But because buying it helps perpetuate the hype and money cycle of the 'AI' trend for awhile longer. It may not look like it directly, but a purchase like this keeps Nvidia's stock up in the future, which is all investors care about.
Nvidia just paid $20B for a company that missed its revenue target by 75%
71–80 of 207 posts
Re: Nvidia just paid $20B for a company that missed its revenue target by 75%
#72This article was good, but the blaming the us-east-1 outage on layoffs doesn't seem accurate.
Thank you for reading. Outages could be vibe regressions, could be something else. I'm definitely making an opinionated leap there.
Re: Nvidia just paid $20B for a company that missed its revenue target by 75%
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
so same as always, eh? or different this time around?
Yes, it is different. Pretending it is the same is just another way to defend the corrupt ones.
Re: Nvidia just paid $20B for a company that missed its revenue target by 75%
#74It's a shame. Groq was really great. Nvidia is stifling innovation here. I don't understand how market regulators allow this.
> It's a shame. Groq was really great. Nvidia is stifling innovation here. I don't share your view. Groq continues to exist. Nvidia did not take any or their hardware, so the same Groq you access on OpenRouter will exist tomorrow or one year from now. If anything, they'll significantly increase their presence, since they just got $20 billion in cash. As for Nvidia stifling innovation: one can argue that they do the o…
The linked article expects differently:
> Nvidia’s buying them with their insanely inflated war chest. They don’t want a chunk taken out of their market share. They can’t afford to take that chance. So it’s like they’re just saying: “Shut up, take the $20 billion, walk away from this project.”
How much this is true I can't really verify myself but it certainly sounds concerning.
> But you can say that they stifle independent innovation.
But this is exactly what a market watchdog is supposed to prevent. A market with one player (or two) is no market. And Groq was going in a decidedly different direction than Nvidia.
The linked article echoes my worries in other ways as well e.g. worker displacement, explosion of energy usage. I often equate it with the dotcom era, I worked on this thinking we made the world better. But the endgame, with the Google, Meta, pervasive tracking etc is much more dystopian. Especially considering the societal effects. Enshittification, corporate rule, polarisation due to social medias promoting "engagement" and thus conflicting content that get people riled up.
I don't want the same to happen with AI here and it feels like they are already aligning the stars to make exactly that happen.
Re: Nvidia just paid $20B for a company that missed its revenue target by 75%
#75Re: Nvidia just paid $20B for a company that missed its revenue target by 75%
#76Ya well, startups are just low risk R&D facilities in service of big tech now https://centreforaileadership.org/resources/opinion_startups...
This is not new in any way. Famously, Cisco has done this for decades, having been on a nonstop mad acquisition spree since the nineties, and more than once even acquiring companies that started as Cisco spin-out. Also many of Google’s flagship products come from acquisitions. Eg Android, Docs, YouTube, their entire ad network, Firebase, DeepMind, lots more. This isn’t easy! Equally famously, Microsoft routinely botc…
Which is totally fine: anyone who is a biotech investor knows this and everyone makes tons of money in this arrangement. Investors (both public and private) take on the science risk and some of the regulatory risk, and the pharmaceutical companies provide a guaranteed (big $$$) exit and take over scaling manufacturing to bring a drug to market. Most people with retirement accounts and pensions and index funds rarely touch this stuff except as a diversification strategy that pools the risky stuff to get the upside on the whole industry.
Re: Nvidia just paid $20B for a company that missed its revenue target by 75%
#77Not following the core argument here. Author seems to be comparing valuation in funding rounds to revenue projections. Revenue projection was revised downward, valuation was not.
Good point about not running the proprietary models, but that doesn't preclude strategic fit with Nvidia.
Re: Nvidia just paid $20B for a company that missed its revenue target by 75%
#78I feel like I'm missing something here…
Re: Nvidia just paid $20B for a company that missed its revenue target by 75%
#79https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/8c395eb5-8d22-431f-b6ba-0...
B) All info the OP(= author) knows is known to the professionals dealing with the due diligence. They decided to do so while looking at data which is not available the public. So assuming they know some things why we don’t know is not a far fetched idea.