is he going to sue nvidia too?
Micron Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: MU), a global leader in memory and storage solutions, today announced it has begun volume production of its HBM3E (High Bandwidth Memory 3E) solution. Micron’s 24GB 8H HBM3E will be part of NVIDIA H200 Tensor Core GPUs, which will begin shipping in the second calendar quarter of 2024. This milestone positions Micron at the forefront of the industry, empowering artificial intelligence (AI) solutions with HBM3E’s industry-leading performance and energy efficiency.
Of course they are/do. Any other company would use their leverage to control their partners/customers as well, if they could.
Similar to AMD's dominance and influence over partners in the game console market?The difference is that Nvidia is probably dominant enough in their market that them doing it is illegal.
Similar to AMD's dominance and influence over partners in the game console market?
Nvidia is not "a monopolist" though and their market "power" comes from their products advantage. Saying that you should "play under different rules" here is the same as saying "hey why don't you make your products worse for the sake of competition".Being a monopolist/having market power is not in itself wrong, it just means that you have to play under different rules.
these are vastly different scenarios so no, not similarSimilar to AMD's dominance and influence over partners in the game console market?
All such discussions belong in a RSPC thread as it is highly speculative and based on rumor, not fact. Also considering original source of the rumor and any motives or financial incentives involved would garner discussion related any possible involvement by his former employer.these are vastly different scenarios so no, not similar
( but if there are questionable practices to mention wrt AMD's console's participation i think it would make for some interesting posts, they just wouldn't belong in this thread)
The difference is that Nvidia is probably dominant enough in their market that them doing it is illegal.
I don’t think this is dominance. There’s 0 value for nvidia to engage in space. Little revenue, no benefit. AI space is what balloons their market cap, not consoles. One may even say that it could lower your value.Similar to AMD's dominance and influence over partners in the game console market?
Using hardware market dominance to encourage game producers (software) to avoid rival technology in PC ports to increase market penetration where they have a less dominant position.I don’t think this is dominance. There’s 0 value for nvidia to engage in space. Little revenue, no benefit. AI space is what balloons their market cap, not consoles. One may even say that it could lower your value.
Your post is correct, the monopoly, if someone were to make the argument, is in CUDA. No cuda, then you’re not going to get any library support. So typically we see cpu based AI libraries or cuda based libraries. The OpenCl unfortunately did not take off. If it had, we would see larger competition in the space. It’s an interesting thing because data science space is completely dominated by open source, except for this one thing: CUDANvidia doesn’t have a monopoly on AI training and inference. The definition of monopoly doesn’t include “more popular because better at doing the same thing as competing products”.
There’s no barrier for entry for nvidia to enter the console space. And nvidia owns 80% of the GPU space on PC.Using hardware market dominance to encourage game producers (software) to avoid rival technology in PC ports to increase market penetration where they have a less dominant position.
However CUDA IP is owned by Nvidia, not an independent third party service company.Your post is correct, the monopoly, if someone were to make the argument, is in CUDA. No cuda, then you’re not going to get any library support. So typically we see cpu based AI libraries or cuda based libraries. The OpenCl unfortunately did not take off. If it had, we would see larger competition in the space. It’s an interesting thing because data science space is completely dominated by open source, except for this one thing: CUDA
Agreed, thus I think it was unecessary to make the question/comparison if it can't be backed up by anything substantialBut these all would be RSPC topics at best.
Yea. I know. But no one else can deploy cuda on their cards. Thus even if you make AI hardware you have no library support, therefore no one will purchase your stuff unless they are willing to remake libraries in opencl.However CUDA IP is owned by Nvidia, not an independent third party service company.
Nvidia products includes both a hardware and software components. It is a moat and always has been so nothing new there except it's popularity.Yea. I know. But no one else can deploy cuda on their cards. Thus even if you make AI hardware you have no library support, therefore no one will purchase your stuff unless they are willing to remake libraries in opencl.
It is a bit like windows in that sense. All the applications are made for windows and not Linux. And because of this everyone chooses windows, not because it’s necessarily a better OS.
That dominance may not last forever, but I see why someone would point to similar parallels.
Yep I agree, which is why there hasn’t been any legal battle about it. You’re not likely to be able to prove it and we see a variety of hardware being used to do all sorts of things (from training to just running models) in the AI space. Nvidia is just most dominant in the training space.Nvidia products includes both a hardware and software components. It is a moat and always has been so nothing new there except it's popularity.
In the same vein AMD hardware has it's ROCM software component (AFAIK doesn't run on Nvidia or Intel gpus).