Comment by Vespasian
6 days ago
The EU uses better terms such as "dominant position" which deal with the fact that although a big vendor(s) can fully steer the market and has no meaningful competition while at the same time not "technically" being a monopoly / duopoly etc.
coughs in Nvidia
I should ask a doctor about that, it keeps happening.
It's Intel, not Nvidia: https://www.statista.com/statistics/754557/worldwide-gpu-shi...
Intel is on the verge of bankruptcy
1 reply →
An incompetent company shouldn't be allowed to succeed through government pressure just because a competent company raced ahead.
The direction of the tide has been obvious for 15-20 years and AMD fumbled it, they earned and deserve where they now sit.
It's not about deserving. It's about the fact that once a company grows so dominant, that they will undoubtedly exploit their position of power. Which is bad for innovation, bad for the consumers and so on.
I'm of the opinion that NVIDIA raced ahead thanks also to shady anti-consumer tactics (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2018/03/08/repor... https://youtu.be/H0L3OTZ13Os) so..
2 replies →
This isn't about "deserving". Clearly you still don't understand why monopoly prevention exists.
It's about protecting the customer and the market. Yes, Nvidia deserves their success - of course - but the concentration isn't good for the market. Companies exist to provide services and products to customers and should enjoy no special treatment from us, no matter how successful.
Also, any measure should be not as disruptive as to bankrupt the company or even put it in second place in the market. It's just about leveling the playing field.
1 reply →