Props to Nvidia and Amd

[Ryl3x]

Thanks for making cards. I know alot of the board experts knock you guys but in reality....you guys keep me gaming. GX2 is a great card....might not work for me but it shows that you guys are working for the gamers. Thanks!

 

[AshPhoenix]

They are working primarily for the money.

 

[AmberClad]

I'm pretty sure they're working primarily for their shareholders...

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: AmberClad
I'm pretty sure they're working primarily for their shareholders...

If they aren't, the stock holders should be buying new stock!

 

[chizow]

You're all wrong, JH Huang's motivation is so his son doesn't call him a n00b! Seriously, its in the Forbe's interview!

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: AmberClad
I'm pretty sure they're working primarily for their shareholders...

If they aren't, the stock holders should be buying new stock!

Of course. I didn't mean it to sound overly cynical, but that's simply the way things work. I wouldn't consider any of these companies -- Nvidia, DAAMIT, Intel, etc -- my friend. Relationship of convenience is what it is. These companies aren't there to look out for the interests of the gamer/enthusiast, they're there to make money for their shareholders. We're here to get the best bang for our buck. Course, those interests will intersect sometimes.

Hey, if I were a shareholder in one of these companies, I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

Out of curiousity, what does DAAMIT stand for? I know it's AMD/ATi, but...

 

[AmberClad]

DAAMIT = AMD + ATI. Not much more to it. AMD/ATI doesn't exactly roll off the tongue as easily as DAAMIT. Say it with me -- DAAMIT...DAAMIT . Ugh, the way things have been going for them lately, it's somewhat fitting...

Actually I saw it used on numerous occasions by the Inquirer (although, they weren't the ones who originated the term), and it stuck. It's an easy way of referring to ATI while at the same time acknowledging that they're part of AMD now. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one around here who uses that term to refer to AMD+ATI...

 

[krnmastersgt]

I just refer to it as AMD or ATI respectively. In any case I really wish people would stop bashing nV for not releasing the "real" next-gen when it's obvious to so many members that they listen to their shareholders, not the gamers. Only way that's gonna change is if all the gamers around the world pool some money together and take a majority stake in nV Otherwise, leave em alone and wait for the card that you want imo.

 

[Qbah]

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
Out of curiousity, what does DAAMIT stand for? I know it's AMD/ATi, but...

Just take both ATI and AMD, mix the letters a bit and voila... you get DAAMIT Which, ironically, was my first reaction when I found out about the merge (never was a big fan of AMD)

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: krnmastersgt
In any case I really wish people would stop bashing nV for not releasing the "real" next-gen when it's obvious to so many members that they listen to their shareholders, not the gamers.

Intel is guilty of the same thing. If they had our interests in mind instead of their shareholders, we might already be up to our eyeballs in 45 nm chips by now, instead of waiting for them to stop milking their current stuff for all they're worth.

 

[Aberforth]

I do not bash Nvidia or AMD but I am concerned about the fact that companies lose culture and passion as they grow, I guess it's natural with all the baseless support and money they are receiving.

 

[golem]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
I do not bash Nvidia or AMD but I am concerned about the fact that companies lose culture and passion as they grow, I guess it's natural with all the baseless support and money they are receiving.

I don't think the loss of culture and passion is a result of baseless support and money. It's a result of just growing. You have to fill positions with people with the necessary skills and knowledge, but how many of those people will also have the same vision? As you grow and grow, it's just natural that the original culture and passion is diluted.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Originally posted by: AmberClad

Originally posted by: krnmastersgt
In any case I really wish people would stop bashing nV for not releasing the "real" next-gen when it's obvious to so many members that they listen to their shareholders, not the gamers.

Intel is guilty of the same thing. If they had our interests in mind instead of their shareholders, we might already be up to our eyeballs in 45 nm chips by now, instead of waiting for them to stop milking their current stuff for all they're worth.

Indeed true, but people complain less about Intel since they always seem to be releasing something new that everyone wants, as opposed to nV with the 9 Series flopping miserably, aside from the 9600 GT that is.

As for Aberforth's post, that's just the natural cycle any company takes as it gets larger, and especially if it goes public. Glad In-N-Out is staying privately owned

But I do truly wonder how the companies would perform if they bought their own shares back, went private, and continued to produce cards/chips.

 

[AzN]

If AMD or Nvidia didn't do it someone else will.

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: Aberforth
I do not bash Nvidia or AMD but I am concerned about the fact that companies lose culture and passion as they grow, I guess it's natural with all the baseless support and money they are receiving.

