I think the common theme in your examples is that in these situations other parties bend to Nvidia's demands. Nvidia has no problem with other parties bending t

I think the common theme in your examples is that in these situations other parties bend to Nvidia's demands. Nvidia has no problem with other parties bending to their demands. But when another company or organization requires Nvidia to bend to their demands, things go awry almost without exception. EDIT - for added detail: > - nvidia manufactures GPU chips, collaborates with dozens of OEMs to ship graphics cards Most (all?) of which bend to Nvidia's demands because Nvidia's been extremely successful in getting end users to want their chips, making the Nvidia chip a selling point. > - nvidia collaborates with IBM which ships Power8,9,10 processors all with nvidia technology IBM bends to Nvidia's demands so POWER can remain a relevant HPC platform. > - nvidia collaborates with OS vendors like microsoft very successfully Microsoft is the only significant OS vendor with which Nvidia collaborates successfully. It's true - but for the longest time Nvidia would have been out of business if they didn't. I will concede this point, but I don't find this is enough to paint a different picture. > - nvidia collaborated with mellanox successfully and acquired it Mellanox bent over to Nvidia's demands to such an extent that they were acquired. > - nvidia collaborates with ARM today... Collaboration in what sense? My impression is that Nvidia and ARM have a plain passive customer/supplier relationship today. > The claim that nvidia is bad at open source because it does not open source its Linux driver is also quite wrong, since NVIDIA contributes many many hours of paid developer time open source, has many open source products, donates money to many open source organizations, contributes with paid manpower to many open source organizations as well... Nvidia is humongously behind their competitors Intel and AMD in open source contribution while having a large amount more R&D in graphics. They are terrible at open source compared to the "industry standard" of their market, and only partake as far as it serves their short term needs. They are perfectly entitled to behave this way, by the way. But Nvidia's open source track record is only more evidence is that they don't understand how to work in an open ecosystem, not less. > You can take any big company, e.g., Apple, and paint a horrible case by cherry picking things (no Vulkan support on MacOSX forcing everyone to use Metal, they don't open source their C++ toolchain, etc.), yet Apple does many good things too (open sourced parts of their toolchain like LLVM, open source swift, etc.). The "whataboutism" is valid but completely irrelevant here. I would also not appreciate Apple buying ARM. > For example, you paint it as if Nvidia is the only company Apple has had problems with, yet Apple has parted ways with Intel, IBM (Power PCs), and many other companies in the past. Apple has parted ways with Intel, IBM, Motorola, Samsung (SoCs) and PowerVR for technology strategy reasons, not relationship reasons. Apple had no reason to part ways with Nvidia for technical reasons (especially considering they went to AMD instead), but did so because of the terrible relationship they built.