| ▲ | elictronic 20 hours ago |
| Nvidia selling more GPU's at the cost of it's datacenter business is pretty close to Kodak selling digital cameras at the cost of film. The data center side is so bloated anything that eats into it is a huge negative. Their data center business brings in 20x the gpu market. Local open weight models will be what pops the bubble and China will do anything in it's power to enable that pop. |
|
| ▲ | bee_rider 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I wonder what the thinking inside NVIDIA is at the moment. They have countless examples to learn from here, about the danger of not being willing to cannibalize your high end products. But, of course, there’s a reason that there are lots of examples of this sort of failure. There’s plenty of competition that would be happy to attack them from below, though… |
| |
| ▲ | fridder 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I also wonder what this moment will mean for chip design going forward. The fact that we are so constrained on the GPU side along with the success of unified memory with apple silicon does make me wonder what chips in 3-5 years will look like. | | |
| ▲ | Danox 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Those that can will incorporate memory into their designs, and the Chinese will be a bigger part of the memory market worldwide going into the future, that alone will drive more tech companies to look at memory/ssd design differently than what they did before. Market conditions have changed you either change/adapt with it or you die. I think memory and ssd design will end up being incorporated into the overall design of the SOC chip. And several companies that can probably will sponsor a existing company or build a foundry going forward. Once again, change or die. | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Unified Memory simply isn't viable at the scale that a full Nvidia cluster operates at, and it would hamstring the parallelism that gives these clusters an edge. The current solution of Mellanox-style interconnect is probably still going to be the status quo in 5 or 10 years. |
| |
| ▲ | SecretDreams 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Make money while there's money to be made then pivot to the next scheme? Gaming > Bitcoin > LLMs > Robotics Jensen's job is to just be one step ahead of the market dynamics to keep the investor dollars flowing. | | |
| ▲ | rad-b 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | That might seem like obvious pivots in hindsight , but there’s no way to make such easy predictions going forward. “Jensen’s job is to just be one step ahead of the market” — how is that a “just”? That’s arguably one of the most difficult things to do reliably (judging by how much payout it can give you). Feels like saying he’s making “just” billions of dollars. | | |
| ▲ | SecretDreams 18 minutes ago | parent [-] | | He's effectively setting the pace of the trends. Objectively, Bitcoin was a grift and money laundering scheme. LLM valuations vs what they've made so far is probably also quite a bit more towards the grift side (yes, I use them and yes they do good work in good hands). Robotics will probably be valued similarly, despite not actually having anywhere near the needed ROIs to make sense. The only time where revenue was actually grounded behind a sensible industry was gaming. But it doesn't matter because Jensen sells the shovels and, in the background, tells people where to dig. Dude's basically a genius at making money. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | wiremine 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Nvidia selling more GPU's at the cost of it's datacenter business is pretty close to Kodak selling digital cameras at the cost of film. This assumes a) AI is a zero-sum game, and b) we're actually talking about on-prem AI will replace cloud-based AI. I think neither statements are true. AI is like compute: we'll need all sorts of it, in various sizes, everywhere. I'm sure Nvidia whats to own all the workloads. On the other hand, I do think open weight, like open source, will win in general. |
| |
| ▲ | elictronic 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It will take about 35 years for digital camera sales to reach Kodaks profit margins.
