The problem was, her ETFs are not paid and incentivized by performance. She’s paid and incentivized by AUM. So her team spends their time writing speeches and on Twitter writing hype posts instead of shutting up, being heads down buried in a laptop analyzing stocks, and performing analysis quietly. She might’ve been worried her AUM could drop if she made big changes like liquidating to cash.
AMD and Intel have been trying hard to compete with Nvidia for a while now. I mean in AI accelerator market. Little success so far.
If AMD had been really interested (from a corporate strategic level) in the GPGPU market, their driver/library team would be a lot bigger.
You provide a BLAS implementation, and your primary customer can take it from there.
As opposed to Nvidia's current market, which spans HPC to AWS/Azure/GCP to corporate datacenter to "I followed the directions on Reddit" personal machines.
Of everyone, you'd think Microsoft would have the most incentive (and ability) to improve tooling/stability on not-Nvidia.
> I really fail to see what people see even in Nvidia/Cuda, it won't take long until others catch up, and they'll likely move back to margins closer to the industry, which are extremely low.
Looks like analyst predictions are that Nvidia growth will start flattening in Q1 2025.
And when even Cathy Woods is selling because of over-valuation concerns, everyone should be looking for the exits.
Part of Nvidia's strategic problem is that they made too much money recently: they needed lower profits in their primary markets to disincentivize competitor investment and retain their moat.
Instead, AMD and Intel saw a cash cow. And those aren't small, ignorable competitors.