- Partner Grow
- Posts
- Nvidia Acquires Groq
In partnership with
👋 Hi, it’s Rohit Malhotra and welcome to the FREE edition of Partner Growth Newsletter, my weekly newsletter doing deep dives into the fastest-growing startups and S1 briefs. Subscribe to join readers who get Partner Growth delivered to their inbox every Wednesday morning.
Latest posts
If you’re new, not yet a subscriber, or just plain missed it, here are some of our recent editions.
Partners
Join over 4 million Americans who start their day with 1440 – your daily digest for unbiased, fact-centric news. From politics to sports, we cover it all by analyzing over 100 sources. Our concise, 5-minute read lands in your inbox each morning at no cost. Experience news without the noise; let 1440 help you make up your own mind. Sign up now and invite your friends and family to be part of the informed.
Interested in sponsoring these emails? See our partnership options here.
Subscribe to the Life Self Mastery podcast, which guides you on getting funding and allowing your business to grow rocketship.
Previous guests include Guy Kawasaki, Brad Feld, James Clear, Nick Huber, Shu Nyatta and 350+ incredible guests.
Grok acquisition
Introduction
The Nvidia-Groq deal isn't a typical acquisition—it's a $20 billion elimination of the last credible threat to Nvidia's AI chip dominance. Nvidia absorbed Groq's founder, core engineering team, and all key intellectual property just three months after Groq closed a $6.9 billion funding round. Not as a partnership. As a competitive erasure.
On the surface: a "non-exclusive licensing agreement," a continuing GroqCloud business, standard Valley exit math delivering nearly 3x returns. But look closer, and it gets more troubling.
Groq didn't lose by building inferior technology. It lost by winning too effectively—by owning the layer Nvidia couldn't afford to let anyone else control: the inference layer. The speed advantage that determines whether AI feels instantaneous or sluggish in production.
While every AI chip startup fought for scraps in Nvidia's training-dominated market, Groq built something fundamentally different. Language Processing Units that delivered ultra-low-latency inference—time-to-first-token performance that made GPUs look slow. Not marginally better. Categorically faster.
The founder—Jonathan Ross, Google TPU architect—had lived inside frontier AI infrastructure. He understood the one weakness in Nvidia's 95%+ market share: GPUs excel at training models, but inference at scale requires different architecture entirely.
And here's the brutal reality: Nvidia already owned training. But they had a gap. The AI industry was moving to deployment, agents, real-time reasoning—workloads where inference speed matters more than raw compute.
Groq plugged directly into that gap. Scaled to over 2 million developers in 2025. Became the architecture that threatened Nvidia's inevitability.
So Nvidia bought it. All of it. Called it "licensing" to dodge antitrust scrutiny. Left behind a shell company.
This isn't strategic offense. It's what monopoly defense looks like at $5 trillion market cap.
Deal Breakdown
Here's what makes the numbers strange: $20 billion for a company valued at $6.9 billion three months earlier. Nvidia's largest deal ever—nearly triple its $6.9 billion Mellanox acquisition in 2019. A 190% premium paid in cash, closed faster than most enterprise software contracts.
The timeline compresses suspiciously. September 2025: Groq closes massive funding led by Disruptive, with Blackrock, Samsung, Cisco, and a notable investor—1789 Capital, where Donald Trump Jr. is a partner. December 2025: Deal announced, finalized, done.
But here's where the legal engineering gets creative. Nvidia insists this isn't an acquisition. It's a "non-exclusive licensing agreement" for intellectual property, engineering talent, and core assets. The distinction matters for one reason: regulatory scrutiny.
What Nvidia actually got: Jonathan Ross (founder/CEO) transitioning to Nvidia. The entire core engineering team. All LPU intellectual property and architecture. The 2+ million developer relationships built on GroqCloud. Every meaningful asset that made Groq a competitive threat.
What stays with Groq: GroqCloud infrastructure management under new CEO Simon Edwards. A brand name. Server contracts. The operational busywork of maintaining existing cloud customers while the innovation engine moves to Nvidia's campus.
Call it what you want—licensing, partnership, strategic alignment. But when you acquire all IP, all leadership, all engineering talent, and all future product direction, you've acquired the company. Everything else is semantic positioning for antitrust lawyers.
This follows a pattern Big Tech perfected: Microsoft-Inflection AI, Google's similar arrangements. Pay massive sums for "talent and technology," structure it as licensing to avoid merger review, leave behind a corporate shell, move on. The FTC can't block what technically isn't a merger.
The message is clear: Nvidia didn't buy Groq's present. They eliminated Groq's future. And paid just 15% of annual revenue to do it.
Groq's Value Proposition
To understand why Nvidia paid $20 billion, you need to understand what Groq actually built. Not another GPU variant. Not incremental speed improvements. A fundamentally different approach to the problem that matters most in production AI: inference latency.
