Nvidea is making trillions off AI oriented cards

[Heitor Villa-Lobos]

Those cards run almost exclusively on GNU/Linux servers,

Still they won't give gamers and personal PCs their support. Why??

The sooner we all move on to gaming on GNU, the sooner we will all enjoy a better and richer experience for everyone.

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

There are no such thing as Monopoly in democracy. All the companies are FREE to bring their products to people, it's up to the people to accept or reject.
Just like Google made Android OS, people accepted it.

Now Android has become an ecosystem, if any new company wants to make a Smartphone, they need to rely on Android (Google), and Google is making profit through App Store on each.

Same goes to Valve / Steam.
Steam has almost 80% of the PC games market share worldwide.
It's the REFLECTION of the public will that they PREFER one company over others.

[Omega]

Messaggio originale di 🦜Cloud Boy🦜:

There are no such thing as Monopoly in democracy. All the companies are FREE to bring their products to people, it's up to the people to accept or reject.
Just like Google made Android OS, people accepted it.

Now Android has become an ecosystem, if any new company wants to make a Smartphone, they need to rely on Android (Google), and Google is making profit through App Store on each.

Same goes to Valve / Steam.
Steam has almost 80% of the PC games market share worldwide.
It's the REFLECTION of the public will that they PREFER one company over others.

Democracy has nothing to do with any of this.

Your freedom ends when it hurts that of others.


Imagine a situation like this;
A large car manufacturer starts buying up all gas stations, it replaces the gas pumps with a proprietary model which only works with their cars. Other car manufacturers are not allowed to replicate this proprietary gas pump system making their cars incompatible with these gas stations.

End result: everyone starts buying cars from this big car manufacturer exclusively because it is viewed as the only reasonable choice, other cars are not compatible with these gas stations.

This is a monopoly abusing their power to hinder competition.


Although Steam is very much a monopoly it shows no monopolistic tendencies, Steam just exist and continues to do business as always, Steam is in no way trying to hinder competition. Even when EGS started to agressively attack Steam by buying up distribution rights for games Steam did nothing to respond to this.

If Steam wanted to be monopolistic it could for example have forced some form of agressive DRM or library down game devs throats making their game incompatible with other distributors. Or it would have forced them to sign (timed) exclusivity deals if a dev wanted to publish on Steam. It didn't.

Steam is a very rare example of a monopoly which was not build on greed but on the desire to build something cool and above all useful. The only reason there is no major competitor is that none have managed to gain any traction yet.


Android is open source, you are free to change it, there are plenty of un-Googled Android distributions, or even non-Android OSs which reuse Android tools and code. It is an open ecosystem, it is not a monopoly. It is like calling a bazaar a monopoly because it is where all shops centralize. The main issue with the Android ecosystem is the SoC firmware.

[Illusion of Progress]

Messaggio originale di Omega:

Democracy has nothing to do with any of this.

Don't you love when people mix up a random thing and democracy to try and quell any criticism of whatever it really is they're describing? It's to cause you to hesitate to contrast anything said, because "surely you wouldn't object democracy"?

Only, he's been describing libertarianism, not democracy.

[Omega]

Messaggio originale di Illusion of Progress:

Messaggio originale di Omega:

Democracy has nothing to do with any of this.

Don't you love when people mix up a random thing and democracy to try and quell any criticism of whatever it really is they're describing? It's to cause you to hesitate to contrast anything said, because "surely you wouldn't object democracy"?

Only, he's been describing libertarianism, not democracy.

<sarcasm>
So you must be a COMMUNIST.
</sarcasm>


I feel like many people nowadays do not actually understand the meaning of the words they are using. Like they are just reading off a script and running on autopilot.

I have learned there is no point in arguing with people who do this, they will interpret any response as just white noise and continue to disagree with you.

[Illusion of Progress]

You joke, but I'm pretty sure I've seen him make a retort calling anyone who disagrees with certain economic ideals as just that, as well as being low intelligence for it.

And yeah, half the time you come out ahead by learning when to pick your battles to begin with. I admit I'm guilty of having room for improvement there. I've started to learn when it comes to these discussions with him though.

[Iggy Wolf]

I've always been under the impression that monopolies are largely created due to government. That is to say, no company can actually make their technology proprietary without others competing and offering better solutions, unless they lobby the government specifically to prevent any other company from being able to compete.

In this regard, Nvidia wouldn't be a monopoly, but that depends whether their current technology is strictly limited to them and that others couldn't use it. Apple for example is a closed ecosystem with proprietary tech, but obviously it doesn't prevent Android from competing.

