> They must very much compete with others. All these chips are being fabbed at the same facilities in Taiwan and capacity trades off against each other.
I'm not sure what you're trying to deliver here. Following your logic, even if you have a fab you need to compete for rare metals, ASML etc etc... That's a logic built for nothing but its own sake. In the real world, it is much easier to compete outside Nvidia's own allocation as you get rid of the critical bottleneck. And Nvidia has all the incentives to control the supply to maximize its own profit, not to meet the demands.
> Possibly; such statements were common when I was there too but digging in would often reveal that the numbers being used for what things cost, or how revenue was being allocated, were kind of ad hoc and semi-fictional.
> Regardless the question is not whether some ads launches can pay for the TPUs, the question is whether it'd have worked out cheaper in the end to just buy lots of GPUs.
Of course everyone can build their own narratives in favor of their launch, but I've been involved in some of those ads quality launches and can say pretty confidently that most of those launches would not be launchable without TPU at all. This was especially true in the early days of TPU as the supply of GPU for datacenter was extremely limited and immature.
More GPU can solve? Companies are talking about 100k~200k of H100 as a massive cluster and Google already has much larger TPU clusters with computation capability in a different order of magnitudes. The problem is, you cannot simply buy more computation even if you have lots of money. I've been pretty clear about how relying on Nvidia's supply could be a critical limiting factor in a strategic point of view but you're trying to move the point. Please don't.