The market growing and companies raising the economy are not zero-sum. Nvidia/Kodak killing the golden goose is zero-sum. When the difference is your valuation crashes that's zero sum for the company, just not for everyone else. My only concern is if we can limit the economic impact from lowering investments and causing a 40% market collapse circa 2008/9. | |
| ▲ | Danox 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But they won’t with the Chinese around long-term and other tech companies that have capabilities. This is a short term bottleneck. |
|
|
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Nvidia selling more GPU's at the cost of it's datacenter business is pretty close to Kodak selling digital cameras at the cost of film. You mean they resisted the idea trying to protect their legacy business, and it ended up all but killing them? |
| |
| ▲ | elictronic 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They resisted the idea because it did kill their legacy business. Kodaks peak was 16 billion in revenue in 1996. The digital camera market will be approaching that level of value inflation adjusted around 2030. 35 years to get back to status quo. Putting a bullet in a golden goose is often considered a bad idea. Everyone is happy they are dead, but if you can't understand why they might try to keep the corpse alive you have never looked at the numbers. | | |
| ▲ | davkan 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Kodak was definitely mismanaged in many ways but you are correct in your analysis. If they had pivoted hard to digital they could have been what today? Nikon? Fujifilm? These are known brands that are bigger than Kodak is today but they are nothing compared to what Kodak was. At its peak Kodak was one of the (the?) most well known brands on the entire planet. Anywhere in the world if someone snapped a photo Kodak was more than likely taking a cut, coming and going. They employed as many people in Rochester alone as any digital camera company does today internationally. Sure it could have been managed better but they were always doomed for a fall. They were a chemical company entering a digital age. Does anybody even care who makes the sensors in iPhones? | | |
| ▲ | Danox 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Kodak, like Xerox had it all under one roof their management at the time turned their back on the future… IBM was the same way, ironically, the fourth Yankee clipper company had to be dragged into using two types of glasses sitting on the shelf that were patented/created in the early 1960s, both of which later became known as gorilla glass. Steve Jobs had to call them (Corning) multiple times to get them to finally let him use it on the iPhone. Imagine if Steve had contracted out to some other glass company in the far east? | | |
| ▲ | davkan 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | The future was the death of Kodak as it existed regardless. They were a chemical manufacturing company that did some software. Their core business was doomed regardless. Could they have pivoted? Yes. But even if you correct every missed shot they’d still be a shell of their former selves unless you’re creating wild counterfactuals like a kodaphone. |
| |
| ▲ | BoorishBears 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If they had pivoted hard to digital they could have been what today? Having the first portable-ish digital camera they could have seen the true value of Fairchild's CCD business, got a stake/bought it/replicated done whatever it took to push the frontier of digital imaging and became the Kodak (old, film-era Kodak) of electronic imaging? There's no comparable business today because all the things they could have invested in ended up being taken up by different companies, they had the R&D culture, revenue, and distribution. I don't see why they couldn't have been category defining. | | |
| ▲ | davkan 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | They could have been category defining, sure. It would still be a fall though is my point. A fall from being a household name across the entire world to a company making components and niche hobbyist and professional equipment. |
|
| |
| ▲ | senordevnyc 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The digital camera market will be approaching that level of value inflation adjusted around 2030. Only if you ignore the digital camera sector responsible for probably 99% of all digital photos taken… |
| |
| ▲ | Danox 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Kodak, Xerox, IBM, Motorola of Schaumburg, Illinois are perfect examples of companies that did not want to upset the apple cart, another example outside tech of tech that did not want to go into the future was US Steel, and while I’m at it to a lesser extent Ford and GM are teetering since 1973… |
|
|
| ▲ | ak_111 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Hmm this sounds like an incumbent missing a paradigm shift because they didn't want it to disrupt their core (usually enterprise) business, although riding the shift would have ultimately delivered an order magnitude larger business. Classical example is Microsoft actively undermining mobile because it threatened selling Windows or enterprise licenses. Or Yahoo fighting Google's model because the latter model's didn't depend on taking enterprise deals to rank results. |
| |
| ▲ | elictronic 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks generic LLM model response. Please upgrade to a higher tier model if you are going to waste our time. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | spunker540 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Could you explain what you mean by this? I thought all of their insane profitability and returns are from crazy margins on their GPUs. I know they started/partnered/invested in some data center businesses, but I thought they were fledgling |
|
| ▲ | maxerickson 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Their data center business is selling gpus. They wrap them in a complete platform, but that's what they are selling. They do report it separately from consumer and business sales of gpus used in PCs. |
| |
| ▲ | elictronic 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | The data center business is selling Tensor core GPU's which are used for Large language models nearly exclusively. I don't think of them as GPU's anymore considering a GPU is a graphics processing unit and this is not the primary function of those cards anymore. A GPU will always be a card you put in your computer to play a game in my mind. I know a tomato is a fruit but will still be annoyed when someone is pedantic about it because that's dumb. When the mobile phone is eventually integrated into the human body or some other silly application in the future that will annoy me as well. Congrats on being pedantic. | | |
| ▲ | maxerickson 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Talking about their product segments the same way they do is not being pedantic. Insisting on your personal definition is! |
|
|
|
| ▲ | taftster 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Could you put that in units of HP Printers and Toner please? |
|
| ▲ | russli1993 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You need 64 H200 super-node for inference for kimi k3. You will not do inference locally. What might pop the western hardware bubble is Chinese GPU, memory, networking companies. But even in China, these AI centric hardware is not cheap. |
| |
| ▲ | overfeed 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | > But even in China, these AI centric hardware is not cheap Definitely not cheap for individuals, but well within SME territory. There are countless small-town, family-owned businesses that had higher startup costs than a hypothetical Kimi-R-Us, Inc. |
|
