4 ms·

> Is it weird how the comments here are blaming AMD and not Nvidia? Nvidia has put in the legwork and are reaping the rewards. They've worked closely with the

by lmm 2y ago

> Is it weird how the comments here are blaming AMD and not Nvidia? Nvidia has put in the legwork and are reaping the rewards. They've worked closely with the people who are actually using their stuff, funding development and giving loads of support to researchers, teachers and so on, for probably a decade now. Why should they give all that away? > But there are counterexamples that suggest otherwise (Android). How is Android a counterexample? Google makes no money off of it, nor does anyone else. Google keeps Android open so that Apple can't move everyone onto their ad platform, so it's worth it for them as a strategic move, but Nvidia has no such motive. > Even if AMD made their own version of CUDA that was better in every way, it still wouldn’t gain adoption because CUDA has become the standard. Maybe. But again, that's because NVidia has been putting in the work to make something better for a decade or more. The best time for AMD to start actually trying was 10 years ago; the second-best time is today.

Zambyte 2y ago
> Google makes no money off of it, nor does anyone else Google makes no money off of Android? That seems like a really weird claim to make. Do you really think Google would be anywhere near as valuable of a company if iOS had all of the market share that the data vacuum that is Android has? I can't imagine that being the case. Google makes a boatload off of Android, just like AMD would if they supported open GPGPU efforts aggressively.
- michaelt 2y ago
  Google gave away the software platform - Android - to hardware vendors for free, vendors compete making the hardware into cheap, low-margin commodity items, and google makes boatloads of money from ads, tracking and the app store. nvidia could give away the software platform - CUDA - to hardware vendors for free, making the hardware into cheap, low-margin commodity items. But how would they make boatloads of money when there's nowhere to put ads, tracking or an app store?
- rjurney 2y ago
  Android is a complement to Google's business, which is when open source works. What would be the complement worth $1 Trillion to NVIDIA to build a truly open platform? There isn't one. That was his point.
  - chatmasta 2y ago
    There’s an entire derivative industry of GPUs, namely GenAI and LLM providers, that could be the “complement” to an open GPU platform. The exact design and interface between such a complement and platform is yet undefined, but I’m sure there are creative approaches to this problem.
    - rjurney 2y ago
      And NVIDIA is playing in that game too. Why would they not play in higher level services as well? They already publish the source to their entire software stack. A comparison to Android is completely useless. Google is a multi-sided platform that does lots of things for free for some people (web users, Android users) so it can charge other people for their data (ad buyers). That isn't the chip business whatsoever. The original comment only makes sense if you know nothing about their respective business models.
      - chatmasta 2y ago
        Yes, so when the ground inevitably shifts below their feet (it might happen years from now, but it will happen – open platforms always emerge and eventually proliferate), wouldn’t it be better for them to own that platform? On the other hand, they could always wait for the most viable threat to emerge and then pay a few billion dollars to acquire it and own its direction. Google didn’t invent Android, after all… > Google is a multi-sided platform that does lots of things for free for some people… That isn't the chip business whatsoever. This is a reductionist differentiation that overlooks the similarities between the platforms of “mobile” and “GPU” (and also mischaracterizes the business model of Google, who does in fact make money directly from Android sales, and even moved all the way down the stack to selling hardware). In fact there is even a potentially direct analogy between the two platforms: LLM is the top of the stack with GPU on the bottom, just like Advertising is the top of the stack with Mobile on the bottom. Yes, Google’s top level money printer is advertising, and everything they do (including Android) is about controlling the maximum number of layers below that money printer. But that doesn’t mean there is no benefit to Nvidia doing the same. They might approach it differently, since they currently own the bottom layer whereas Google started from the top layer. But the end result of controlling the whole stack will lead to the same benefits. And you even admit in your comment that Nvidia is investing in these higher levels. My argument is that they are jeopardizing the longevity of these high-level investments due to their reluctance to invest in an open platform at the bottom layer (not even the bottom, but one level above their hardware). This will leave them vulnerable to encroachment by a player that comes from a higher level, like OpenAI for example, who gets to define the open platform before Nvidia ever has a chance to own it.

by lmm 2y ago

Zambyte 2y ago

> Google makes no money off of it, nor does anyone else Google makes no money off of Android? That seems like a really weird claim to make. Do you really think Google would be anywhere near as valuable of a company if iOS had all of the market share that the data vacuum that is Android has? I can't imagine that being the case. Google makes a boatload off of Android, just like AMD would if they supported open GPGPU efforts aggressively.

michaelt 2y ago
Google gave away the software platform - Android - to hardware vendors for free, vendors compete making the hardware into cheap, low-margin commodity items, and google makes boatloads of money from ads, tracking and the app store. nvidia could give away the software platform - CUDA - to hardware vendors for free, making the hardware into cheap, low-margin commodity items. But how would they make boatloads of money when there's nowhere to put ads, tracking or an app store?
rjurney 2y ago
Android is a complement to Google's business, which is when open source works. What would be the complement worth $1 Trillion to NVIDIA to build a truly open platform? There isn't one. That was his point.
- chatmasta 2y ago
  There’s an entire derivative industry of GPUs, namely GenAI and LLM providers, that could be the “complement” to an open GPU platform. The exact design and interface between such a complement and platform is yet undefined, but I’m sure there are creative approaches to this problem.
  - rjurney 2y ago
    And NVIDIA is playing in that game too. Why would they not play in higher level services as well? They already publish the source to their entire software stack. A comparison to Android is completely useless. Google is a multi-sided platform that does lots of things for free for some people (web users, Android users) so it can charge other people for their data (ad buyers). That isn't the chip business whatsoever. The original comment only makes sense if you know nothing about their respective business models.
    - chatmasta 2y ago
      Yes, so when the ground inevitably shifts below their feet (it might happen years from now, but it will happen – open platforms always emerge and eventually proliferate), wouldn’t it be better for them to own that platform? On the other hand, they could always wait for the most viable threat to emerge and then pay a few billion dollars to acquire it and own its direction. Google didn’t invent Android, after all… > Google is a multi-sided platform that does lots of things for free for some people… That isn't the chip business whatsoever. This is a reductionist differentiation that overlooks the similarities between the platforms of “mobile” and “GPU” (and also mischaracterizes the business model of Google, who does in fact make money directly from Android sales, and even moved all the way down the stack to selling hardware). In fact there is even a potentially direct analogy between the two platforms: LLM is the top of the stack with GPU on the bottom, just like Advertising is the top of the stack with Mobile on the bottom. Yes, Google’s top level money printer is advertising, and everything they do (including Android) is about controlling the maximum number of layers below that money printer. But that doesn’t mean there is no benefit to Nvidia doing the same. They might approach it differently, since they currently own the bottom layer whereas Google started from the top layer. But the end result of controlling the whole stack will lead to the same benefits. And you even admit in your comment that Nvidia is investing in these higher levels. My argument is that they are jeopardizing the longevity of these high-level investments due to their reluctance to invest in an open platform at the bottom layer (not even the bottom, but one level above their hardware). This will leave them vulnerable to encroachment by a player that comes from a higher level, like OpenAI for example, who gets to define the open platform before Nvidia ever has a chance to own it.