4 ms·

NVidia isn’t going to intentionally destroy a $32B acquisition to throw that money down the drain. They are likely to fully support every customer, to protect t

NVidia isn’t going to intentionally destroy a $32B acquisition to throw that money down the drain. They are likely to fully support every customer, to protect their investment, and fund it do new things strategically important to NVidia. If the UK owns ARM, over time every investment decision they made will be required to benefit the party in charge, it’s supporters and their districts. That will certainly destroy ARM.

klelatti 6y ago
So they invest in Tegra say, turn Tegra into a hugely profitable success story (which would be great) and then the next moment turn to Tegra's biggest competitor who is also using ARM. Will Nvidia owned ARM provide 'full support' to that customer or will they tip the playing field to favour their own products? We would just have to trust Jensun and his successors. I'd rather not have to rely on their sense of fairness. I don't like state ownership either. No one is suggesting that UK govt should buy ARM outright - just that it takes a stake alongside other long term investors so that ARM can remain independent.
- klelatti 6y ago
  On reflection Nvidia actually have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to favour their own products in this scenario.
- valuearb 6y ago
  ARM isn’t independent if the UK takes a stake. It’s beholden to those politicians, and those politicians are beholden to their key supporters. NVidia will be contractually obligated to support ARM customers. If over time they do a poor job, they just flushed $32B down the drain.this is an imaginary problem that requires zero preemptive government action. It’s like trying to stop someone from buying an expensive car they can afford on the unsupported theory they won’t take care of it.
kybernetikos 6y ago
> NVidia isn’t going to intentionally destroy a $32B acquisition to throw that money down the drain. It's not just an assumption that they will manage their investment poorly (although that wouldn't surprise me), it's what the likely behaviours of other market participants would be if a key supplier was controlled by a competitor.

klelatti 6y ago

So they invest in Tegra say, turn Tegra into a hugely profitable success story (which would be great) and then the next moment turn to Tegra's biggest competitor who is also using ARM. Will Nvidia owned ARM provide 'full support' to that customer or will they tip the playing field to favour their own products? We would just have to trust Jensun and his successors. I'd rather not have to rely on their sense of fairness. I don't like state ownership either. No one is suggesting that UK govt should buy ARM outright - just that it takes a stake alongside other long term investors so that ARM can remain independent.

klelatti 6y ago
On reflection Nvidia actually have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to favour their own products in this scenario.
valuearb 6y ago
ARM isn’t independent if the UK takes a stake. It’s beholden to those politicians, and those politicians are beholden to their key supporters. NVidia will be contractually obligated to support ARM customers. If over time they do a poor job, they just flushed $32B down the drain.this is an imaginary problem that requires zero preemptive government action. It’s like trying to stop someone from buying an expensive car they can afford on the unsupported theory they won’t take care of it.

kybernetikos 6y ago

> NVidia isn’t going to intentionally destroy a $32B acquisition to throw that money down the drain. It's not just an assumption that they will manage their investment poorly (although that wouldn't surprise me), it's what the likely behaviours of other market participants would be if a key supplier was controlled by a competitor.