| ▲ | poopingatwork a day ago |
| Investment isn't the issue it's talent. Jensen provided a platform and roadmap to help advance AI. His selflessness and leadership attracts talent. Money might help pull talent away but it's silly to think money taken away from Nvidia will suddenly be reinvested into other pursuits. If you don't think talent is an issue, why hasn't anyone begun seriously competing with SpaceX, TSMC, ASML? |
|
| ▲ | epistasis a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Suppose NVIDIA ceased to exist today. What would happen? AMD would step in. Huawei would step in. Maybe even Intel eventually. More fab capacity would go to these companies accelerators. At worse, progress stalls for a year or two. NVIDIA was at the lead and took most of the revenue and valuation because of it. But the same process would have happened with or without NVIDIA. Now go back five years and substitute an NVIDIA collapse. Do you think that we'd be in a very different position for AI? I don't think it would be far off at all. There were many game accelerator companies when NVIDIA started, they were just slightly better than the others, and the efficiency gains of consolidation resulted in those other companies being sold off. ASML is definitely a one off though. And perhaps TSMC is a unique one off, but they got there by taking the most customers. If it wasn't them, then somebody else would have done it. The key selection function was "this is the best option at the time" and if the best option hasn't existed, somebody else would have been chosen path that time, giving that other company the capital to build somethjng. |
| |
| ▲ | poopingatwork a day ago | parent | next [-] | | We don't need to do all this hypothetical thinking. Jensen's vision for his company is what positioned his company to gain from AI. Say whatever you want about those other companies: they exist right now and there is nothing stopping them from competing. Who has the GPUs everyone wants today, and why do you think that is? Why do you need to bring in all the hypothetical thoughts? ASML and TSMC are not one offs. When the investment cost to compete becomes so great: talent must centralize to push the frontier. You could build exact mirror images of the factories and you will struggle to find the talent to run the factory. | | |
| ▲ | epistasis a day ago | parent [-] | | > there is nothing stopping them from competing. Of course there is, NVIDIA is better than they are! NVIDIA has better resources, and almost certainly better management (thus the better resources). Agreed on talent centralizing at the frontier. |
| |
| ▲ | cjbprime a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Suppose NVIDIA ceased to exist today. (Notably, it kind of already has done so -- just in China rather than the US.) | |
| ▲ | deebuildthings 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | For anyone actually buying GPUs this changes nothing this quarter. Same cards, same CUDA, same drivers. The moat was never one person, it's almost 20 years of CUDA being the default. What I'd watch instead is AMD at the low end. The R9700 gets you 32GB, and people running them tell me ROCm still needs custom work but it's closing fast. If NVIDIA's position moves, it'll be that kind of slow drift, not who runs the company. | |
| ▲ | asdff a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | In addition to all that, other investments would be made in other sectors. I'm sure a huge bulk of investment into NVDA in particular is strictly because of the five figure percentage growth it has enjoyed over the last 6 years after all, with the whole chip argument being the fig leaf over the rampant greedy pumping. It has exploded like some lucky shitcoin and that's enough to drive investor action on massive scale after all. We are in the world where shitcoins are listed along with the blue chip tickers on bloomberg news. Everyone is greedy right now. Gambling on every scale from every direction. Most corrupt president in history to boot openly insider trading; water is full of chum and blood right now. | | |
| ▲ | poopingatwork a day ago | parent [-] | | More people, more awareness about how money works, and more dependence on global investors. Everyone invests so they can have more in the future, so yes, it's not crazy to imagine people will invest in a company that's growing without knowing any other details. Why did it grow so large is the question. Why do some of these companies attract all the talent and grow so large and dominate the future is the question. It's because we're all limited on time and greedy. | | |
| ▲ | slowin 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Valuation has no connection to “talent”. Do you really think NVIDIA has just ultra amazing employees that no one else does? No. It’s all smoke, mirrors and financial shenanigans. That’s not “talent”, it’s lack of scruples. For an even more obvious example look at Musk’s companies where the valuations have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the business fundamentals. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | asdff a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In part, because money is going to these other ventures instead. Where would money go if there weren't an NVDA is the 6T question. What would this world look like with more balanced investment across the SP500 sectors instead of money dumped into this one industry in particular? I don't think it would be more chip companies on a 1:1 basis of NVDA investment. The fact that it is going to a single ticker in this case makes it more likely to suck the other options out of existence. If it were say 100 chip companies, more likely on an individual level than an investor might instead say, maybe this time I would invest in some other industry. Mutual funds that investors buy into to hedge into many sectors are also heavier than ever in tech companies like NVDA sort of perverting the whole concept of these funds in the first place. Sort of unprecedented times between how overlevereged things are, and the constant uninformed pumping of air into these stocks thanks to these packages such as these mutual funds that people automatically contribute their paycheck into, again believing they are probably getting much more broad exposure vs how leveraged these packages are currently. |
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | biggc a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > selflessness He's an incredibly accomplished entrepreneur and leader, but I'm not sure what he's done to qualify as selfless. |
| |
| ▲ | poopingatwork a day ago | parent [-] | | He gave his employees some of the wealth. And his employees seem to like him, or at least they did a few days ago. Maybe he's not selfless but he certainly wasn't completely selfish. There must be something redeemable about him that makes people want to work for him. That's all I meant by selfless. Cheating on your wife is certainly selfish. |
|
|
| ▲ | nozzlegear a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > If you don't think talent is an issue, why hasn't anyone begun seriously competing with SpaceX, TSMC, ASML? To quote the late, great philosopher and renowned businessman Eugene Krabs: "Money." |
| |
