U.S. clears way for antitrust inquiries of Nvidia, Microsoft and OpenAI

Post by talldayo » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 7:33 PM UTC

jb1991 wrote: post #110

mschuetz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenCL is an alternative to CUDA just like Legos are an alternative to bricks. The problem with OpenCL isn't even the performance, it's everything. If OpenCL were any good, people could use it to build similarly powerful applications on cheaper AMD GPUs.

OpenCL is just a spec. It's up to companies to implement it in a successful way or not. There is no reason in and of itself that OpenCL can't compete with CUDA on performance. The fact that Apple's Metal, which is pretty good, is actually implemented with a private OpenCL system is proof that the spec is not to blame.

Post by ethbr1 » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 7:56 PM UTC

iforgotpassword wrote: post #142

mike_hearn wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of law as having loopholes is relevant for politicians, who are tasked with ensuring that the written law reflects their intent. It's not relevant for courts, regulators, people or companies, who are all tasked with following the law as actually written. For those people there is no "spirit" or "true law". The reason this is important is it's a sword that cuts both ways. It's always tempting to argue that wh…

Yes, I'm aware of that distinction. However I read the comment I was replying to so that they suggested the antitrust case is unfounded because Nvidia didn't break any laws. It's precisely why the antitrust case is valid/needed, because if Nvidia were breaking any laws, you wouldn't need antitrust, you'd just take them to court.

Post by WheatMillington » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 8:02 PM UTC

aydyn wrote: post #63

hgomersall wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cory Doctorow argues well why it doesn't matter how you got into a monopoly position: https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/18/market-discipline/#too-bi...

Still have no idea how this dude is relevant other than he wrote some scifi books one time. What are his technical accomplishments. Oh, nothing? Anyone can talk, especially nowdays because of AI, ironically.

Post by WheatMillington » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 8:15 PM UTC

samplatt wrote: post #46

roenxi wrote: post #8

Nvidia solved a hard problem and their competitors all failed. I spent years with an AMD card growing progressively more annoyed at their self-inflicted apparent inability to multiply matrices on demand. Nvidia had nothing to do with their failure, unless they had some sort of high-level mole in AMD's driver teams. Hitting the only successful company in a difficult field with legal assaults is not the obvious path to…

>Nvidia had nothing to do with their failure, unless they had some sort of high-level mole in AMD's driver teams. You're pretty close, but it's one level of abstraction away from the truth: NVidia spends absolutely earth-shakingly stonking amounts of money working directly with the devs of major studios, fixing issues with their drivers as they come, and in some cases paying studios to lock-in talking to them about t…

Post by threeseed » Thu, Jun 06, 2024, 9:32 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #138

threeseed wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple doesn't prevent competing browsers. Just different engines. And just because they don't rush to incorporate every web feature doesn't make them anti-competitive. Especially when most of the time they are right to do because either (a) they impact security or battery life or (b) they are non-standard. Case in point SPIR-V which unless I am mistaken is exclusively controlled by Khronos.

> Apple doesn't prevent competing browsers. Just different engines And you should know well it's the same thing, since above listed issues are defined by the engine. Whatever label you put on top doesn't change the essence of what the problem is. Basically, you completely missed the point.