The Language Processing Unit architecture did one thing obsessively well—eliminate wait time between query and response. While Nvidia's GPUs excelled at training models in parallel across thousands of operations, LPUs were designed specifically for sequential inference: the token-by-token generation that determines whether a chatbot feels instant or sluggish.
Here's the technical advantage: GPUs are generalists. They handle graphics, training, inference, simulation—everything. LPUs are specialists. Single-threaded, deterministic, built exclusively for transformer model inference. No context switching, no resource contention, no overhead. Just brutal speed on the exact workload that matters for deployed AI products.
The real-world difference wasn't subtle. Groq delivered time-to-first-token performance that made GPUs look like they were buffering. For applications where responsiveness defines user experience—customer service bots, coding assistants, real-time translation—LPUs became the gold standard.
And this mattered more as AI shifted from research to production. Training happens once. Inference happens millions of times per second, at scale, where every millisecond of latency compounds into user experience and infrastructure cost. Groq owned the layer where AI actually touches customers.
The competitive threat was structural. Nvidia controlled 95%+ of the frontier GPU market for training. Unchallenged dominance. But as the industry matured beyond "build bigger models" into "deploy models that users actually want to interact with," Groq represented an existential vulnerability. A category where being the training champion didn't matter.
Jonathan Ross knew this from building Google's TPUs—the only other architecture that challenged Nvidia's inevitability. He'd seen how specialized chips could carve out market share by solving problems GPUs couldn't efficiently handle. TPUs proved the model. LPUs refined it for the inference era.
The developer momentum validated the approach. From 356,000 developers to over 2 million in a single year. Not because of aggressive sales or massive marketing budgets. Because when you give developers infrastructure that makes their products feel faster, they migrate organically. Speed is a feature users notice immediately.
Nvidia saw all of this. The technical differentiation, the developer traction, the market positioning in their weakest area. And recognized that Groq wasn't building toward partnership—they were building toward independence. That's what $20 billion eliminates.
Why Nvidia is buying Grok
Nvidia isn't buying chips. They're buying the future before someone else locks it up.
2 million developers who've already integrated with Groq's infrastructure. That's not a user base—it's a moat. Every developer building on GroqCloud is now in Nvidia's ecosystem, writing against Nvidia's standards, optimizing for Nvidia's architecture. Instant distribution for whatever Nvidia builds next.
Then the timeline advantage. Groq spent nearly a decade since 2016 solving inference latency at the chip level. Nvidia just bought all that R&D, all the failed experiments, all the architectural insights that made LPUs work. They didn't compress their development timeline—they eliminated it. Whatever Groq would have shipped in 2026, 2027, 2028 now ships under Nvidia's banner.
But here's the deeper play: Nvidia is hedging against their own dominance becoming a liability. Right now, GPUs are the standard because training is the bottleneck. But the AI industry is shifting. Reasoning models like o1 that think before responding. Video generation that processes massive context windows. Agentic systems that run continuous inference loops. All compute-intensive, all inference-heavy, all poorly suited to GPU economics at scale.
Groq represented the architecture that wins in that future. Nvidia couldn't let a competitor own it, couldn't let customers discover that deployed AI runs better on specialized inference chips. So they bought the threat before it matured into a market.
The developer ecosystem matters more than the technology. Nvidia already has NVLink, already has CUDA, already has the training infrastructure. What they didn't have was credibility in inference-first development. Groq gave them that. And credibility at scale—2 million developers don't migrate overnight, but they do follow the platform they're already building on.
This connects directly to Nvidia's open-source strategy. They're pushing Nemotron models, investing through their VC arm in open-source AI startups, positioning as the infrastructure layer for post-OpenAI development. Groq's developer community accelerates that positioning. It's not just about hardware anymore—it's about owning the entire stack from silicon to model to deployment.
And there's the competitive lockout. Every major AI chip startup now has to answer: why aren't you just partnering with Nvidia? Cerebras, Tenstorrent, SambaNova—they're all watching. The market just learned that building differentiated technology doesn't guarantee independence. It guarantees you become an acquisition target or get outspent into irrelevance.
Anti-Competitive Case
Here's what monopoly looks like in 2025: you don't crush competitors through predatory pricing or exclusive contracts. You just buy them before they become threats. Call it licensing to keep regulators comfortable, then absorb everything that matters.
Nvidia controls 95%+ of the AI training chip market. Unchallenged. No close second. When every frontier lab—OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta—builds on your infrastructure, you're not dominant. You're definitional. The market doesn't exist without you.
Groq represented the only credible architectural challenge to that dominance. Not in training, where Nvidia's position is unassailable, but in inference—the layer that matters more as AI moves from labs to production. LPUs proved you could build specialized silicon that outperformed GPUs on real-world deployment workloads. Proof of concept that alternatives weren't just possible—they were better.
