Bumpgate: Difference between revisions
Added some more details in Nvidia's company response. Also found the original Dell blog post! |
m →Rebuttal: Added a sentence and reference about the Nvidia CEO interview at Nvision '08. Also a few minor revisions. |
||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
On July 2nd, 2008- a few days before Demerjian's article was published- Nvidia filed a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).<ref name=":10" /> The report explained that the corporation would pay a $150-200 million one-time charge to cover customer warranties, repairs, returns, replacements, and other notable expenses caused by poor packaging material in some of their media and communications processors (MCPs) and GPUs exclusively used in laptops. This report also stated that all of their newly manufactured products from that point forward would have a more suitable material set. | On July 2nd, 2008- a few days before Demerjian's article was published- Nvidia filed a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).<ref name=":10" /> The report explained that the corporation would pay a $150-200 million one-time charge to cover customer warranties, repairs, returns, replacements, and other notable expenses caused by poor packaging material in some of their media and communications processors (MCPs) and GPUs exclusively used in laptops. This report also stated that all of their newly manufactured products from that point forward would have a more suitable material set. | ||
On the same day, EE Times published an article where Nvidia explained more about what the cause of the problem was.<ref>{{Cite web |last=LaPedus |first=Mark |date=2 Jul 2008 |title=Nvidia takes charge for bad chips, but who is to blame? |url=http://eetimes.com/electronics-products/processors/4105543/Nvidia-takes-charge-for-bad-chips-but-who-is-to-blame- |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121117035658/http://eetimes.com/electronics-products/processors/4105543/Nvidia-takes-charge-for-bad-chips-but-who-is-to-blame- |archive-date=17 Nov 2012 |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=EE Times}}</ref> Nvidia had stated in an email that one of their many packaging partners, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (TSMC), was responsible. However, a subsequent email backpedaled on this response. In the next email, Nvidia stated that they "worked closely" with TSMC on the packaging and material, and hence took full responsibility. DigiTimes attempted to ask TSMC and some of Nvidia's other packaging partners about the defective chips, but TSMC declined a response, citing "client confidentiality", and the other partners did not know anything about the issue because the chips were from an older generation by that point.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lee |first=Ingrid |last2=Shen |first2=Steve |date=4 Jul 2008 |title=Nvidia contract makers in Taiwan low-key over defective chip reports |url=http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20080704PD210.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080704211726/http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20080704PD210.html |archive-date=4 Jul 2008 |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=DIGITIMES}}</ref> | On the same day, EE Times published an article where Nvidia explained more about what the cause of the problem was.<ref>{{Cite web |last=LaPedus |first=Mark |date=2 Jul 2008 |title=Nvidia takes charge for bad chips, but who is to blame? |url=http://eetimes.com/electronics-products/processors/4105543/Nvidia-takes-charge-for-bad-chips-but-who-is-to-blame- |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121117035658/http://eetimes.com/electronics-products/processors/4105543/Nvidia-takes-charge-for-bad-chips-but-who-is-to-blame- |archive-date=17 Nov 2012 |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=EE Times}}</ref> Nvidia had stated in an email that one of their many packaging partners, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (TSMC), was responsible. However, a subsequent email backpedaled on this response. In the next email, Nvidia stated that they "worked closely" with TSMC on the packaging and material, and hence took full responsibility. DigiTimes attempted to ask TSMC and some of Nvidia's other packaging partners about the defective chips, but TSMC declined a response, citing "client confidentiality", and the other partners did not know anything about the issue because the chips were from an older generation by that point.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lee |first=Ingrid |last2=Shen |first2=Steve |date=4 Jul 2008 |title=Nvidia contract makers in Taiwan low-key over defective chip reports |url=http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20080704PD210.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080704211726/http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20080704PD210.html |archive-date=4 Jul 2008 |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=DIGITIMES}}</ref> In August 2008, Nvidia's CEO Jen-Hsun Huang explained how the company would handle the defect in an interview during Nvision 2008, claiming that Nvidia would take some responsibility for the defect and pay manufacturers to help consumers fix their devices.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Scath (Reuploader) |date=25 Aug 2008 |title=Nvision: Nvidia CEO Talks About Chip Failure |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZB6kxxgnOQ&t=275 |url-status=live |access-date=27 Jun 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref> | ||
