5 ms·

This article repeatedly cites revenue growth numbers as an indicator of Nvidia and Apple’s relative health, which is a very particular way of looking at things.

by roughly 9mo ago

This article repeatedly cites revenue growth numbers as an indicator of Nvidia and Apple’s relative health, which is a very particular way of looking at things. By way of another one, Apple had $416Bn in revenue, which was a 6% increase from the prior year, or about $25Bn, or about all of Nvidia’s revenue in 2023. Apple’s had slow growth in the last 4 years following a big bump during the early pandemic; their 5 year revenue growth, though, is still $140Bn, or about $10Bn more than Nvidia’s 2025 revenues. Nvidia has indeed grown like a monster in the last couple years - 35Bn increase from 23-24 and 70Bn increase from 24-25. Those numbers would be 8% and 16% increases for Apple respectively, which I’m sure would make the company a deeply uninteresting slow-growth story compared to new upstarts. I get why the numbers are presented the way they are, but it always gets weird when talking about companies of Apple’s size - percent increases that underwhelm Wall Street correspond to raw numbers that most companies would sacrifice their CEO to a volcano to attain, and sales flops in Apple’s portfolio mean they only sold enough product to supply double-digit percentages of the US population.

bombcar 9mo ago
US tech companies aren’t built to be like 3M is/was and able to have their hands in infinite pies. The giant conglomerates in Asia seem more able to do it. Google has somewhat tried but then famously kills most everything even things that could be successful if smaller businesses.
- roughly 9mo ago
  I think there's something about both the myth of the unicorn and of the hero founder/CEO in tech that forces a push towards legibility and easy narratives for a company - it means that, to a greater degree than other industries, large tech companies are a storytelling exercise, and "giant corporate blob that sprawls into everything" isn't a sexy story, nor is "consistent 3% YoY gains," even when that's translating into "we added the GDP of a medium-sized country to our cash pile again this year." Every time a CEO or company board says "focus," an interesting product line loses its wings.
  - flyinglizard 9mo ago
    It's because the storytelling needed for Wall Street. It's the only way to get sky high revenue multiples, selling a dream, because if you're a conglomerate all you can do is to sell the P&L - it's like selling an index. If you have a business division that's does exceedingly well compared to the rest, you make more money by spinning it off. I think Asian companies are much less dependent on public markets and have as strong private control (chaebols in South Korea for example - Samsung, LG, Hyundai etc). If you look at US companies that are under "family control" you might see a similar sprawl, like Cargill, Koch, I'd even put Berkshire in this class even though it's not "family controlled" in the literal sense, it's still associated with two men and not a professional CEO.
- m4rtink 9mo ago
  Yeah, it is insane what areas and products companies like Mitsubishi, Samsung, IHI or even Suntory are involved in.
- eldenring 9mo ago
  I think this is more of a result of big US tech being extremely productive (with their main competency)
- davedx 9mo ago
  Think Google has done a pretty good job at that actually! Consider their various enterprises that weren't killed: * Search/ads * YouTube * Android/Play, Chrome, Maps * Google Cloud, Workspace * Pixel, Nest, Fitbit * Waymo, DeepMind * Google fiber They're not a conglomerate like Alibaba but they're far from a one-trick pony, either :)
sharkjacobs 9mo ago
It might matter that Nvidia sells graphics cards and Apple sells computers and computer-like devices with cases and peripherals and displays and software and services. TSMC is responsible for a much larger proportion of Nvidia's product than Apple's.
_the_inflator 9mo ago
I agree. People confuse relative for absolute numbers. And ironically Apple acts like being a small contender the moment they feel some heat after a decade of relatively easy wins everywhere it seemed. So finally there is a company that gives Apple some much needed heat. That’s why I in absolute terms side with NVIDIA, the small contender in this case. PS: I had one key moment in my career when I was at Google and a speaker mentioned the unit “NBU”. It stands for next billion units. This is ten years ago and started my mental journey into large scale manufacturing and production including all the processes included. The fascination never left. It was a mind bender for me and totally get why people miss everything that large. At Google it was just a milestone expected to be hit - not one time but as the word next indicates multiple times. Mind blowing and eye opening to me ever since. Fantastic inspiration thinking about software, development and marketing.
- zvorygin 9mo ago
  How did you get into large scale manufacturing and production? Was it a career switch? Downsides? It too fascinates me. Any book recommendations?
  - BOOSTERHIDROGEN 9mo ago
    Waiting OP response too, fascinating.
  - kshacker 9mo ago
    I think the parent comment said "mental journey", not a real one, although it will be good to get more insights.
  - shuckles 9mo ago
    It’s also strange because I highly doubt Google has manufactured a billion physical units of anything. Most of their consumer hardware is designed and built by partners, including Pixel.
    - KeplerBoy 9mo ago
misswaterfairy 9mo ago
> Nvidia has indeed grown like a monster in the last couple years - 35Bn increase from 23-24 and 70Bn increase from 24-25. Worringly for Nvidia, Apple is producing products people want and are provenly useful, thus a vast majority of its value is solid, so revenue streams for fabs Apple uses is solid. Nvidia on the other hand, is producing tangible things of value, GPUs, but which are now largely used in unproven technologies (when stacked against lofty claims) that barely more than a few seem to want, so Nvidia's revenue stream seems flimsy at best in the AI boom. The only proven revenue stream Nvidia has (had?) is GPUs for display and visualisation (gaming, graphics, and non-AI non-crypto compute, etc.)
- chaos_emergent 9mo ago
  Calling AI an unproven market is a wild statement. My mother and every employed person around me is using AI backed by Nvidia GPUs in some way or the other on a daily basis.
  - misswaterfairy 9mo ago
    Unproven in the sense that it'll become 'super intelligent', et al. For a statistical word salad generator that is _generally_ coherent, sure it's proven. But for other claims, such as replacing all customer service roles[1], to the lament of customers[2], and now that a number of companies are re-hiring staff they sacked because 'AI would make them redundant'[3] still make me strongly assert that Generative AI isn't the trillion dollar industry it is trying to market itself as. Sure it has a few tricks, and helps in a number of cases, therefore is useful in those cases, but it isn't an 'earth-shattering mass-human-redundancy' technology, that colossally stupid amounts of circular investments are being poured into it which, I argue, makes fabs mostly, if not solely, dedicating themselves to AI are now in a precarious position when the AI bubble collapses. [1] https://www.cxtoday.com/contact-center/openai-ceo-sam-altman-now-claims-ai-will-take-customer-service-jobs-first/ https://www.cxtoday.com/contact-center/openai-ceo-sam-altman... [2] https://www.thestreet.com/technology/salesforce-ai-faces-backlash-from-customers https://www.thestreet.com/technology/salesforce-ai-faces-bac... [3] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/companies-quietly-rehiring-workers-replaced-120000411.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/companies-quietly-rehiring-wo...
marcus_holmes 9mo ago
Because shares are no longer about investing in a company that is making healthy margins and has a solid business, that will pay you a decent dividend in return for your investment. Shares are a short-term speculative gamble; you buy them in the hope that the price will rise and then you can sell them for a profit. Sometimes the gap between these two events is measured in milliseconds. So the only thing that matters to Wall St is growth. If the company is growing then its price will probably rise. If it's not, it won't. Current size is unimportant. Current earnings are unimportant (unless they are used to fund growth). Nvidia is sexy, Apple is not, despite all the things you say (which are true).
_heimdall 9mo ago
I'm not even sure how to compare revenue, whether relative or absolute, when Nvidia is deeply involved in multiple deals that have all the signs of circular financing scams.

