One strategic reason is to remove oxygen from competitors. Otherwise someone will scoop up the gaming market and put the proceeds into developing technology to compete with NVIDIA in the more lucrative AI space.
I wonder who is going to fill the gaming market if AI market focused companies would simply outbid them during manufacturing? All available and not yet available manufacture is pivoting to AI market
“I wouldn’t pick up $20 if there was $100 on the ground!”
Most people would pick up both.
These economic proclamations don’t seem to make sense, when applied to different contexts — which suggests what you’re saying might be folk wisdom rather than sound theory (and greatly over simplifying the problem).
You’re also discounting ecosystem effects — gaming GPUs driving demand for datacenter and workstation GPUs as hobbyist experimentation turns into industrial usage. We don’t know what would happen if nVidia stopped suppressing the GPU market, because it’s never been tried — nVidia has always viciously undercut their own grassroots.
> “I wouldn’t pick up $20 if there was $100 on the ground!” Most people would pick up both.
No, it’s more like there’s a massive pile of both $20s and $100s on the ground. You wouldn’t waste time running between the two, you’d focus on the $100s
if you're within reach of both, then it's not a choice, and there's no opportunity cost in picking just one - you'd be taking both.
If not within reach of both but just one, and you picking one up means someone else might pick up the other, then which would you choose? The other is then by definition, the opportunity cost.
You’re standing on a traffic island in the middle of a busy road. The lights change allowing you to cross. On one side there is a $20 note, on the other there is a $100 note. Which side do you go to first?
The absolute value is irrelevant - it's the opportunity cost that determines this.
It doesn't matter if the consumer market is 4T, if the AI market is 60T!
One strategic reason is to remove oxygen from competitors. Otherwise someone will scoop up the gaming market and put the proceeds into developing technology to compete with NVIDIA in the more lucrative AI space.
I wonder who is going to fill the gaming market if AI market focused companies would simply outbid them during manufacturing? All available and not yet available manufacture is pivoting to AI market
“I wouldn’t pick up $20 if there was $100 on the ground!”
Most people would pick up both.
These economic proclamations don’t seem to make sense, when applied to different contexts — which suggests what you’re saying might be folk wisdom rather than sound theory (and greatly over simplifying the problem).
You’re also discounting ecosystem effects — gaming GPUs driving demand for datacenter and workstation GPUs as hobbyist experimentation turns into industrial usage. We don’t know what would happen if nVidia stopped suppressing the GPU market, because it’s never been tried — nVidia has always viciously undercut their own grassroots.
> “I wouldn’t pick up $20 if there was $100 on the ground!” Most people would pick up both.
No, it’s more like there’s a massive pile of both $20s and $100s on the ground. You wouldn’t waste time running between the two, you’d focus on the $100s
> Most people would pick up both.
if you're within reach of both, then it's not a choice, and there's no opportunity cost in picking just one - you'd be taking both.
If not within reach of both but just one, and you picking one up means someone else might pick up the other, then which would you choose? The other is then by definition, the opportunity cost.
The problem is that Nvidia cannot make infinite amounts of chips so they actually can't pick up both.
You’re standing on a traffic island in the middle of a busy road. The lights change allowing you to cross. On one side there is a $20 note, on the other there is a $100 note. Which side do you go to first?
If you were carrying heavy shopping in both arms would you stop to pick up a quarter?
A dollar?