5 ms·

When you're thirsty, you buy from the person selling water. I don't think you'll find a lot of love lost between the OXMs and nvidia. I'm sure they would lov

When you're thirsty, you buy from the person selling water. I don't think you'll find a lot of love lost between the OXMs and nvidia. I'm sure they would love more competitors in the space. We have people licensing Arm and building interesting CPUs (Ampere). I'm not sure that the NVIDIA acquisition would be good for the market or for Arm.

tw04 6y ago
You haven't explained why Intel is entering the licensing business. If vendors have no desire to get their licensing from a company that competes in the space, there should be no demand for licensing from Intel, all of those OXMs should be going to ARM.
- smachiz 6y ago
  You haven't demonstrated that anyone /is/ entering into contracts with Intel. Intel has done lots of things that it turns out people didn't want to do (with them).
  - tw04 6y ago
    They absolutely have people signing up, none of it has been publicly announced (that I've seen) but we already know they were doing custom designs for Facebook/Amazon/MS so they would be logical first-takers.
    - Judgmentality 6y ago
      > They absolutely have people signing up, none of it has been publicly announced I can't tell if you're saying you have insider information or you're just assuming they're getting customers with no evidence.
    - smachiz 6y ago
      None of those are OXMs and are the end customer. That is totally different than what your original assertion was.
      - tw04 6y ago
        So tell me what an OXM is? Because Amazon sells outpost, an appliance, to end users. And Annapurna (owned by Amazon) sells CPUs to all sorts of vendors, including Ubiquiti and Synology.
- robert_foss 6y ago
  Nor have we seen any serious uptake of Intels licensing business. It's a paper launch. Adding to that Intel didn't exactly pick this model as their first choice. The combination of a wafer production shortage and Intels CPUs underperforming is what drove Intel to this. It is neither Intels or most feasible clients first choice.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  The thing about Nvidia is they have spent a lot of money creating a kind of chip+ecosystem situation that is unique and superior to all that's out there. And they charge a gruesome premium on that and use product and license differentiation to extract the maximum in each submarket. It's logical and perhaps necessary strategy to get a return on their huge investment. But it is just as logical that everyone hates them. This is what successful investment leading to a unique technology leading to a monopoly position looks like. Intel once was in a similar position to Nvidia and everyone hated them then. The failure of their last few generation has meant they don't have as strong a monopoly position and so have to start taking a more conciliatory position with the market. I don't know if they're succeeding here but it's obvious they've been "humbled". Now, maybe Nvidia will treat ARM completely differently than it's GPUs. But companies tend to have single cultures and so it's easy to imagine Nvidia squeezing dimes from other ARM customers, where ARM has been at the opposite side of the market, reasonably priced, good-enough tech. Charging a high premium on your capital investment works for a market leader, that uses the money for more investment. But for a market followers, the same strategy results in market share shrinking 'till the whole thing dies (not that this isn't a way to make money but when the thing dies, some people are unhappy).
volta83 6y ago
> We have people licensing Arm and building interesting CPUs (Ampere). > I'm not sure that the NVIDIA acquisition would be good for the market or for Arm. NVIDIA works with Ampere and just started shipping server nodes with Ampere CPUs. If that was bad for Ampere, they would not be working with NVIDIA on this. Not that you are right/wrong (I don't know), but Ampere appears to be an example that shows the opposite of what you are trying to claim.

tw04 6y ago

You haven't explained why Intel is entering the licensing business. If vendors have no desire to get their licensing from a company that competes in the space, there should be no demand for licensing from Intel, all of those OXMs should be going to ARM.

smachiz 6y ago
You haven't demonstrated that anyone /is/ entering into contracts with Intel. Intel has done lots of things that it turns out people didn't want to do (with them).
- tw04 6y ago
  They absolutely have people signing up, none of it has been publicly announced (that I've seen) but we already know they were doing custom designs for Facebook/Amazon/MS so they would be logical first-takers.
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    > They absolutely have people signing up, none of it has been publicly announced I can't tell if you're saying you have insider information or you're just assuming they're getting customers with no evidence.
  - smachiz 6y ago
    None of those are OXMs and are the end customer. That is totally different than what your original assertion was.
    - tw04 6y ago
      So tell me what an OXM is? Because Amazon sells outpost, an appliance, to end users. And Annapurna (owned by Amazon) sells CPUs to all sorts of vendors, including Ubiquiti and Synology.
robert_foss 6y ago
Nor have we seen any serious uptake of Intels licensing business. It's a paper launch. Adding to that Intel didn't exactly pick this model as their first choice. The combination of a wafer production shortage and Intels CPUs underperforming is what drove Intel to this. It is neither Intels or most feasible clients first choice.
joe_the_user 6y ago
The thing about Nvidia is they have spent a lot of money creating a kind of chip+ecosystem situation that is unique and superior to all that's out there. And they charge a gruesome premium on that and use product and license differentiation to extract the maximum in each submarket. It's logical and perhaps necessary strategy to get a return on their huge investment. But it is just as logical that everyone hates them. This is what successful investment leading to a unique technology leading to a monopoly position looks like. Intel once was in a similar position to Nvidia and everyone hated them then. The failure of their last few generation has meant they don't have as strong a monopoly position and so have to start taking a more conciliatory position with the market. I don't know if they're succeeding here but it's obvious they've been "humbled". Now, maybe Nvidia will treat ARM completely differently than it's GPUs. But companies tend to have single cultures and so it's easy to imagine Nvidia squeezing dimes from other ARM customers, where ARM has been at the opposite side of the market, reasonably priced, good-enough tech. Charging a high premium on your capital investment works for a market leader, that uses the money for more investment. But for a market followers, the same strategy results in market share shrinking 'till the whole thing dies (not that this isn't a way to make money but when the thing dies, some people are unhappy).

volta83 6y ago

> We have people licensing Arm and building interesting CPUs (Ampere). > I'm not sure that the NVIDIA acquisition would be good for the market or for Arm. NVIDIA works with Ampere and just started shipping server nodes with Ampere CPUs. If that was bad for Ampere, they would not be working with NVIDIA on this. Not that you are right/wrong (I don't know), but Ampere appears to be an example that shows the opposite of what you are trying to claim.