Nvidia CFO resigns

[bryanW1995]

Dude's leaving Dodge before the announcement Nvidia is Bankrupt comes out....

hey, leave Dodge out of this!

this guy will end up as amd's next cfo, maybe they did a swap...


seriously, how surprising is this? jhh is a VERY intense individual. I used to work for one, even the most devoted loyalist usually looks to move on after 4-5 years of getting constantly yelled/barked at, insulted, etc etc. Eventually the money isn't worth it.

 

[dust]

Dude's leaving Dodge before the announcement Nvidia is Bankrupt comes out....

Nah! They just want to overclock their finances!

 

[formulav8]

I was honestly hoping it was the ceo leaving. I absolutely cannot stand that guy for some reason. I know he's a immoral greedy gut but theres still something more...

 

[badb0y]

JHH is like the Steve Jobs of GPUs. Arrogant mofo but knows how to make money.

 

[n0x1ous]

I was honestly hoping it was the ceo leaving. I absolutely cannot stand that guy for some reason. I know he's a immoral greedy gut but theres still something more...

Hes not going to leave. He co-founded the company and is intensely passionate about it. I mean the dude even has an Nvidia tattoo on his arm! The only way he leaves is through death or board removal.

I personally think he is attached to Nvidia the way Jobs is to Apple. While many think he is a bad dude or whatever, his intense drive for success is a factor in a company like Nvidia being able to survive in the market its in. The Victory or Death mantra so to speak. I once read an interview with him and he said that the key to Nvidia's success was that they had no backup plan. They had to keep making the best performing product or they would fail and go under and that kept them focused.

If he goes, Nvidia becomes a vastly different company, one that I would see as more ripe to be purchased by Intel/other ARM company, just as Jobs leaving Apple will completely change the way that company operates.

Judging by Jobs health, he will be gone from Apple long before JHH is pried away from Nvidia or retires.

EDIT: Badboy beat me to it with the Jobs comparison, it looks like- GMTA

 

[bryanW1995]

yeah, but jobs does a much better, um, "job", of presenting a friendly image to people. Also, apple's culture generally is much more employee-friendly than nvidia's. Not saying that nvidia doesn't need that culture, and I have zero doubt the their success is mostly due to jhh, it's just interesting to see the different ways that highly driven people are able to succeed.

 

[n0x1ous]

yeah, but jobs does a much better, um, "job", of presenting a friendly image to people. Also, apple's culture generally is much more employee-friendly than nvidia's. Not saying that nvidia doesn't need that culture, and I have zero doubt the their success is mostly due to jhh, it's just interesting to see the different ways that highly driven people are able to succeed.

perhaps....Jobs can seem overly fake to me with his "magical" presentations. He is a great leader and innovator, but I can relate/respect JHH more as he at least has a background in electrical engineering/chip design.

Jobs doesn't know anything about hardware (not that he needs to) I get what you are saying that Jobs is more easily relatable to common tech press or regular people or whatever, but there is an appreciation to be had for JHH style as well.

I cant say I agree with you on employee friendly culture. Just from reading (as i havent worked for either) ex-apple employees talk about the secrecy and "jobs secret service" always watching over everyone making sure no secrets get out. Going through your computer/personal stuff... not to mention Jobs old days when he would interview people and rip them apart etc...

I imagine Nvidia is a stressful place to work to an extent due to the pressure of constantly outdoing yourself, but its probably known what you are getting into to a degree there.

A vastly different picture with Nvidia and one leader from the beginning, than the personalities that have led AMD/ATI and the how many changes they have had at the top.

 

[notty22]

Jobs is every bit as ruthless.
We don't need flash any longer and hold the phone in THIS hand !

None of these 'special' CEO's would be where they are if they weren't. That includes Bill Gates. He used to release press comments more often, I'd always get a chuckle at the geniuses in comment area's calling him stoopid and windows sucks.

 

[Dribble]

JHH is very much like Jobs - the guys drive and passion seems to generate a lot of hate, but that seems mostly based on envy, not on any grounded logic. The fact that Charlie/AMD fanboys hate him so much if anything shows how good a job he is doing.

Bottom line is AMD would kill to have someone like him leading the company, and the company would be in a much stronger position if he was there. It almost happened too - AMD could well have merged with nvidia not ati, but I suspect a pre-requisite of that merge would have been JHH gets the CEO slot of the joint company.

I bet the board look back on that decision and regret it. I mean look who they had at the top then - Hector "I'm just here to defraud the company" Ruiz. If nvidia/AMD had merged the combined company would be in a much better place then AMD is now.