At that point, yeah. Democracy has nothing to do with it. If anything, monopolies are ANTI-competitive and anti-capitalistic because they're not based on delivering the best product for the best value, but delivering the ONLY product for the WORST value.

Nvidia hasn't technically prevented anyone from buying AMD or Intel GPUs, which is the only reason they're not considered a straight up monopoly. I can't comment on the AI sector though, since that would depend on whether companies are being restricted from doing business with AMD and Intel for AI cards.

[mikel3113]

And you could be riding the wave as well. It was inevitable and Nvidia was well positioned for it. More profits means more R&D funding for developing consumer gaming products too so they're success is to the gamer's advantage in the long run.

I said this back in 2017...."NVDA makes knowledge(Al), Knowledge is Power and Power is money. Short term don't care, holding for the long game."-

http://stocktwits.com/mikel3113/message/71190466

Don't fight it, ride it and let them pay you and then buy their products with that money

[Ulfrinn]

It's okay, Intel has entered the market. So AMD will still have competition. Also, for gaming, we're well past the point of diminishing returns technology-wise. Higher resolutions don't make games look better, ray tracing hasn't been able to beat rasterized shaders, and the push for these are what companies like Nvidia push hype for to stay relevant and it's a short term bandaid. Nvidia is looking at other options.

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

There are obviously some haters for every company always. But for Nvidia, they are so small that Nvidia doesn't even need to care about it. When a company has 84% market share, despite all obstacles, years after years, millions of rock solid dedicated fan base worldwide, and growing...

Goodwill doesn't come from the air. It comes from the people themselves. All the companies are trying to achieve the same goal. Nvidia succeeded, when others have failed. The competition is not even close...

(I know Mr. "illusion of progress" will drop again, he waits for the opportunity, when some other person replies to my comment, he quotes him to passively attack me (like he did above). He is applying this Tactics since I stopped responding to his comments months ago, though he tried a lot...).

[Illusion of Progress]

I'd ask you if it comes across as ironic that you're the one spontaneously calling me out as desperately stalking you because you ignored me, but I imagine it'd go right over your head.

And not that it matters, but I'm not a he.

It's not my fault you were preaching libertarianism while trying to shield it by calling it democracy (this comes across as self awareness that what you preach perhaps isn't all that, by the way). If you don't like that I agreed with someone else picking up on the same thing, that's not my problem. You're the one that did it.

I stopped wasting my time with you because you fail to ever present any good points during a discussion when I did put any effort in. You're a one note argument; you ignore anything that the other person brings up and circle back to repeating what you initially said. Every time. Who do you think is going to keep butting their head against that wall? You've got to be naive to believe anyone who doesn't waste their time with that sort of thing is doing so because they're afraid of confronting you. It's quite telling that you consider ignoring someone doing all of that as some advanced "tactic".

I'm sorry if "I'm defending rich corporations, because libertarianism rules" on repeat as the response to any criticism is not something that turns me on. Whenever a shred of criticism is ever ushered about anything, that's your response. And this might shock you, but people don't enjoy having the response to their criticisms be some preaching line of libertarianism. It's tone deaf, and I'm far from the first person who has pointed this out to you and then stopped bothering with you as a result of it.

There you go. That's why you get avoided. Take the hint, maybe. Or not. Keep telling yourself it's because people have to covertly approach you with "tactics" because you're just too good to be confronted directly if you want. Whatever helps you cope.

[Illusion of Progress]

You're projecting right now, and you probably don't even see it.

I and someone else commented on your usual drum beat you tend to insert into any discussion criticizing a big company of "libertarianism is great" that you tried an prop up here with "it's democracy" to prevent people from contesting it. You got upset at us seeing through this, and specifically called me out (while ignoring the actual argument Omega gave you, almost like what I said above was correct or something). That's where we're at now.

No matter how much you want to try and gaslight the situation, that's factually what happened, and it's not on me. My involvement here before you called me out was limited to "that's a poor argument, you're not even using the right words".

So I'd like to ask who really diverted this? Uh-huh.

You don't know the first thing about me if you think I hold myself highly. I'm also going to tell you once, and only once, to lay off the personal attacks. I've never done that to you, and I don't care if you like me or not, but that crosses the line of the rules anyway.

If you have problems with people pointing out inaccuracies in things you bring up, that's your problem, not mine. Do not try and make it mine.