|
|
|
|
|
|
by ksec
544 days ago
|
|
|
>They have a long, long history of price discrimination using techniques like this. Had AI and Crypto not been a thing. These so called price discrimination was what kept the company afloat and continue to spend stupid money ( according to many ) on CUDA rather than making gaming better. And when often people say "X" needs competition. What they really want is just cheaper price for the same thing. Would it be great if Nvidia had more competition? Absolutely, but is Nvidia not making progress and milking everything they have? Absolutely not. They invested even more in CUDA, Large Die Size Correction Tooling, Assisted EDA Design and many more to their arsenal to built their moat. I also often found when a successful founder is still working at a company, that company is often pushed far harder by its founder than whatever market force is driving them. So we need competition for Intel 2009 - 2021, Microsoft in 2000, Any company who just sit there and no longer improves or failed to execute. Nvidia? They are doing fine if not better than I could imagine. ( I just wished they spend a little more money to compete in the Mobile and Desktop Consumer SoC space. I guess that is coming soon. ) |
|
|
They'd probably be happy with competitive market pricing, which is unlikely to happen without a competitive market.
Nvidia's gross margins are extraordinary vs. AMD or intel margins (or even "overpriced" Apple.)
There is competition of a sort - for example at the low end with intel ARC and at the high end with AMD Instinct based supercomputers. However, competitors don't seem to be able to match the CUDA software platform, particularly for AI/ML. The deepening CUDA moat is hard for competitors to cross and for customers to escape.
In the cloud space it seems that Nvidia may face more competition with platforms like GCP/Cloud TPU and AWS/Trainium.