> No matter how beautiful its design, it's meaningless without the software to back it up.
Word.
I worked as a software developer, for hardware companies, most of my career.
Most of the upper management came from hardware, and consistently treated software as an afterthought.
That may change, this time. Different breed of top managers.
Apple's success is largely a function of being a hardware company that put software first.
It’s weird because in a hardware company the software becomes a cost.
In a software company the software is a magical money printer with zero unit costs.
Hardware companies treat software as if it were just another line item on the BOM: Like a screw or gasket. Just source this "software thing" from the cheapest bidder, and spoon it into the product on the assembly line somewhere towards the end. That's all hardware companies see. They don't see a software as an ecosystem, as an enabler, as a future way to deliver more and more value. It's just a costly part number that you assemble onto the product.
Nvidia would like a word. If a hardware manufacturer releases software and creates a strong bedrock for others to build on their work then its clearly a strong asset. Granted, this is not at all easy to do, and initial investment into it may be large, but when it works it pays off immensely.
Nvidia has definitely earned a word, but I think they fit here actually—do they make much money on software? They do have a little portal with some programs for sale. But, like, CUDA is zero-cost for users. All the work put into CUDA is purely an investment in enabling people who’ve bought their hardware.
That's the deal, though. Hardware companies tend to think of software as a separate cost center/profit center from hardware.
In reality, a good software/hardware meld can make all the difference (hello, Apple). In those cases, the software is "free."
I am not that familiar with Nvidia, but, from what I hear, they do good software, to go with their hardware, and have a robust developer outreach program.