News French Authorities Raided Nvidia's France Office

[TerryLaze]

the only restriction that should apply is that they not sell their GPUs at or below cost.

Yes, that's what it would take for that "massive push towards dropping gpu prices" to happen and it's something intel can't do, at least not without having the FTC breath down their necks again.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Since they're not a dominant player in that market, the only restriction that should apply is that they not sell their GPUs at or below cost. That would be considered "dumping", and could damage the market.

If Intel tries to "Dump" their GPU's below cost, they would also give upper management more reasons to AXE the Arc GPU team.

That's something they don't want to do, despite being on life support.

 

[purpleduggy]

Not going to happen because then the FTC and the EU would be all up in intel's business for anti competitive pricing.
Intel is forced to price the GPUs according to the current market prices.

they don't need to lower the prices, just deliver 2x the performance for the same price. essentially leap the generation. It can be done. I wish there was a fourth and fifth GPU player too. Someone like Qualcomm, IBM, Samsung or Micron who has the skill, tech and scale.

 

[bit_user]

I wish there was a fourth and fifth GPU player too. Someone like Qualcomm, IBM, Samsung or Micron who has the skill, tech and scale.

Several Chinese companies are using IP from Imagination. So, that's a 4th player with IP we know something about. Of course, there are reputedly some indigenous Chinese IPs, as well, but who knows whether any will be viable.

Since neither Qualcomm nor ARM got into the dGPU market during the pandemic, I think they're sure not going there now.

 

[TerryLaze]

they don't need to lower the prices, just deliver 2x the performance for the same price. essentially leap the generation. It can be done.

Same difference, it's still less money for x performance, it would still be considered predatory pricing if nobody else can sell that amount of performance at the same price while still making a profit.

 

[bit_user]

Same difference, it's still less money for x performance, it would still be considered predatory pricing if nobody else can sell that amount of performance at the same price while still making a profit.

No, I think the issue is when you're actually selling product at a loss.

 

[TerryLaze]

No, I think the issue is when you're actually selling product at a loss.

CURIA - Documents

curia.europa.eu

One would think so but the FTC is anti-competition, they don't want companies to destroy each other, you just have to cause a lesser company to lose money if they sell the same amount for the same moneys, even if you yourself are making a profit, no matter how small.

116 In the first place, the Court of Justice recalled, in paragraphs 133 to 137 of the judgment on the appeal, the nature and purpose of Article 102 TFEU. Referring in particular to the judgment of 27 March 2012, Post Danmark (C‑209/10, EU:C:2012:172), the Court of Justice, in essence, emphasised that competition on the merits may lead to the exclusion from the market of less efficient competitors (judgment on the appeal, paragraph 134), while recalling the special responsibility on undertakings in a dominant position not to impair genuine, undistorted competition (judgment on the appeal, paragraph 135). Moreover, the Court of Justice pointed out that not all competition by means of price could be regarded as legitimate (judgment on the appeal, paragraph 136).

121 In the fifth place,
...
...
that an as-efficient competitor would have had to offer prices which would not have been viable and that, accordingly, the rebate scheme at issue was capable of having foreclosure effects on such a competitor’.

 

[bit_user]

CURIA - Documents

curia.europa.eu

One would think so but the FTC is anti-competition, they don't want companies to destroy each other, you just have to cause a lesser company to lose money if they sell the same amount for the same moneys, even if you yourself are making a profit, no matter how small.

Which FTC are you talking about? Presumably not the US Federal Trade Commission, since you're citing EU legal bodies & case law.

 

[TerryLaze]

Which FTC are you talking about? Presumably not the US Federal Trade Commission, since you're citing EU legal bodies & case law.

So they won't do it because of the EU instead of the FTC, they still won't do it.

Also:

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/predatory-or-below-cost-pricing

A firm's independent decision to reduce prices to a level below its own costs does not necessarily injure competition, and, in fact, may simply reflect particularly vigorous competition.

Pricing below a competitor's costs occurs in many competitive markets and generally does not violate the antitrust laws. Sometimes the low-pricing firm is simply more efficient. Pricing below your own costs is also not a violation of the law unless it is part of a strategy to eliminate competitors,

 

[aberkae]

ARM's IPO underperformed because ARM/Softbank got too greedy. It's not a conspiracy and it's got nothing to do with this.

If Nvidia fudged the numbers it might be a big deal. Both instances have to submit accurate filings. The numbers on the books have to match. It's plausible at least to me.

 

[bit_user]

If Nvidia fudged the numbers it might be a big deal. Both instances have to submit accurate filings. The numbers on the books have to match. It's plausible at least to me.

If IPOs had such a predictable result, then they wouldn't need underwriters. They're always a bit of a gamble - everyone knows that. ARM rushed its IPO to try and capitalize on the speculation and market excitement around AI. Probably, they overestimated the breadth or extent of the market's enthusiasm.