of EULA change, they want to prevent Titan Vs from being deployed in datacenters in large numbers.

That is very likely the motivation. The TitanV is a monstrous number cruncher.

 

[qubit]

This nasty tactic is what happens when competition disappears - monopoly practices. Notice how NVIDIA don't say no to cryptomining. Why? Because AMD are still competitive there and actually beat NVIDIA hands down, that's why.

It could well be that a lawsuit will stop them doing this. After all, datacentre operators have got money behind them unlike the average Joe like us and can fight back against such malpractice.

 

[londiste]

qubit, what exactly makes this tactic nasty? Product segmentation is done by everyone.

They are not excluding cryptomining because AMD is more competitive there. They are excluding it because there is money in it for them unlike using Geforces for GPGPU/HPC applications.

Lawsuit, which is not likely to happen or I would say is not likely to be won by datacenter operators, would probably result in no more fully functional Titans rather than any other outcome. The reason datacenter operators have got money behind them is that they make money off the service that at least in part relies on the hardware in question. That makes it contractually and legally different from consumer use of cards.

 

[Aquinus]

This nasty tactic is what happens when competition disappears - monopoly practices. Notice how NVIDIA don't say no to cryptomining. Why? Because AMD are still competitive there and actually beat NVIDIA hands down, that's why.

It could well be that a lawsuit will stop them doing this. After all, datacentre operators have got money behind them unlike the average Joe like us and can fight back against such malpractice.

nVidia, the way you're meant to get played.

These kinds of business practices along with the hostility against the open source community is the very reason why I'm tolerating my 390.

 

[lexluthermiester]

hostility against the open source community

They're not that hostile. Not like this nonsense anyway.

 

[qubit]

qubit, what exactly makes this tactic nasty? Product segmentation is done by everyone.

They are not excluding cryptomining because AMD is more competitive there. They are excluding it because there is money in it for them unlike using Geforces for GPGPU/HPC applications.

Lawsuit, which is not likely to happen or I would say is not likely to be won by datacenter operators, would probably result in no more fully functional Titans rather than any other outcome. The reason datacenter operators have got money behind them is that they make money off the service that at least in part relies on the hardware in question. That makes it contractually and legally different from consumer use of cards.

There's a difference between genuine product segmentation and an obvious money grab, which this is.

A genuine example of product segmentation is between a GeForce card and it's Quadro or Tesla equivalent. Those professional cards will have near enough the same processing power in games, but have other hardware and software differences, such as more reliable hardware (eg ECC memory) cherry picked GPUs and general board design and greater effort spent on debugging and validation of the hardware and drivers as well as better customer support from NVIDIA. That's where all that extra money goes - as well as a reassuringly expensive markup, of course.

And yes, it's exactly because they know AMD is competitive in crypto. What do you think would happen if they excluded that too? All data centres using their cards for crypto would go AMD. Duh!

Yes, there are those legal differences, but I don't think they trump what I've said above.

nVidia, the way you're meant to get played.

These kinds of business practices along with the hostility against the open source community is the very reason why I'm tolerating my 390.

One does wonder how much influence Microsoft has in fostering such "hostilities" in the background. I'm thinking about their anti-Linux propaganda about a decade ago regarding "naked PCs" etc.

 

[londiste]

There's a difference between genuine product segmentation and an obvious money grab, which this is.

A genuine example of product segmentation is between a GeForce card and it's Quadro or Tesla equivalent. Those professional cards will have near enough the same processing power in games, but have other hardware and software differences, such as more reliable hardware (eg ECC memory) cherry picked GPUs and general board design and greater effort spent on debugging and validation of the hardware and drivers as well as better customer support from NVIDIA. That's where all that extra money goes - as well as a reassuringly expensive markup, of course.

Wait, what are you saying? When we look at what Quadro or Tesla equivalents provide over Geforce, then:
Hardware differences - Perhaps minor but check
Software differences - Check
More reliable hardware, board design etc - Check.
Greater effort on debugging validation etc - Check
Drivers and support - Check
Reassuringly expensive markup - Definitely check
What makes it not a genuine segmentation?

And yes, it's exactly because they know AMD is competitive in crypto. What do you think would happen if they excluded that too? All data centres using their cards for crypto would go AMD. Duh!

Why would they want to exclude cryptomining? What would be the reasoning behind it? They do not have crypto-specific hardware that they would rather want to sell. Or maybe they do but crypto-specific cards have so far been cheaper than standard Geforces and they probably do not mind all that much about someone buying more expensive stuff. AMD being more competitive is more of an afterthought here.

 

[qubit]

Wait, what are you saying? When we look at what Quadro or Tesla equivalents provide over Geforce, then:
Hardware differences - Perhaps minor but check
Software differences - Check
More reliable hardware, board design etc - Check.
Greater effort on debugging validation etc - Check
Drivers and support - Check
Reassuringly expensive markup - Definitely check
What makes it not a genuine segmentation?