I don't think the loss of culture and passion is a result of baseless support and money. It's a result of just growing. You have to fill positions with people with the necessary skills and knowledge, but how many of those people will also have the same vision? As you grow and grow, it's just natural that the original culture and passion is diluted.

loss of culture and passion will make them hire incompetant people. Why they lose passion? Money.

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: Azn
If AMD or Nvidia didn't do it someone else will.

Is there some other company in the discrete video card business I'm not aware of ?

 

[krnmastersgt]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: Aberforth
I do not bash Nvidia or AMD but I am concerned about the fact that companies lose culture and passion as they grow, I guess it's natural with all the baseless support and money they are receiving.

I don't think the loss of culture and passion is a result of baseless support and money. It's a result of just growing. You have to fill positions with people with the necessary skills and knowledge, but how many of those people will also have the same vision? As you grow and grow, it's just natural that the original culture and passion is diluted.

loss of culture and passion will make them hire incompetant people. Why they lose passion? Money.

It's hard to keep everyone aiming toward one goal in a massive company, and once you go public its up to the shareholders, so you just higher the most experienced people no matter their lack of vision or abundance thereof.

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: krnmastersgt
But I do truly wonder how the companies would perform if they bought their own shares back, went private, and continued to produce cards/chips.

I really don't follow these types of things too much, but I figured that the reason companies go public in the first place was to raise capital for more growth, R&D funds, etc. Not sure how a company would fare going from public to private, especially with how cutthroat the tech business seems.

 

[golem]

loss of culture and passion will make them hire incompetant people. Why they lose passion? Money.

Since when did passion = competence?

You could be incredible passionate about something and incredible incompetent too.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Originally posted by: AmberClad

Originally posted by: krnmastersgt
But I do truly wonder how the companies would perform if they bought their own shares back, went private, and continued to produce cards/chips.

I really don't follow these types of things too much, but I figured that the reason companies go public in the first place was to raise capital for more growth, R&D funds, etc. Not sure how a company would fare going from public to private, especially with how cutthroat the tech business seems.

I wonder how many companies have gone back to being private and yet still remain profitable, large, and still expand. But if any company could do it I think tech companies could, the average person, not to be condescending, doesn't know jack squat about the internals of a computer aside from what their manufacturer tells them is inside. And its not like nVidia doesn't make enough money, they still control a majority share of the discrete video card market.

 

[golem]

I wonder how many companies have gone back to being private and yet still remain profitable, large, and still expand. But if any company could do it I think tech companies could, the average person, not to be condescending, doesn't know jack squat about the internals of a computer aside from what their manufacturer tells them is inside. And its not like nVidia doesn't make enough money, they still control a majority share of the discrete video card market.

Actually I think it would be the hardest for most tech companies. Because they have to expend so much money on R&D. It's like Intel vs. AMD. AMD just doesn't have as much funds to spend on R&D as Intel does so they have to get chip design right every time or suffer big like they are now. If Intel makes a design misstep, they can out market AMD and still get along okay.

So a tech company going private in market where there's fierce competition would be spending money buying back shares instead of using the money on R&D or fabs or whatever.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Well unless the tech company is releasing more shares that it owns to the public, remaining a publicly traded company yields no benefits aside from equity borrowing. I say its easiest for tech companies since the current leaders, Intel/DAAMIT/nVidia are going to be around for a bit of time considering the size and control of their respective markets.

And therein lies the true beauty for a company taking advantage of the average consumer, they don't need to spend so much on R&D to move products. Computer manufacturers like Dell are moving away from integrated video cards, although they still carry them, and nVidia is pretty much their only choice, and being the largest distributor of pre-built systems in this country nVidia gets plenty of sales. Also if nVidia ever gets that dominating effect it had with the 8 Series over ATI, then they have quite some time and money to spend before they worry about their competitor.

 

[golem]

But your ignoring the initial benefit when they first issued the stock. This gave them a huge infusion of cash that they used to come out with a better product. The profits from this first product is what starts everything rolling. They use these profits to continue with their growth.

If there are 2 equal companies, one that stays private, and one that goes public. The one that went public will have a cash advantage, which if they use wisely, means they will come out with a better product. From that point it just snowballs.


Your scenario assumes Nvidia would still be the same company there are now if they never went public. Without the cash infusion from going public in the first place, they probably wouldn't still exist because 3dfx or Matrox would have outsold them.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Ah but you need to take into account how long ago those companies went private. Of course theres the large cash benefit from the ipo, but if the stock price quadruples and the company doesn't sell more of itself then theres no benefit to them whatsoever. Also there might be a cash advantage in your scenario, but if you factor in enthusiasts/gamers/people who know and care whats in their system, the private company wouldn't be taking orders from shareholders on what they should release and at what time to maximize profits, the private company could take a lead and the public company would always just respond with something that isn't entirely ready for public release.