Another point with nvidia isn't "better product" but "what API does everyone use" and that's CUDA. Owned by NVIDIA. It would be like if SGI, who invented openGL as an open source version of their proprietary Iris GL, kept it proprietary, and now everyone uses SGI hardware because all games and 3D software use Iris GL. In this scenario SGI may also be very keen to make sure Iris GL has quirks that strongly tie it to SGI-only hardware to keep dominance. That seems a little more "okay you're overleveraging your position" versus "you put out a better product in a fair market"
> Another point with nvidia isn't "better product" but "what API does everyone use" and that's CUDA. Owned by NVIDIA.
One could very easily argue this is the status-quo; Microsoft ships DirectX which they withhold from competitors, and Apple does the same with Metal. Both of those monopolize their respective markets (PC gaming and mobile gaming) yet we see zero attempts to reconcile the two.
Because of the perceived hostility between vendors, I would not be surprised to see Nvidia argue that they're already as open as they could possibly be.
Except this isn’t actually even true on the surface.
Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on mobile gaming or even mobile. Windows is more of a monopoly than iOS, but it’s not a monopoly in gaming platforms by a large margin. OpenGL is a totally viable alternative. Etc.
CUDA is definitely a big part of the lock Nvidia has on their market. Other companies could with investment out class then hardware wise. But because of their API lock there’s no point.
Not really, given that Apple platforms have more or less entirely depreciated the featureset with no guarantee or expectation to keep it around.
> Other companies could with investment out class then hardware wise.
I don't even believe you. Who else can compete with Mellanox networking and custom ARM v9 cores? Even Apple doesn't really ship anything worth comparing to Nvidia's server offerings, and they're arguably best-positioned to usurp Nvidia's TSMC friendship.