Joel Hruska from Ars Technica explained that if Nvidia ''was'' trying to cover up the defect- as Demerjian claimed- with this report to the SEC, they not only attempted to avoid responsibility and accused their suppliers of causing the problem, they also committed financial fraud by intentionally lowballing their expected financial losses. This is a major accusation that could have had severe consequences for Nvidia, and could have been dangerous for the company.<ref name=":11">{{Cite web |last=Hruska |first=Joel |date=16 Jul 2008 |title=NVIDIA denies rumors of faulty chips, mass GPU failures |url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/07/nvidia-denies-rumors-of-mass-gpu-failures/ |url-status=live |access-date=8 Jun 2025 |website=Ars Technica}}</ref> However, it is difficult to verify if Nvidia was lying or simply not fully aware of the scale of Bumpgate. Nvidia's public acknowledgement of the defect in the SEC report is consistent with when Dell<ref name=":8" /> and HP<ref name=":7" /> discovered the problem. Although Sony never made a statement on the "Yellow Light of Death", this is even consistent with when they switched the PlayStation 3 to the non-defective 65nm RSX.<ref name=":6" /> The only company it does not appear consistent with is Apple, who discovered the defect in their Macbook Pro systems after their own investigation in September 2008.<ref name=":9" /> Even so, it is possible that Nvidia did not know that the GeForce 8600M GT GPUs in the 2007-2008 Macbook Pro were impacted yet when Apple asked them about it, because the situation was still developing. | Joel Hruska from Ars Technica explained that if Nvidia ''was'' trying to cover up the defect- as Demerjian claimed- with this report to the SEC, they not only attempted to avoid responsibility and accused their suppliers of causing the problem, they also committed financial fraud by intentionally lowballing their expected financial losses. This is a major accusation that could have had severe consequences for Nvidia, and could have been dangerous for the company.<ref name=":11">{{Cite web |last=Hruska |first=Joel |date=16 Jul 2008 |title=NVIDIA denies rumors of faulty chips, mass GPU failures |url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/07/nvidia-denies-rumors-of-mass-gpu-failures/ |url-status=live |access-date=8 Jun 2025 |website=Ars Technica}}</ref> However, it is difficult to verify if Nvidia was lying or simply not fully aware of the scale of Bumpgate. Nvidia's public acknowledgement of the defect in the SEC report is consistent with when Dell<ref name=":8" /> and HP<ref name=":7" /> discovered the problem. Although Sony never made a statement on the "Yellow Light of Death", this is even consistent with when they switched the PlayStation 3 to the non-defective 65nm RSX.<ref name=":6" /> The only company it does not appear consistent with is Apple, who discovered the defect in their Macbook Pro systems after their own investigation in September 2008.<ref name=":9" /> Even so, it is possible that Nvidia did not know that the GeForce 8600M GT GPUs in the 2007-2008 Macbook Pro were impacted yet when Apple asked them about it, because the situation was still developing. | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
===Claims=== | ===Claims=== | ||
Class members claimed that Nvidia had manufactured defective GPUs and knowingly failed to compensate them. | Class members claimed that Nvidia had manufactured defective GPUs and knowingly failed to compensate them. <!-- Expand with more details on class members' claims. -V --> | ||
===Rebuttal=== | ===Rebuttal=== | ||
Nvidia denied | Throughout the lawsuit, Nvidia continually denied allegations of intentional wrongdoing. <!-- Expand with the response of Nvidia or counterclaims. -V --> | ||
===Outcome - Settlement and Class Member Appeal=== | ===Outcome - Settlement and Class Member Appeal=== | ||
Nvidia opted for a settlement<ref>{{Cite web |date=2010 |title=Frequently Asked Questions - What can I get from the settlement? |url=http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/faq.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101001080625/http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/faq.html |archive-date=1 Sep 2010 |access-date=13 Jun 2025 |website=The NVIDIA GPU Litigation}}</ref>- though, asserted that the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing. Consumers who participated as settlement class members were presented with three options to be compensated, with all benefits paid for by Nvidia: | Nvidia opted for a settlement<ref>{{Cite web |date=2010 |title=Frequently Asked Questions - What can I get from the settlement? |url=http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/faq.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101001080625/http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/faq.html |archive-date=1 Sep 2010 |access-date=13 Jun 2025 |website=The NVIDIA GPU Litigation}}</ref>- though, still asserted that the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing. Consumers who participated as settlement class members were presented with three options to be compensated, with all benefits paid for by Nvidia: | ||
