It is their product at that point, because they purchased it.
You should not have the rights to control someone else's product, such a a graphics card, or whatever, after they have purchased it. It's theirs now.
However, if nvidia has sold me a functional graphics card including the driver as an unalienable part of the package that I purchased (since the driver being functional is part of the card being 'fit for purpose' of the sale), I should be free to use the driver without any unreasonable restrictions. I have legally bought [a copy] of it, it's not copyright infringement for me to run it on a computer - even if it resides in a datacenter.
My whole point is that there needs to be more efforts to hack and modify these things, and that this would be "more desireable".
And that orgs should be using their power to cause this to happen more. For example, if open source orgs can weaponize licensing agreements against nvidia, in order to force them to do this, then they should and this would be desireable.
Laptops are generally an all or nothing proposition. I wanted a laptop with a high performance CPU and the nvidia GPU just came along with it. Couldn't even disable the thing in firmware since hardware video decoding with the Intel GPU caused kernel panics.
Like you showed your disapproval of Nvidia by giving them your money anyway. So... They're right - people care enough to complain, but not buy something else, so it doesn't really matter.
Are you aware of the concept of market power, switching costs, barriers to entry, and market lock in?
If so, then that should enlighten you as to the explanation for this.
> did it actually matter?
Yes. It matters, yet still did not change consumer behavior, due to the concept of market power.
>> Is this desirable?
> No.
So I'm sure you'd be happy if I just took the software for whatever great startup idea you'd been slaving away on for the last two years, slapped better marketing on it, and undercut you by 50% since I didn't have to employ all those pesky overpaid engineers.