alt Hacker News> ...he'd be much more worried about whether AMD management have any interest in companies like his succeeding.
This reads as incredibly entitled. AMD owes him nothing, especially if he's opposed to the leadership's vision[1] and being belligerent about it.
There is maybe 1 or 2 companies with enough cachet to demand management changes at a supplier like AMD - and they have market caps in the trillions.
1. Lisa Su hasn't been shy about AMD being all about partnering with large partners who can move volume. My interpretation of this is AMD prefers dealing with Sony, Microsoft, hyperscalers, and HPC builders, then possibly tier II OEMs. Small startups are probably much further down the line, close to consumers at the tail end of AMD's attention queue. I don't like it as a consumer, but it seems like a sound strategy since the partners will shoulder most of the software effort, which is a weakness AMD has against Nvidia. They can focus on cranking out ok-to-great hardware at more-than-ok prices and build up a warchest for future investments, and who knows when this hype bubble will burst and take VC dollars with it, or someone invents an architecture that's less demanding on compute (if you're more optimistic)
Replies
Sure. But we hear a lot about Hotz because all the unentitled people rolled their eyes and went over to buy Nvidia cards. He's one of the major voices who are unreasonable enough to pipe up on Twitter and air dirty laundry.
I doubt AMD are going to listen to him. They're in a great spot and are probably going to tap into the market in a big way. But Hotz isn't crazy to test them in an odd way - although he'd probably be better off dropping AMD cards like most other people in his price range would.
I don't really see why those companies would prefer AMD over Nvidia, they are not hurting for money and therefore able to spend that money on Nvidia or build their own hardware, like Google did.
Meta and Microsoft are big enough they could just build their own TPUs with a stable software stack and cut off Nvidia and AMD at the same time.
From this perspective, AMD only ever makes sense as an "also ran company" for a few niche use cases.
> This reads as incredibly entitled. AMD owes him nothing, especially if he's opposed to the leadership's vision[1] and being belligerent about it.
A generation ago, everyone in sales and developer relations understood that "the customer is always right". Remember a sweaty dude on stage jumping about screaming "developers! developers! developers"? It was exhausting dealing with all the free software and hardware sent to developers, not to mention the endless free conferences for even the most backwater developer community. But that's an ethos for boomers, I guess.
On the one hand "incredibly entitled" and on the other you talk about AMD's leadership vision. Your long closing paragraph shows that entitlement of a developer has nothing to do with anything and isn't relevant in the conversation (I can show you guys at OEMs who are incredibly arrogant and entitled or outright a$$holes but so what?). It's just an opinion based on your personal bias.
In reality, AMD simply doesn't care about small AI startups or developers as you've noted. They don't care about me wanting to run all my AI locally so that I can manage my dairy farm with a modest fleet of robots. If they cared, and they sent him MI300s immediately (or sent them to the other 8 startups that asked for them), you wouldn't be chastising him about being "incredibly entitled".
AMD owes us (its customers) a lot for all the empty and broken promises on this over the many many years and hardware generations.