by roughly 9mo ago

bombcar 9mo ago

US tech companies aren’t built to be like 3M is/was and able to have their hands in infinite pies. The giant conglomerates in Asia seem more able to do it. Google has somewhat tried but then famously kills most everything even things that could be successful if smaller businesses.

roughly 9mo ago
I think there's something about both the myth of the unicorn and of the hero founder/CEO in tech that forces a push towards legibility and easy narratives for a company - it means that, to a greater degree than other industries, large tech companies are a storytelling exercise, and "giant corporate blob that sprawls into everything" isn't a sexy story, nor is "consistent 3% YoY gains," even when that's translating into "we added the GDP of a medium-sized country to our cash pile again this year." Every time a CEO or company board says "focus," an interesting product line loses its wings.
- flyinglizard 9mo ago
  It's because the storytelling needed for Wall Street. It's the only way to get sky high revenue multiples, selling a dream, because if you're a conglomerate all you can do is to sell the P&L - it's like selling an index. If you have a business division that's does exceedingly well compared to the rest, you make more money by spinning it off. I think Asian companies are much less dependent on public markets and have as strong private control (chaebols in South Korea for example - Samsung, LG, Hyundai etc). If you look at US companies that are under "family control" you might see a similar sprawl, like Cargill, Koch, I'd even put Berkshire in this class even though it's not "family controlled" in the literal sense, it's still associated with two men and not a professional CEO.
m4rtink 9mo ago
Yeah, it is insane what areas and products companies like Mitsubishi, Samsung, IHI or even Suntory are involved in.
eldenring 9mo ago
I think this is more of a result of big US tech being extremely productive (with their main competency)
davedx 9mo ago
Think Google has done a pretty good job at that actually! Consider their various enterprises that weren't killed: * Search/ads * YouTube * Android/Play, Chrome, Maps * Google Cloud, Workspace * Pixel, Nest, Fitbit * Waymo, DeepMind * Google fiber They're not a conglomerate like Alibaba but they're far from a one-trick pony, either :)

sharkjacobs 9mo ago

It might matter that Nvidia sells graphics cards and Apple sells computers and computer-like devices with cases and peripherals and displays and software and services. TSMC is responsible for a much larger proportion of Nvidia's product than Apple's.

