ASUS has come under fire for cancelling an RTX 5090 order from a customer who had already paid $4607, only to relist the graphics card at a higher price of $5090. The customer learned that their initial order was cancelled due to ASUS's inability to fulfill it at the previous rate. This incident reflects broader price hikes within the GPU market, exacerbated by factors like the RAMpocalypse. Consumers are left questioning the reliability of GPU purchases amidst rising costs and vendor cancellations.
ASUS decided to cancel a customer's order and dramatically increased the price of the RTX 5090.
Unchanged: The base MSRP for the Founders Edition of the RTX 5090 remains at $1,999.
The news conveys a negative sentiment towards ASUS as consumers express dissatisfaction with the company's order cancellation and subsequent price hike.
The cancellation and pricing issues undermine consumer trust in hardware vendors.
Higher GPU prices could dampen gaming hardware sales, impacting the gaming community's ability to access new technology.
The company is criticized for cancelling orders and raising prices amidst a demand surge.
While NVIDIA supports the consumers, it has limited influence over partner pricing decisions.
This situation highlights serious issues with vendor reliability and pricing strategies in the GPU market. It raises consumer concern and could deter future purchases due to fears of cancellations and price increases.
Consumers are frustrated by order cancellations and unpredictable pricing in the GPU market.
The price increase affects the global consumer electronics market, leading to skepticism about vendor reliability.
Limited relevance to cybersecurity.
No relevant data governance concerns reported.
ASUS's actions risk long-term damage to its brand reputation.
Execution risks in fulfilling orders could persist.
Current infrastructure supports order fulfillment.
No direct geopolitical implications evident.
Potential for scrutiny on pricing practices in tech.
Ongoing supply chain issues may continue to affect product availability.
No immediate implications for talent displacement.
No specific AI liability risks observed.