 

[PingviN]

perhaps....Jobs can seem overly fake to me with his "magical" presentations. He is a great leader and innovator

I'm not sure Jobs is a great leader or innovator for that matter. I don't have great insight in Apples workings, but glorifying the head of the company is a typical thing to do for Americans. I'm not saying this as an insult, just voicing the general idea of research made in the field of management and leadership.
I'm sure he might've been involved when the concept of the iPod, iPhone and iPad were drawn, but it's the hardware and software engineers at Apple who realized those concepts. The value of Apple has not been created by Jobs but by mentioned engineers and guys (and gals) at marketing. Steve might've have had a vision of a product, but to innovate means more than just imagining something. APPLE is innovating, Steve himself is not.

Regarding Steve's leadership, much can be discussed as to whether he is a good or bad leader (leadership is extremely tricky to define, what makes a good leader is even trickier). Apple's hierarchy doesn't consist of Steve and "workers", there are several lower-level manager linking the corporation to the workers and these probably have a much larger impact on performance and end product than Steve does.

 

[n0x1ous]

I'm not sure Jobs is a great leader or innovator for that matter. I don't have great insight in Apples workings, but glorifying the head of the company is a typical thing to do for Americans. I'm not saying this as an insult, just voicing the general idea of research made in the field of management and leadership.
I'm sure he might've been involved when the concept of the iPod, iPhone and iPad were drawn, but it's the hardware and software engineers at Apple who realized those concepts. The value of Apple has not been created by Jobs but by mentioned engineers and guys (and gals) at marketing. Steve might've have had a vision of a product, but to innovate means more than just imagining something. APPLE is innovating, Steve himself is not.

Regarding Steve's leadership, much can be discussed as to whether he is a good or bad leader (leadership is extremely tricky to define, what makes a good leader is even trickier). Apple's hierarchy doesn't consist of Steve and "workers", there are several lower-level manager linking the corporation to the workers and these probably have a much larger impact on performance and end product than Steve does.

All good points, but Jobs probably picked out many of those mid-managers below him. Look at the company's results after he was ousted by Sculley, then look at their results since he returned.

I think those results speak for themselves.

 

[Arkadrel]

Jobs is every bit as ruthless.
We don't need flash any longer and hold the phone in THIS hand !

None of these 'special' CEO's would be where they are if they weren't. That includes Bill Gates. He used to release press comments more often, I'd always get a chuckle at the geniuses in comment area's calling him stoopid and windows sucks.

+1 for mentioning Bill Gates, I had simular thoughts when they talked about the insanely driven people.


Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, JHH....
all 3 are insanely driven, completly ruthless competitors.

"Whats that saying, nice guys finish last?"

But apperntly thats needed traits to be at the top.

Also even thought JHH has nvidia tattooed on him, Bill Gates was probably more attacted to MS than JHH is to nvidia. And he stopped working there... apparntly theres only so many billions of $ you need for the work to be worth it anymore. Differnce between Bill Gates and JHH? JHH isnt worth 70Billion or so.

The good news is usually after these types make more money than they know what to do with, they spend it on donating to good causes.

 

[n0x1ous]

+1 for mentioning Bill Gates, I had simular thoughts when they talked about the insanely driven people.


Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, JHH....
all 3 are insanely driven, completly ruthless competitors.

"Whats that saying, nice guys finish last?"

But apperntly thats needed traits to be at the top.

Also even thought JHH has nvidia tattooed on him, Bill Gates was probably more attacted to MS than JHH is to nvidia. And he stopped working there... apparntly theres only so many billions of $ you need for the work to be worth it anymore. Differnce between Bill Gates and JHH? JHH isnt worth 70Billion or so.

The good news is usually after these types make more money than they know what to do with, they spend it on donating to good causes.

Gates is a similar case for sure and no doubt he was joined at the hip with MS, but Im just curious what makes you say he was more joined to MS then JHH to nvidia? Just becaues he made more money? He made a product that everyone needed. Not everyone needs a high end GPU.

Only difference between Jobs, Gates, and JHH is that JHH is the only one who has never been apart from his company since its creation.

 

[Idontcare]

Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, JHH....

Ellison (Oracle), Grove (Intel), Dell (DELL), Page & Brin (Google)...

CEO's who founded their company and drove it to success are a very special breed of CEO's and are world's apart from the CEO's who simply inherit a pre-existing company to manage.

A hundred years ago we'd be talking about Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, Edison, DuPont, etc.