I'm not sure you're comprehending properly here. I said, "A genuine example of product segmentation is between a GeForce card and it's Quadro or Tesla equivalent" and then went on to list those differences you checked off. So how did you manage to understand the opposite? Maybe you just got confused which I could forgive you for. Also, I wouldn't call a more expensive type of RAM with error correction a minor difference.

I don't know why you're still arguing about the cryptomining.

 

[londiste]

I'm not sure you're comprehending properly here. I said, "A genuine example of product segmentation is between a GeForce card and it's Quadro or Tesla equivalent" and then went on to list those differences you checked off. So how did you manage to understand the opposite? Maybe you just got confused which I could forgive you for. Also, I wouldn't call a more expensive type of RAM with error correction a minor difference.

You are right, I somehow completely misunderstood what you said.
But that is exactly the product segmentation that we are talking about. What makes this an obvious money grab then as opposed to normal product segmentation?

I don't know why you're still arguing about the cryptomining.

While you claim it is all about AMD, there are pretty clear and simple business reasons for excluding cryptomining other than anything to do with AMD.

 

[Easo]

Is this fightable in a court? After all, I am not leasing those cards from Nvidia, they belong to me (just an example) and are pointless without drivers. And there has to be a justification WHY they cannot be used for said purposes.
Then again, not many would want to go against Nvidia, they have big coffers and the court process would last years and years, as is usual in these kinds of situations...

 

[GhostRyder]

I believe this will mostly affect the Titan brand cards as they were good alternatives for render machines with their high amounts of ram. I am trying to remember what big animation company used bunches of Titans in their servers to render 3D animation (Pixar maybe?). I don't think there is really going to be a problem with like GTX 1080 in data centers, just really the Titans (Unless something like the 1080ti is also being used now).

Either way, not a big fan of this. Seems the Titan series keeps losing points over and over again...

 

[razzaQ]

The short answer is: by buying software you're signing the EULA, which is fundamentally built around copyright (no other way, to be honest).

Buying software? where the hell did Sakura buy software? they bought gpus, not software, and EULA is worthless in courts, EULA does not mean anything in a court, btw, a peasant or a big company can use however they see fit a product they bought (except software in some cases).

 

[notb]

Buying software? where the hell did Sakura buy software? they bought gpus, not software, and EULA is worthless in courts, EULA does not mean anything in a court, btw, a peasant or a big company can use however they see fit a product they bought (except software in some cases).

No, it has been explained already. A GPU comes with drivers. There is an EULA for these drivers.

If you don't want to use the original drivers, you have 2 choices:
1) use your GPU as a paperweight, bookholder or something similar,
2) use non-manufacturer drivers.
Going with (2) you're losing manufacturer's support and warranty - a no-go for commercial datacenters.

Looking at this problem from a more customer-ish perspective, most people aren't really buying much software. They are buying computers. A computer usually includes something called Windows and something called MS Office. So, in your opinion, is this customer buying just hardware or also software?

And on the other hand, there is some software built-in the PC electronics (BIOS and other low-level stuff). These can be copyright-protected as well.

Do you own a car? Cars have huge amounts of software - not just drivers etc, but also the OS that operates the interfaces. Via the console (radio, navigation and stuff) you should be able to find the license information. So you bought a vehicle, but some software copyright is still in force.

 

[john_]

Yeah because we should all enjoy large datacenter companies gobble up ALL of the CONSUMER oriented gpu's so prices will go even higher for regular CONSUMER grade video cards and then we can complain to Nvidia that our Geforce cards are expensive in stores right?

This is a good move from Nvidia.

Nvidia can always produce more Titan/GeForce cards, or lower the price of Tesla/Quadro cards. Whatever suits them better.

 

[anubis44]

And people continue to feed this Green Goblin. They can keep doing what they want because people buy their stuff, even when it's worse than AMD's.

 

[notb]

And people continue to feed this Green Goblin. They can keep doing what they want because people buy their stuff, even when it's worse than AMD's.

Oh, is it?

What's wrong with this guy? This channel is just pure AMD fanboyism. :-D I watched a few videos and they provide hardly any information (even about AMD) - it's mostly just bashing Intel and NVIDIA. Is this the way proper fanboys think? I'm starting to worry I'm not worth of "Intel fanboy" order.
And it has 58k followers! Are these all AMD GPU owners or what?

EDIT:
I've watched his video about global warming (not a very good one, but whatever) and then checked THE COMMENTS!
It seems at least some of the 58k people follow him purely for entertainment. :-D

 

[Red_Machine]

Couldn't they simply elect not to install GeForce Experience? It is an optional install, after all. Just install the GPU driver.