3 ms·
Nvidia could have shifted the model by firing the customers and bringing things in-house. That'd involve phasing out ARM licensees and buying up leading node fa
by npunt 3y ago
Nvidia could have shifted the model by firing the customers and bringing things in-house. That'd involve phasing out ARM licensees and buying up leading node fab capacity to manufacture their own stuff.
If they pulled that off, that Nvidia would have been very powerful. CUDA + ARM + leading node would have put them in a similar position that Intel had with x86 back in the day.
The competition would have struggled there - nobody has CUDA equivalent, only AMD has GPU equivalent, nobody has install base of software like ARM. RISC-V (or intel) even executing super fast would have been years away from being competitive across the board like this.
It might have also wrecked AMD, since the weak point of their GPU strategy is reliance on x86. If Nvidia+ARM came on strong, that'd weaken x86's stranglehold on PCs, which would ultimately weaken AMD since they don't have a leading position in other markets to fall back on.
Nvidia would have a lock on mobile devices, the increasingly AI-based datacenters, as well as some degree of PC side including gamers. Microsoft would pick up on the software side and we'd have Winvidia instead of Wintel.
- giancarlostoro 3y agoThis sounds like one of the easiest anti-trust suits, it would be foolish for Nvidia to do this.
- npunt 3y agoWell antitrust is basically what stopped the deal from happening [1]. If they had gone through with the deal and done this strategy I imagine it would have been a slow 5-10 year shift, not an immediate action. > The main concern among regulators was that Nvidia, after the transaction, would have the ability and incentives to restrict access to its rivals to Arm´s technology, which would eventually lead to higher prices, less choice and reduced innovation. [2] [1]: https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/2110015-nvidiaarm-matter https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/2... [2]: https://www.pymnts.com/news/regulation/2022/collapse-of-nvidia-arm-66b-chip-deal-shows-more-than-antitrust-woes/ https://www.pymnts.com/news/regulation/2022/collapse-of-nvid...
- DeathArrow 3y ago>Nvidia could have shifted the model by firing the customers and bringing things in-house. That wouldn't work since many companies already had been licensing the ARM architecture, not just cores.
- npunt 3y agoWell there'd be a transition phase and an honoring of existing contracts to some extent but the way to do it would be to slow roll the release of customer ISA updates or stop providing ISA updates altogether, e.g. anything past ARMv9.4-A would be in-house only. After 4-5 years competition would be struggling.