 

[PingviN]

All good points, but Jobs probably picked out many of those mid-managers below him. Look at the company's results after he was ousted by Sculley, then look at their results since he returned.

I think those results speak for themselves.

That kind of motivation is short term. If Jobs did indeed fire up the company, that effect would not last for long, especially not for more than a year. Apples way to success was not laid in place by Steve Jobs, even if he most certainly did help in making Apple take the first step. I'm just saying that CEOs and other individuals get way too much credit for something that is very much a team effort. People, journalist, bloggers, etc talk about leaders as "visionaries" or "revolutionizers" or "innovators" when CEOs have very little effect on the products/services or even corporate culture. CEOs administrate and delegate, they're rarely (if ever) truly involved in the creative process.

Was Steve Jobs really the only factor in Apples turn for the better? If yes, how so? What did h do? What actions did he take to change the company? How did Steve's leadership help Apple?

Again not discrediting Jobs management or leadership (of which I have not done any extensive investigations), just putting a perspective on a complex and multifaceted topic of discussion.

 

[notty22]

If you do a little digging on Steve Jobs, you will see he was around many important events, that shape the way we use computers.
And now enjoy music and make phone calls, lol

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1997/12/9297
So where did the GUI come from, and who invented it?
In 1979, the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center developed the first prototype for a GUI. A young man named Steve Jobs, looking for new ideas to work into future iterations of the Apple computer, traded US $1 million in stock options to Xerox for a detailed tour of their facilities and current projects. One of the things Xerox showed Jobs was the Alto, which sported a GUI and a three-button mouse. When Jobs saw this prototype, he had an epiphany and set out to bring the GUI to the public.
Apple engineers developed Lisa, the first GUI-based computer available to the public. It was too expensive; no one bought it. But the seed germinated into a flower that would change the world.
Released in 1984 and billed as "insanely great," the Macintosh caught the public eye with one of the most famous commercials ever. This immortal television advertisement depicted users of IBM's PC as Orwellian drones trapped in the maw of a monochromatic, brutally mechanical, command-line interface, and dramatized their symbolic liberation by a woman bearing a new tool for home computations.

 

[n0x1ous]

That kind of motivation is short term. If Jobs did indeed fire up the company, that effect would not last for long, especially not for more than a year. Apples way to success was not laid in place by Steve Jobs, even if he most certainly did help in making Apple take the first step. I'm just saying that CEOs and other individuals get way too much credit for something that is very much a team effort. People, journalist, bloggers, etc talk about leaders as "visionaries" or "revolutionizers" or "innovators" when CEOs have very little effect on the products/services or even corporate culture. CEOs administrate and delegate, they're rarely (if ever) truly involved in the creative process.

Was Steve Jobs really the only factor in Apples turn for the better? If yes, how so? What did h do? What actions did he take to change the company? How did Steve's leadership help Apple?

Again not discrediting Jobs management or leadership (of which I have not done any extensive investigations), just putting a perspective on a complex and multifaceted topic of discussion.

Im not saying Jobs is the sole factor of the company's success. Of course there are many cogs in that wheel that each play their part, but I am saying that he has more influence over that company that probably any other CEO in the world over how every aspect of the company is run.

He has the unconditional support of the board and like notty pointed out, he has lead them to some pretty great products.

Say Jobs never came back in 1997....What do you think Apple looks like today? probably nothing like they do now.

 

[3DVagabond]

JHH is very much like Jobs - the guys drive and passion seems to generate a lot of hate, but that seems mostly based on envy, not on any grounded logic. The fact that Charlie/AMD fanboys hate him so much if anything shows how good a job he is doing.

Bottom line is AMD would kill to have someone like him leading the company, and the company would be in a much stronger position if he was there. It almost happened too - AMD could well have merged with nvidia not ati, but I suspect a pre-requisite of that merge would have been JHH gets the CEO slot of the joint company.

I bet the board look back on that decision and regret it. I mean look who they had at the top then - Hector "I'm just here to defraud the company" Ruiz. If nvidia/AMD had merged the combined company would be in a much better place then AMD is now.

Charlie's hate goes deeper than fanboi. It's personal in his case.

 

[n0x1ous]

Charlie's hate goes deeper than fanboi. It's personal in his case.

Ive often heard that mentioned. Do you or anyone else on here know exactly what happened?

The only thing I ever heard was either he didnt get a review sample of some card of theirs or wasn't invited to some press event and he has held a grudge about it or something.