_the_inflator 9mo ago

I agree. People confuse relative for absolute numbers. And ironically Apple acts like being a small contender the moment they feel some heat after a decade of relatively easy wins everywhere it seemed. So finally there is a company that gives Apple some much needed heat. That’s why I in absolute terms side with NVIDIA, the small contender in this case. PS: I had one key moment in my career when I was at Google and a speaker mentioned the unit “NBU”. It stands for next billion units. This is ten years ago and started my mental journey into large scale manufacturing and production including all the processes included. The fascination never left. It was a mind bender for me and totally get why people miss everything that large. At Google it was just a milestone expected to be hit - not one time but as the word next indicates multiple times. Mind blowing and eye opening to me ever since. Fantastic inspiration thinking about software, development and marketing.

zvorygin 9mo ago
How did you get into large scale manufacturing and production? Was it a career switch? Downsides? It too fascinates me. Any book recommendations?
- BOOSTERHIDROGEN 9mo ago
  Waiting OP response too, fascinating.
- kshacker 9mo ago
  I think the parent comment said "mental journey", not a real one, although it will be good to get more insights.
- shuckles 9mo ago
  It’s also strange because I highly doubt Google has manufactured a billion physical units of anything. Most of their consumer hardware is designed and built by partners, including Pixel.
  - KeplerBoy 9mo ago

misswaterfairy 9mo ago

> Nvidia has indeed grown like a monster in the last couple years - 35Bn increase from 23-24 and 70Bn increase from 24-25. Worringly for Nvidia, Apple is producing products people want and are provenly useful, thus a vast majority of its value is solid, so revenue streams for fabs Apple uses is solid. Nvidia on the other hand, is producing tangible things of value, GPUs, but which are now largely used in unproven technologies (when stacked against lofty claims) that barely more than a few seem to want, so Nvidia's revenue stream seems flimsy at best in the AI boom. The only proven revenue stream Nvidia has (had?) is GPUs for display and visualisation (gaming, graphics, and non-AI non-crypto compute, etc.)

chaos_emergent 9mo ago
Calling AI an unproven market is a wild statement. My mother and every employed person around me is using AI backed by Nvidia GPUs in some way or the other on a daily basis.
- misswaterfairy 9mo ago
  Unproven in the sense that it'll become 'super intelligent', et al. For a statistical word salad generator that is _generally_ coherent, sure it's proven. But for other claims, such as replacing all customer service roles[1], to the lament of customers[2], and now that a number of companies are re-hiring staff they sacked because 'AI would make them redundant'[3] still make me strongly assert that Generative AI isn't the trillion dollar industry it is trying to market itself as. Sure it has a few tricks, and helps in a number of cases, therefore is useful in those cases, but it isn't an 'earth-shattering mass-human-redundancy' technology, that colossally stupid amounts of circular investments are being poured into it which, I argue, makes fabs mostly, if not solely, dedicating themselves to AI are now in a precarious position when the AI bubble collapses. [1] https://www.cxtoday.com/contact-center/openai-ceo-sam-altman-now-claims-ai-will-take-customer-service-jobs-first/ https://www.cxtoday.com/contact-center/openai-ceo-sam-altman... [2] https://www.thestreet.com/technology/salesforce-ai-faces-backlash-from-customers https://www.thestreet.com/technology/salesforce-ai-faces-bac... [3] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/companies-quietly-rehiring-workers-replaced-120000411.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/companies-quietly-rehiring-wo...

marcus_holmes 9mo ago

Because shares are no longer about investing in a company that is making healthy margins and has a solid business, that will pay you a decent dividend in return for your investment. Shares are a short-term speculative gamble; you buy them in the hope that the price will rise and then you can sell them for a profit. Sometimes the gap between these two events is measured in milliseconds. So the only thing that matters to Wall St is growth. If the company is growing then its price will probably rise. If it's not, it won't. Current size is unimportant. Current earnings are unimportant (unless they are used to fund growth). Nvidia is sexy, Apple is not, despite all the things you say (which are true).

_heimdall 9mo ago

I'm not even sure how to compare revenue, whether relative or absolute, when Nvidia is deeply involved in multiple deals that have all the signs of circular financing scams.