[righthand]

This is not true and very ignorant. Linux has huge marketshare especially across server space where NVidia cards are used also. Furthermore plenty of people run Linux desktops that would be affected by this.

Consumer harm comes when there is intention to control consumer choice. Since Linux isn’t the biggest platform, but a major choice: It is therefor harmful for Nvidia to not support it properly.

Check your bias.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Linux has huge marketshare especially across server space where NVidia cards are used also

Consumers don't generally rent server space. It would be difficult to establish consumer harm on the basis of server prices.

> Furthermore plenty of people run Linux desktops that would be affected by this

Right, this is the insignificant bit. Inconveniencing 2 or 3% of the market is not a valid antitrust claim [1][2].

> Consumer harm comes when there is intention to control consumer choice

No, it comes when you can prove prices were raised, output reduced, innovation diminished or customers were "otherwise harmed" [3]. To the degree intent is considered in the enabling case, it's in reading the intent of the Congress, not the defendant [4].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste...

[2] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/north-ame...

[3] https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/why-the-consumer...

[4] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/330/

[_nist]

Output has been scarce for NVIDIA gpu's for quite some time. Often not even being able to support the demand for their cards. NVIDIA is a trillion dollar company right now. There should be no reason why they are restricting access to their reference cards and not able to support demand.

You are also not counting handheld use such as the Steamdeck. There is a reason Steamdeck doesn't use NVIDIA graphics.

[righthand]

Consumers do rent server space and prices were manipulated, because they could control consumer choice. It’s all done for the control of the consumer, hence the antitrust.

[hot_gril]

All those Linux servers using Nvidia cards must be getting good enough support from Nvidia for what they need to do, otherwise they wouldn't use it.

GNU/Linux desktop is a different story. Yes it's accurate to say that's an insignificant market share. And I said "GNU" to differentiate from the most popular Linux desktop OS, ChromeOS.

[righthand]

So you’re just looking to isolate consumers so you can make a point. Linux users aren’t insignificant regardless how you roll the dice and want them to be. We push more technology forward than non-Linux users. The insignificance is just something Macos and Windows users tell themselves to feel good about their desire to dislike Linux as they spin up LXC containers.

[hot_gril]

They're different use cases from the industry's perspective. Nvidia supports GPU compute on Linux very well, but graphics not so much.

I'm not interested in the OS fan wars and neither is Nvidia, but if you want to consider Linux server users the same as Linux desktop users instead of isolating them, you can count me on that side. I have an RPi, a PowerEdge, an Android phone, and yes an Alpine Linux Docker container on my Mac.