One would think it would be more than that for him to basically make his life about hating and hurling insults at JHH and Nv

Sometimes I wonder if he really even likes AMD that much or its just because he has no choice due to the hate.

 

[Hauk]

Ellison (Oracle), Grove (Intel), Dell (DELL), Page & Brin (Google)...

CEO's who founded their company and drove it to success are a very special breed of CEO's and are world's apart from the CEO's who simply inherit a pre-existing company to manage.

A hundred years ago we'd be talking about Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, Edison, DuPont, etc.

Well said..

 

[Arkadrel]

Say Jobs never came back in 1997....What do you think Apple looks like today? probably nothing like they do now.

yeah Apple was near going bankrupt right? and today their triveing.
Steve is most certainly part of the reason for it. Which is why theres so much attention to his state of health.

 

[3DVagabond]

It's called, "vision". Some people have it.

 

[PingviN]

Say Jobs never came back in 1997....What do you think Apple looks like today? probably nothing like they do now.

Say someone else than Jobs showed up at the same time and said "we need to change or die". Radical changes would be made and would be accepted because it's obvious that the old ways did not work. In times of crisis, corporations are more likely to implement and accept change. This is why Microsoft is having a hard time adjusting - because they're still making a buttload of money. Windows Mobile was taking a severe beating, Microsoft adapted and developed Windows Phone 7 - a completely different user experience. This has not happened with the desktop OS. Why? Because it's not in a crisis. There is no support for taking a chance and going in another direction.

Jobs is basically just the one taking the initiative, but it's not a far fetched thought that anyone else could've turned Apple around too. I mean, what did he actually do? Did he show up at a meeting of the engineers said "This is a detailed description of something I call iPod, make it" or did he hire people who came up with the idea, delegated work to engineers who, in turn, designed the iPod.

I'm not so sure Steve is a creative mastermind. He probably did make some personnel changes and maybe pointed to Mp3-players as a new market, but I'm sure that he did not have much more to do with the creative process, just like JHH doesn't design GPUs himself. He has people who do the creative and engineer-y bits, his job is to delegate and administrate (as well as representing the company in public).

 

[Morg.]

Quote:
Project Denver
Nvidia's version of a APU, but with the CPU buildt into the GPU... ment for servers (from what I understand of it). Yeah I guess it looks okay.

I think you do not quite understand what this is.
Project Denver is NOT an APU like i3 or brazos.
Fermi is NOT a GPU

Because of those two facts, you cannot quite understand the point of it and the impact it will have.

Also, nobody cares if the nVidia CFO resigns, the only important person in all of nVidia is their korean overlord, damn that guy kicks ass.

Fermi is a MPPU : massively parallel processing unit / in the sense that it is NOT designed to do graphics tasks, but it CAN do them because most graphics tasks are massively parallel.

This in turn implies that their 'Project Denver' will effectively be a MPPU/ CPU mix which will be a type of *PU that does not currently exist : a 512 micro-core + X fast big multipurpose core chip.

Thus . not an APU like i3 or brazos, which are both CPU+pcie+GPU on die.

That in itself is the biggest asset nVidia currently has, and a potential to x5 their stock in the following years, should their release match their vision (which it has for Fermi 1.1 aka GTX580).

Why ? because such a *PU would, by nature, be many times faster than a CPU for many business applications, including databases and other stuff --> Share in the server market and high-end desktop --> money --> win.

That is, of course, if nVidia delivers what they said they would (85% chances imho, even if it takes 4 releases) and if Intel does not manage to produce an equivalent by then (which might be impossible considering they are 10 years behind nVidia in graphics and 3+ years in MPPU).

 

[Arkadrel]

@Morg.

To all that I say meh... its a APU

Only differnce is it has a Arm proccessor instead of a 86x CPU, and it goes into a PCIe slot instead of a cpu socket. Both AMD Fusion APUs and Nvidia "Project denvor" are trying to make GPGPU the future of computeing. Nvidia is going after the server market, AMD is going after the common user.

Will it change the server world? I have no idea, I know there are servers that use graphics cards, and for some work loads its well suited.

Its for those types of workloads/servers, Project Denver is made.

I can imagine nvidia custom motherboards, with nothing on them but rows and rows of PCIe slots. And again for some servers/work loads its gonna rock, for others its gonna do nothing.

I seriously doubt Project Denver will make Nvidia stock go x5 ^-^
Currently you can use Fermi cards for GPGPU servers, same thing with the comeing Project Denver, it ll just mean you can save away the Intel CPU that normally goes along with the GPU, in those servers.