While high capex is often seen as a negative, for giants like Alphabet and Microsoft, it functions as a powerful moat in the AI race. The sheer scale of spending—tens of billions annually—is something most companies cannot afford, effectively limiting the field of viable competitors.

By funding and backstopping CoreWeave, which exclusively uses its GPUs, NVIDIA establishes its hardware as the default for the AI cloud. This gives NVIDIA leverage over major customers like Microsoft and Amazon, who are developing their own chips. It makes switching to proprietary silicon more difficult, creating a competitive moat based on market structure, not just technology.

While known for its GPUs, NVIDIA's true competitive moat is CUDA, a free software platform that made its hardware accessible for diverse applications like research and AI. This created a powerful network effect and stickiness that competitors struggled to replicate, making NVIDIA more of a software company than observers realize.

While NVIDIA's CUDA software provides a powerful lock-in for AI training, its advantage is much weaker in the rapidly growing inference market. New platforms are demonstrating that developers can and will adopt alternative software stacks for deployment, challenging the notion of an insurmountable software moat.

NVIDIA's commitment to CUDA's backward compatibility prevents it from making fundamental changes to its chip architecture. This creates an opportunity for new players like MatX to build chips from a blank slate, optimized purely for modern LLM workloads without being tied to a decade-old programming model.

The long-held belief that a complex codebase provides a durable competitive advantage is becoming obsolete due to AI. As software becomes easier to replicate, defensibility shifts away from the technology itself and back toward classic business moats like network effects, brand reputation, and deep industry integration.

While Nvidia dominates the AI training chip market, this only represents about 1% of the total compute workload. The other 99% is inference. Nvidia's risk is that competitors and customers' in-house chips will create cheaper, more efficient inference solutions, bifurcating the market and eroding its monopoly.

In a power-constrained world, total cost of ownership is dominated by the revenue a data center can generate per watt. A superior NVIDIA system producing multiples more revenue makes the hardware cost irrelevant. A competitor's chip would be rejected even if free due to the high opportunity cost.

NVIDIA's primary business risk isn't competition, but extreme customer concentration. Its top 4-5 customers represent ~80% of revenue. Each has a multi-billion dollar incentive to develop their own chips to reclaim NVIDIA's high gross margins, a threat most businesses don't face.