Now that alternative is gone. Not because Groq failed technologically or commercially. They'd just scaled to 2 million developers and closed a $6.9 billion round three months before the deal. They were eliminated precisely because they were succeeding. That's not market competition—that's market elimination.
The "licensing agreement" structure is deliberate regulatory evasion. When Microsoft absorbed Inflection AI's team and technology, they called it licensing. When Google did similar deals, they called it partnership. The pattern is clear: Big Tech learned that formal acquisitions trigger FTC review, but "talent and IP agreements" slide through. Same economic outcome, different legal wrapper.
What dies here isn't just Groq. It's the signal to every AI infrastructure startup: you're building an exit, not a company. Cerebras, Tenstorrent, SambaNova—they're all watching the same lesson play out. Differentiate too much, gain too much traction, and you become an acquisition target for a company with functionally unlimited capital. Don't differentiate enough, and you're irrelevant.
Who will win? Who will lose?
The winners are obvious and obscene.
Jonathan Ross walks away with an estimated $3 billion, assuming he held roughly 9% equity at exit. Not bad for a decade of work, even if it means watching your company become a footnote in someone else's story. Early investors—Disruptive, Blackrock, Neuberger Berman, Samsung, Cisco—got nearly 3x returns in three months. The Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund, through its various vehicles, books a massive win. 1789 Capital, where Donald Trump Jr. is a partner, turns September funding into December liquidity. Perfect timing, perfect connections.
Nvidia wins most of all. They eliminated their primary inference competitor for 15% of annual revenue. They acquired 2 million developers, a decade of R&D, and the architectural blueprint for post-GPU AI infrastructure. They bought certainty that nobody else gets to own the inference layer. At $5 trillion market cap, $20 billion is rounding error for strategic defense.
The losers are structural.
Every AI chip startup just learned they're building acquisition targets, not independent companies. The innovation pipeline doesn't lead to IPO or sustainable competition—it leads to absorption by one of three companies with enough capital to matter. Cerebras, SambaNova, Tenstorrent: your exit multiple just got benchmarked.
Customers seeking alternatives to Nvidia's pricing power lose their most credible option. Groq wasn't vaporware or slideware—it was shipping product with proven performance advantages. That option is gone. What's left is GroqCloud infrastructure management under new leadership while the innovation engine moves to Nvidia's campus.
The market itself loses. Competition doesn't just die with Groq—it dies with the precedent. When dominance becomes self-reinforcing through strategic acquisition of emerging threats, you don't have a market. You have consolidation theater.
And maybe that's the point. In an industry where compute is the bottleneck and chips are the constraint, controlling supply isn't just profitable. It's definitional. Nvidia didn't just win this round. They're rewriting the rules so there isn't a next one.
Closing thoughts
The Nvidia-Groq deal is both brilliant strategy and troubling precedent. Brilliant because Nvidia identified its weakest competitive flank and eliminated the threat before it matured. Troubling because this is what monopoly maintenance looks like when you have functionally unlimited capital.
This is the AI chip equivalent of Facebook acquiring Instagram in 2012—except Instagram got to keep building. Groq becomes a shell managing cloud infrastructure while its future moves to Nvidia's roadmap. The difference matters.
The central question isn't whether Nvidia made a smart business decision. Of course they did. The question is whether the AI infrastructure market can sustain competition when the dominant player can simply acquire whatever threatens its position.
We're watching consolidation disguised as innovation. Every frontier model trains on Nvidia hardware. Every promising alternative gets absorbed before proving viability at scale. Every customer seeking leverage in chip negotiations just lost their best option.
Groq proved that architectural alternatives to GPUs weren't just theoretically possible—they were commercially viable, technically superior for inference, and gaining serious developer traction. That proof of concept is now owned by the company it was supposed to compete against.
The market didn't decide this outcome. Capital concentration did. And the precedent is set: build something differentiated enough to matter, and you're not building independence. You're building an exit.
Here is my interview with Vivek Krishnamurthy is a Partner at Commerce Ventures, where he’s spent over 8 years investing in commerce infrastructure and fintech.
In this conversation, Vivek and I discuss:
Commerce Ventures has a specific focus on the intersection of commerce and fintech. What makes this intersection so compelling right now
How does Vivek think about margins and defensibility when the underlying models are becoming commoditised?
Does Revenue Matter as Much in a World of AI?
If you enjoyed our analysis, we’d very much appreciate you sharing with a friend.
Tweets of the week
Here are the options I have for us to work together. If any of them are interesting to you - hit me up!
Sponsor this newsletter: Reach thousands of tech leaders
Upgrade your subscription: Read subscriber-only posts and get access to our community
Buy my NEW book: Buy my book on How to value a company
And that’s it from me. See you next week.
Reply