Originally posted by gcribbs
http://biz.yahoo.com/rt/020429/tech_...crosoft_3.html

I guess they are fighting over prices. Microsoft want them to sell the chips at a loss and Nvidia wants to make a profit.


I think this will hurt Microsoft for an XBox 2. pissing off the graphics chipmaker is not the way to go. Unless they have already given up on that idea and are now just trying to cut losses.

"We're delighted we have a wonderful relationship with Microsoft and working on many fronts together, and the arbitration is just a step in an overall process in resolving this thing," Nvidia's Chief Executive Jen-Hsun Huang said.

Originally posted by Gallant Pig




Oh yeah they are really pissing them off!

And it's a good thing that Nvidia is the only graphics chipmaker.

Originally posted by gcribbs


Nvidia or ATI is really it right now. I do not think Ati is going to sell many consoles since they are not considered the best.

Originally posted by jeffdsmith


Graphics on the gamecube seem be doing pretty good with Gamespot calling RE the best looking video game ever...

Not to mention GC is selling better then xbox...

someone better inform ATI of their place. I'm just messing with you. I think ATI does a fine job, and on PC's their video cards for editing and such rock.

Also, nVidia recently filed an 8-K report with the SEC (basically an official report of current news that materially affects investors) in regards to MS having taken their dispute over the XBox contract into arbitration. Essentially, MS is trying to force a cut in their cost for the nVidia supplied parts in the XBox. If they're successful, it would go a long way towards cutting their production cost for the XBox.

Originally posted by Gallant Pig
This is actually old news, check out Belboz's thread.



Gribbs, don't you want cheaper Xbox prices? MS is doing what's best for the Xbox in trying to lower the price. I don't see anything wrong with that.

For more than seven years, NVIDIA has been a supplier of graphics processors and other technology for personal computer and other platforms based on technology from Microsoft Corporation. On March 5, 2000, we entered into an agreement with Microsoft in which we agreed, under certain terms and conditions, to develop and sell processors for use in the Xbox video game console. On February 14, 2001, we announced that our Xbox GPU and Xbox media communications processor were released to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, or TSMC, for prototype fabrication. These processors are fabricated on a .15-micron process technology and commercial shipment began in July 2001. In April 2000, Microsoft paid us $200 million under the agreement as an advance against processor purchases. This advance has been fully utilized due to purchases made by Microsoft through the quarter ended April 28, 2002 and Microsoft is currently paying in advance for processor chipsets sold to it.

We have been engaged with Microsoft in discussions related to pricing and volumes of the Xbox chipset. These discussions and our agreement contemplated use of a third party to resolve matters and on April 23, 2002 Microsoft submitted the matter to binding arbitration. Microsoft has requested that the arbitration panel require that we supply chipsets in whatever quantities are ordered by Microsoft. Microsoft has also asked for damages for alleged violations of the agreement and requested that the arbitration panel reduce chipset prices paid by Microsoft. We do not believe we have a requirements obligation to Microsoft and we plan to submit our position to the arbitration panel shortly. For sales of the Xbox media communication processor, we have deferred revenue in an amount equal to the difference between the price being paid by Microsoft and the price Microsoft claims it should be paying. This amount was approximately $13 million as of January 27, 2002, the end of our fiscal 2002. We expect that we will continue to defer such amount on future sales of this processor until resolution of the matter. The arbitration will be conducted in New York by a panel under the rules of the American Arbitration Association.

There can be no assurance that we will prevail in the arbitration or continue to supply graphics and other processors for the Xbox. If we do not prevail, we may (i) be compelled to deliver Xbox processors at reduced pricing, resulting in reduced gross margins, or a loss, on such processors; (ii) be required to reduce production and delivery of other products in order to satisfy obligations to Microsoft; (iii) be required to pay significant damages to Microsoft; or (iv) be subject to other remedies that could have a material adverse impact on our business. Even if we do prevail, there can be no assurance that our business will not be materially harmed.

Originally posted by jeffdsmith
Graphics on the gamecube seem be doing pretty good with Gamespot calling RE the best looking video game ever...

Originally posted by gcribbs

I also do believe that Nvidia is far and away a better graphics card maker than ATI. I am happy ATI is around to keep Nvidia honest with prices because if they get out of the consumer market we will be bent over by Nvidia.

I also do not think that the ATI name is selling the GC. The Nintendo name is selling it. The Nvidia name is far more valuable to the XBox the the ATI name is to the GC.

Originally posted by Mattalos


Oh jeezus, you've got to be kidding me.

Capcom has finally perfected the art of mixing prerendered scenery with ambient animations and polygonal objects, and the result is the most visually impressive video game ever released.

Originally posted by Aghama

You're definitely underselling ATI. But regardless, did the graphics chip maker actually entire into the equation when you were buying your console(s)? It certainly didn't for me, so I don't see why it would for the average consumer that doesn't have a clue about who NVIDIA or ATI are.