4 ms·
Not necessarily true. This might be a Microsoft funding a bankrupt Apple kind of moment. American competition isn't a zero sum, and it's in Nvidias' best inter
by lacy_tinpot 1y ago
Not necessarily true. This might be a Microsoft funding a bankrupt Apple kind of moment.
American competition isn't a zero sum, and it's in Nvidias' best interest to keep the market healthy.
- rapind 1y ago> American competition isn't a zero sum, and it's in Nvidias' best interest to keep the market healthy. Looking at Google's recent antitrust settlement, I'm not sure this is true at present.
- tonyhart7 1y agoGoogle literally "won" antitrust case ??? the fact that google pay firefox anually meaning that its in best interest of google that there is no monopoly, judge says
- lacy_tinpot 1y agoNvidia's options are fund your competition to keep the market dynamic, or let the government do it by breaking you a part. So yes. That's how American competition works. It isn't a zero sum game. We try to create a market environment that is competitive and dynamic. Monopolies are threat to both the company and a free open dynamic market. If Nvidia feels it could face an antitrust suit, which is reasonable, it is in its best interest to fund the future of Intel. That's American capitalism.
- NooneAtAll3 1y ago> or let the government do it by breaking you a part. Looking at Google's recent antitrust settlement, I'm not sure this is true at present.
- lacy_tinpot 1y agoBecause the recent settlement determined, in my opinion correctly, that the market is still dynamic and competitive. Google search is genuinely being threatened. Google is not a monopoly, not entirely. If AI usage also starts accruing to Google then there should be a new antitrust suit.
- prasadjoglekar 1y agoThere are at least 2 more anti trust suits against Google on going. One is about to enter the remedies phase in Virginia.
- mcintyre1994 1y agoI can’t imagine Nvidia has any concerns about that with the current administration.
- pedroma 1y agoWill Nvidia continue to exist beyond the current administration? If yes, then would it be prudent to consider the future beyond the current administration?
- at-fates-hands 1y agoBut it did when Biden was in office?
- account42 1y agoWe have at least seen anti-trust suits proceed against Google under the current (US) administration. The same cannot be said for the previous one.
- mcintyre1994 1y agoAre you referring to the case that started in 2023 under the previous administration?
- siva7 1y agoWhich government? This one?
- villgax 1y agoYou might want to re-read about that Apple-Microsoft incident. Quicktime got stolen by an ex-Apple employee & in return Apple had Microsoft commit money & promise to have Office suite available on macOS/OS X
- andirk 1y agoAccording to [0] it was a contractor working for both Apple and Microsoft. Not an ex-Apple employee but still an interesting read, if true. [0] https://thisdayintechhistory.com/12/06/apple-sues-over-quicktime/ https://thisdayintechhistory.com/12/06/apple-sues-over-quick...
- AtlasBarfed 1y agoWouldn't we call that industrial espionage not a contract, not simple contracting?
- aDyslecticCrow 1y agoOne interesting parallel is Intel and AMD back in x86 1991, which is today the reason AMD is at all allowed to produce x86 without massive patent royalties to intel. [Asianometry](https://youtu.be/5oOk_KXbw6c https://youtu.be/5oOk_KXbw6c) had a nice summery of it. Nvidia is leaning more into data centres, but lack a CPU architecture or expertise. Intel is struggling financially, but have knowledge in iGPUs and a vast amount of patents. They could have alot to give one another, and it's a massive win if it keeps intel afloat.
- rasz 1y agoMicrosoft wasnt funding bankrupt Apple, Microsoft was settling lawsuit with Jobs just on the cusp of DOJ monopoly lwasuit. Microsoft was stealing and shipping Apple QuickTime sourcecode. https://www.theregister.com/1998/10/29/microsoft_paid_apple_150m/ https://www.theregister.com/1998/10/29/microsoft_paid_apple_... > handwritten note by Fred Anderson, Apple's CFO, in which Anderson wrote that "the [QuickTime] patent dispute was resolved with cross-licence and significant payment to Apple." The payment was $150 million
- humanfromearth9 1y agoWow quicktime... That's a name I haven't heard for a long time.