3 ms·
But them asking for as much money as (they think) you can bear because you’ve got nowhere else to go is. And on a market with a single real choice the differenc
by mananaysiempre 3y ago
But them asking for as much money as (they think) you can bear because you’ve got nowhere else to go is. And on a market with a single real choice the difference between the two is of quantity, not of quality. I’d say Nvidia is leaning towards the hostility side these days, although my absolute revulsion for software locks may be colouring my perspective.
To be clear, “hostility” is not the word I would’ve chosen, as it attributes emotions to entities that don’t really experience them. Perhaps it’s more useful to talk about whether the company cares if the customers feel exploited or not; and I don’t think Nvidia does (think this will hurt their sales).
- mccrory 3y agoI agree it isn’t hostility it is monopoly
- smoldesu 3y agoOnly if you consider software a commodity. Which... sorry to inject my personal opinion here, but it's not. Software is a finite intellectual product designed by motivated human laborers. The hardware can be a commodity, and the design can be a competitive advantage, but software layer is specifically what people consider "monopolized". Nvidia is not the only company designing GPGPU hardware, and they're not the only company capable of affording commodity silicon from TSMC. The only high-demand thing they entirely control seems to be CUDA, a software feature other companies are too lazy to reproduce. Maybe it's the rest of the market that's being anticompetitive?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cpp712 3y ago[dead]