Isn't this "losing money on each sale but making it up in volume"? Sounds like I heard that before and it did not turn out well.
Walmart back in the 80s investd heavily into physical infrastructure back to back - building new stores, their own trucks fleet. The first retailer with its own satellite communication system. There was never a question about Walmart going bankrupt.
I spent a couple of years in Amazon retail finance. The vendors were incentivized to sell as much as possible, under cost if that helps. Part of my job as financial analyst was to "convince" them it is a bad idea to sell under cost. Very hard and stressful work.
If NVIDIA has a stake in the company, they are less likely to do something like start brewing inference chips in house with the help of the foundry partner and a provider of vanilla chip designs. The company also gets a huge cash injection that is somewhat contingent on not doing that, and hey, they have a fresh pile of cash for cutting edge chips so whatever, right? My first thought was that these deals had more to do with that than anything else.
That aspect may end up being a bit illusory in the end. But then again, Nvidia has been proven to be quite skilled at building out and defending their ecosystem, sometimes through ruthless means, so maybe it persists (and I'm not sure that's a good thing). China certainly isn't a threat to throw a wrench in this situation... the entire US geopolitical complex will ensure that is the case.
The only reason this works is if we are the useful idiots buying up the stock.