Braden Holstege

Braden Holstege
Contributor since: 2012
That probably played a role in last quarters revenue fall. It more illustrates their reliance on a single product line.
It is true that they are attempting to move into mobile, and that they are attempting to render x86 irrelevant.
But beating x86 is really hard. Companies have been trying for decades, including Intel itself with Itanium. The inertia is overwhelming. As for HPC - there are technical limits to the extent that computations can be extended to graphics cards. I don't know what your background is, but a computer scientist will tell you that some algorithms just can't be parallelized to that degree.
Actually, Quicksync is much faster than dedicated graphics.
I am unaware of any credible analysts who think that ARM will replace the general x86 market. Could you cite on for me?
Yes, I meant to say a 1 time settlement. You are correct that it is actually less than 1.5 billion in real terms due to inflation.
This makes up a trivial portion of Nvidia's revenue over the period, and there is no reason to believe it is not built into the price.
if you can point out a single factual inaccuracy in my article I will gladly request that it be withdrawn.
Nvidia received a 1 time payment of 1.5 billion dollars over a year ago. In the long run, that is trivial, and already built into the stock price.
They are different companies in different situations, as you are well aware.
Nvidia doesn't have an x86 license, and so is legally barred from creating integrated graphics solutions. They don't even have a chipset business anymore, and haven't since LGA775.
The article said "long term", not right now.
They will kill common HDDs. Macs and Ultrabook have already transitioned away from hard drives, and servers are increasingly using SSDs instead.
The market structure for bottom to top end graphics cards is a pyramid. If you lose the base, and can't support the R&D to develop the top tier products.
OCZ is certainly a riskier bet than Intel or LSI. But those expenditures were largely around changing product lines (getting out of RAM, acquiring Indilinx). So we will see what happens.
All fair points. Enterprise is a different market, I think the increase in the consumer market (esp. if Apple does make SSDs standard in all Macbooks) will be substantial.
Although OCZ hasn't built a controller from ground up, they do now have the technical and IP base to make one.
I am pretty sure that changes to bankruptcy law can change loan obligations after the fact.
Do you have a source? I would like to see that report.
But reputation matters. Regardless as to if there is actually a bad working environment, a reputation of poor quality will make it harder to recruit candidates.
Good article. Economic research has shown that many people actively trade far more than they should.
I don't disagree. I just wanted to gather some of that reporting and conduct some analysis as to the possible consequences.
True, but I think the hiring environment for an executive is different than for a regular employee.
I do not think that Zynga is an unequivocally bad investment. I just think this is a factor that should be factored into analysis.
I agree with you that there are responses to those concerns. That's why I didn't look at them in depth, and didn't make them a factor in the analysis.
Again, I do not mean to assert that there is no upside. Certainly from a "getting products out the door" perspective their quantitative rigor is beneficial. But I think in the long run a bad reputation is harmful to growth - the NY Times article quotes a business prof. who makes a similar assertion.
Thank you for the comments.
I'm not necessarily asserting that Zynga is a bad investment. But there are concerns that need to be addressed.
Also, I'm not a professional. Not even close.
It was faster than all of the currently released smartphones. Obviously they can't benchmark against products that don't exist.
But my point was just to demonstrate the performance advantage of x86 chips. If you compare even the best ARM processor to, say, i7-2700k, the performance gap is astronomical.
I think a direct purchase of ARM by Apple or Google wouldn't make much sense. Google isn't really involved in chip design, and Apple already an ARM license. I also think Apple buying ARM would get some anticompetitive analysis by the FTC.
I personally am concerned by reports about the poor corporate environment. Software companies survive based on their ability to attract and retain talent.
1) They still suffer from yield problems associated with chip production. The nightmare that was Fermi is an excellent example.
2) Everyone is a new entrant into the smartphone market because it is a new market. My point is that Nvidia is unlikely to sustain a strong position, and I think that view is defensible.
3) I think that Windows on ARM is a) not in my view very likely to become a large market and b) not a replacement for high margin dedicated graphics
I would argue that almost all of Nvidia's competitors do have a moat of some sort. This takes different forms: x86 licensing for Intel, complete platform solutions for Qualcomm, etc.
My underlying point is that Nvidia has no "safe" market, and faces substantial risk in every sector it competes in. In comparison, there is no conceivable way that Intel could lose its main markets.
As to "3-5 years" - I agree all companies face risk. Predicting which companies will handle that risk is the core of effective investment. This is a prediction, and I totally agree that I could be wrong.
That is fair point. My impression was that professional products made a pretty small part of overall revenue, even if they are high margin.
Please provide an example of a Tegra based product that is not either a high end smartphone or a tablet.
I think the major push for regulation will regarding at for-profit colleges. They have vastly higher average student debt loads than other institutions, and they specifically target people who are going to have the most difficulty paying down their loans.