#A replacement GPU inside their affected notebook; | #A replacement GPU inside their affected notebook; | ||
| Line 89: | Line 84: | ||
==Consumer response== | ==Consumer response== | ||
===Microsoft (Xbox 360) Consumer Response=== | |||
===Xbox 360 | |||
At first, consumers were angry at Microsoft. During the months that the company would not acknowledge the widespread "Red Ring of Death", many consumers felt as if they'd been tricked and made a bad investment when they purchased an Xbox 360. However, when Microsoft extended the warranty on Xbox 360s experiencing an E74 error to three years after purchase, consumer sentiment improved. In Chapter 5 of ''Power On: The Story of Xbox,''<ref name=":3" /> hardware engineers for Xbox during this era explained the problem that caused the "Red Ring of Death" in enough detail for consumers to understand, leaving many consumers who remembered dealing with this issue feeling further validated and restoring some trust in Microsoft and the Xbox brand. | At first, consumers were angry at Microsoft. During the months that the company would not acknowledge the widespread "Red Ring of Death", many consumers felt as if they'd been tricked and made a bad investment when they purchased an Xbox 360. However, when Microsoft extended the warranty on Xbox 360s experiencing an E74 error to three years after purchase, consumer sentiment improved. In Chapter 5 of ''Power On: The Story of Xbox,''<ref name=":3" /> hardware engineers for Xbox during this era explained the problem that caused the "Red Ring of Death" in enough detail for consumers to understand, leaving many consumers who remembered dealing with this issue feeling further validated and restoring some trust in Microsoft and the Xbox brand. | ||
| Line 98: | Line 91: | ||
Although the majority of Xbox 360 consoles affected by Bumpgate were repaired by Microsoft as part of their extended warranty program, there were some that managed to slip through the cracks, so consumers today still need to be informed. It is generally recommended by retro console enthusiasts to purchase Xbox 360 consoles manufactured after May 2008 (or marked "Q2 2008") and avoid consoles manufactured before this point, but the Tonasket (AKA "Jasper Kronos" or "Jasper V2") motherboard revision is generally considered to be the most reliable of the original "phat" model Xbox 360 consoles.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nadaman |last2=et al. |date=8 Jun 2025 |title=Xbox 360 - Buying Guide |url=https://consolemods.org/wiki/Xbox_360:Buying_Guide |url-status=live |access-date=14 Jun 2025 |website=ConsoleMods Wiki}}</ref> | Although the majority of Xbox 360 consoles affected by Bumpgate were repaired by Microsoft as part of their extended warranty program, there were some that managed to slip through the cracks, so consumers today still need to be informed. It is generally recommended by retro console enthusiasts to purchase Xbox 360 consoles manufactured after May 2008 (or marked "Q2 2008") and avoid consoles manufactured before this point, but the Tonasket (AKA "Jasper Kronos" or "Jasper V2") motherboard revision is generally considered to be the most reliable of the original "phat" model Xbox 360 consoles.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nadaman |last2=et al. |date=8 Jun 2025 |title=Xbox 360 - Buying Guide |url=https://consolemods.org/wiki/Xbox_360:Buying_Guide |url-status=live |access-date=14 Jun 2025 |website=ConsoleMods Wiki}}</ref> | ||
===PlayStation 3 | ===Sony (PlayStation 3) Consumer Response=== | ||
Consumers who experienced the "Yellow Light of Death" were upset with Sony for their poor response. Some, such as PS3 modding and repair enthusiast "RIP Felix", described Sony's response as "gaslighting"<ref name=":2" />- saying that Sony had manipulated consumers into thinking that there was no widespread defect. The six-page letter from Ray Maguire to the BBC following their Watchdog segment takes a tone that supports Felix's claim<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" />; By 2009, Sony had stopped producing PS3s with the defective 90nm RSX- which left many consumers suspicious that Sony was trying to cover up the problem to avoid taking responsibility for it. | Consumers who experienced the "Yellow Light of Death" were upset with Sony for their poor response. Some, such as PS3 modding and repair enthusiast "RIP Felix", described Sony's response as "gaslighting"<ref name=":2" />- saying that Sony had manipulated consumers into thinking that there was no widespread defect. The six-page letter from Ray Maguire to the BBC following their Watchdog segment takes a tone that supports Felix's claim<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" />; By 2009, Sony had stopped producing PS3s with the defective 90nm RSX- which left many consumers suspicious that Sony was trying to cover up the problem to avoid taking responsibility for it. | ||