3 ms·

This is not true and very ignorant. Linux has huge marketshare especially across server space where NVidia cards are used also. Furthermore plenty of people run

This is not true and very ignorant. Linux has huge marketshare especially across server space where NVidia cards are used also. Furthermore plenty of people run Linux desktops that would be affected by this. Consumer harm comes when there is intention to control consumer choice. Since Linux isn’t the biggest platform, but a major choice: It is therefor harmful for Nvidia to not support it properly. Check your bias.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Linux has huge marketshare especially across server space where NVidia cards are used also Consumers don't generally rent server space. It would be difficult to establish consumer harm on the basis of server prices. > Furthermore plenty of people run Linux desktops that would be affected by this Right, this is the insignificant bit. Inconveniencing 2 or 3% of the market is not a valid antitrust claim [1][2]. > Consumer harm comes when there is intention to control consumer choice No, it comes when you can prove prices were raised, output reduced, innovation diminished or customers were "otherwise harmed" [3]. To the degree intent is considered in the enabling case, it's in reading the intent of the Congress, not the defendant [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste... [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/north-america https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/north-ame... [3] https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/why-the-consumer-welfare-standard-is-the-backbone-of-antitrust-policy/#_ftn9 https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/why-the-consumer... [4] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/330/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/330/
- righthand 2y ago
  Consumers do rent server space and prices were manipulated, because they could control consumer choice. It’s all done for the control of the consumer, hence the antitrust.
- _nist 2y ago
  Output has been scarce for NVIDIA gpu's for quite some time. Often not even being able to support the demand for their cards. NVIDIA is a trillion dollar company right now. There should be no reason why they are restricting access to their reference cards and not able to support demand. You are also not counting handheld use such as the Steamdeck. There is a reason Steamdeck doesn't use NVIDIA graphics.
hot_gril 2y ago
All those Linux servers using Nvidia cards must be getting good enough support from Nvidia for what they need to do, otherwise they wouldn't use it. GNU/Linux desktop is a different story. Yes it's accurate to say that's an insignificant market share. And I said "GNU" to differentiate from the most popular Linux desktop OS, ChromeOS.
- righthand 2y ago
  So you’re just looking to isolate consumers so you can make a point. Linux users aren’t insignificant regardless how you roll the dice and want them to be. We push more technology forward than non-Linux users. The insignificance is just something Macos and Windows users tell themselves to feel good about their desire to dislike Linux as they spin up LXC containers.
  - hot_gril 2y ago
    They're different use cases from the industry's perspective. Nvidia supports GPU compute on Linux very well, but graphics not so much. I'm not interested in the OS fan wars and neither is Nvidia, but if you want to consider Linux server users the same as Linux desktop users instead of isolating them, you can count me on that side. I have an RPi, a PowerEdge, an Android phone, and yes an Alpine Linux Docker container on my Mac.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Linux has huge marketshare especially across server space where NVidia cards are used also Consumers don't generally rent server space. It would be difficult to establish consumer harm on the basis of server prices. > Furthermore plenty of people run Linux desktops that would be affected by this Right, this is the insignificant bit. Inconveniencing 2 or 3% of the market is not a valid antitrust claim [1][2]. > Consumer harm comes when there is intention to control consumer choice No, it comes when you can prove prices were raised, output reduced, innovation diminished or customers were "otherwise harmed" [3]. To the degree intent is considered in the enabling case, it's in reading the intent of the Congress, not the defendant [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_syste... [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/north-america https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/north-ame... [3] https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/why-the-consumer-welfare-standard-is-the-backbone-of-antitrust-policy/#_ftn9 https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/why-the-consumer... [4] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/330/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/442/330/

righthand 2y ago
Consumers do rent server space and prices were manipulated, because they could control consumer choice. It’s all done for the control of the consumer, hence the antitrust.
_nist 2y ago
Output has been scarce for NVIDIA gpu's for quite some time. Often not even being able to support the demand for their cards. NVIDIA is a trillion dollar company right now. There should be no reason why they are restricting access to their reference cards and not able to support demand. You are also not counting handheld use such as the Steamdeck. There is a reason Steamdeck doesn't use NVIDIA graphics.

hot_gril 2y ago

All those Linux servers using Nvidia cards must be getting good enough support from Nvidia for what they need to do, otherwise they wouldn't use it. GNU/Linux desktop is a different story. Yes it's accurate to say that's an insignificant market share. And I said "GNU" to differentiate from the most popular Linux desktop OS, ChromeOS.

righthand 2y ago
So you’re just looking to isolate consumers so you can make a point. Linux users aren’t insignificant regardless how you roll the dice and want them to be. We push more technology forward than non-Linux users. The insignificance is just something Macos and Windows users tell themselves to feel good about their desire to dislike Linux as they spin up LXC containers.
- hot_gril 2y ago
  They're different use cases from the industry's perspective. Nvidia supports GPU compute on Linux very well, but graphics not so much. I'm not interested in the OS fan wars and neither is Nvidia, but if you want to consider Linux server users the same as Linux desktop users instead of isolating them, you can count me on that side. I have an RPi, a PowerEdge, an Android phone, and yes an Alpine Linux Docker container on my Mac.