A lot of readers on this site have a good insight into this and it is a key question financial people are asking without the knowledge many people here possess.
"As fast as AMD tries to fill in the CUDA moat, NVIDIA engineers are working overtime to deepen said moat with new features, libraries, and performance updates."
Rewriting CUDA programs to run using ROCm is expensive and time consuming. It is difficult to justify this expense when in all likelihood the ROCm version will be less efficient, less performant, and less stable than the original. In the grand scheme of things, AMD hardware is indeed cheaper but it's not that much cheaper. From a business standpoint, it's just not worth it.
Knowing what I know about how management thinks, even if AMD managed to make an objectively superior product at a much better price, institutional momentum alone would keep people on CUDA for a long time.
AMD has been hobbled by the quality of their drivers
Given the way nVidia is printing money, surely it absolutely cannot be a lack of motivation on AMD's part?
This is a very uninformed thought as I have no experience writing drivers, nor am I familiar with the various things supported by CUDA and ROCm. But how is AMD struggling with ROCm compute drivers, when their game drivers have been plenty stable as far as I have experienced? Surely the surface area of functionality needed for the graphics drivers is larger and therefore the compute drivers should be a relatively easier task? Or am I wrong and CUDA has a bunch of higher-level stuff baked into it and this is what AMD struggles to match?
and because they sold less performant hardware.
I mean, aside from GPU compute stuff, it sure looks to me like AMD is executing well. It doesn't seem like they're a bunch of dunces over there. Quite the opposite?
There's movement to implement CUDA libraries that work on non-Nvidia cards, but I guess adoption could be hindered by legal fears.
What you're looking for is SCALE...
and they are making amazing progress.