Google training its top model, Gemini 3 Pro, on its own TPUs demonstrates a viable alternative to NVIDIA's chips. However, because Google does not sell its TPUs, NVIDIA remains the only seller for every other company, effectively maintaining monopoly pricing power over the rest of the market.

Related Insights

To counter the competitive threat from Google's TPUs, NVIDIA avoids direct price cuts that would hurt its gross margins. Instead, it offers strategic equity investments to major customers like OpenAI, effectively providing a "partner discount" to secure their business and maintain its dominant market position.

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.

Google successfully trained its top model, Gemini 3 Pro, on its own TPUs, proving a viable alternative to NVIDIA's chips. However, because Google doesn't sell these TPUs, NVIDIA retains its monopoly pricing power over every other company in the market.

Even if Google's TPU doesn't win significant market share, its existence as a viable alternative gives large customers like OpenAI critical leverage. The mere threat of switching to TPUs forces NVIDIA to offer more favorable terms, such as discounts or strategic equity investments, effectively capping its pricing power.

NVIDIA's vendor financing isn't a sign of bubble dynamics but a calculated strategy to build a controlled ecosystem, similar to Standard Oil. By funding partners who use its chips, NVIDIA prevents them from becoming competitors and counters the full-stack ambitions of rivals like Google, ensuring its central role in the AI supply chain.

Major AI labs aren't just evaluating Google's TPUs for technical merit; they are using the mere threat of adopting a viable alternative to extract significant concessions from Nvidia. This strategic leverage forces Nvidia to offer better pricing, priority access, or other favorable terms to maintain its market dominance.

As the current low-cost producer of AI tokens via its custom TPUs, Google's rational strategy is to operate at low or even negative margins. This "sucks the economic oxygen out of the AI ecosystem," making it difficult for capital-dependent competitors to justify their high costs and raise new funding rounds.

This theory suggests Google's refusal to sell TPUs is a strategic move to maintain a high market price for AI inference. By allowing NVIDIA's expensive GPUs to set the benchmark, Google can profit from its own lower-cost TPU-based inference services on GCP.

The narrative of endless demand for NVIDIA's high-end GPUs is flawed. It will be cracked by two forces: the shift of AI inference to on-device flash memory, reducing cloud reliance, and Google's ability to give away its increasingly powerful Gemini AI for free, undercutting the revenue models that fuel GPU demand.

While competitors like OpenAI must buy GPUs from NVIDIA, Google trains its frontier AI models (like Gemini) on its own custom Tensor Processing Units (TPUs). This vertical integration gives Google a significant, often overlooked, strategic advantage in cost, efficiency, and long-term innovation in the AI race.

Google's In-House TPUs Prove NVIDIA Isn't a True Monopoly, Yet Reinforce Its Market Power | RiffOn