Their last quarter was $35b in sales and $26b in gross profit ($21.8b op income; 62% op income margin vs sales).
Visa is notorious for their extreme margin (66% op income margin vs sales) due to being basically a brand + transaction network. So the fact that a hardware manufacturer is hitting those levels is truly remarkable.
It's very clear that either AMD or Intel could accept far lower margins to go after them. And indeed that's exactly what will be required for any serious attempt to cut into their monopoly position.
They processed $12T in payments last year (almost a billion payments per day), with a net revenue of $32B. That's a gross transaction margin of 0.26% and their GAAP net income was half that, about 0.14%. [1]
They're just a transaction network, unlike say Amex which is both an issuer and a network. Being just the network is more operationally efficient.
It's quite simple. Divide revenue minus costs by revenue. Transaction volume isn't revenue. Visa only gets the transaction fee.
Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and do a proper interpretation of the number you've arrived at, its meaning is quite different and quite off topic from this discussion. What you have calculated is the total share of costs that Visa represents in that 12 trillion dollar part of the economy. It is like saying Visa's share of GDP is 0.1%.
As my mother used to say if you have nothing nice to say you're better off staying quiet ;)
You misunderstand why and how Nvidia is a monopoly. Many companies make GPUs, and all those GPUs can be used for computation if you develop compute shaders for them. This part is not the problem, you can already go buy cheaper hardware that outperforms Nvidia if price is your only concern.
Software is the issue. That's it - it's CUDA and nothing else. You cannot assail Nvidia's position, and moreover their hardware's value, without a really solid reason for datacenters to own them. Datacenters do not want to own GPUs because once the AI bubble pops they'll be bagholders for Intel and AMD's depreciated software. Nvidia hardware can at least crypto mine, or be leased out to industrial customers that have their own remote CUDA applications. The demand for generic GPU compute is basically nonexistent, the reason this market exists at all is because CUDA exists, and you cannot turn over Nvidia's foothold without accepting that fact.
The only way the entire industry can fuck over Nvidia is if they choose to invest in a complete CUDA replacement like OpenCL. That is the only way that Nvidia's value can be actually deposed without any path of recourse for their business, and it will never happen because every single one of Nvidia's competitors hate each other's guts and would rather watch each other die in gladiatorial combat than help each other fight the monster. And Jensen Huang probably revels in it, CUDA is a hedged bet against the industry ever working together for common good.
I don't personally think CUDA is impossible to replace - but I do think that everyone capable of replacing CUDA has been ignoring it recently. Nvidia's role as the GPGPU compute people is secure for the foreseeable future. Apple wants to design simpler GPUs, AMD wants to design cheaper GPUs, and Intel wants to pretend like they can compete with AMD. Every stakeholder with the capacity to turn this ship around is pretending like Nvidia doesn't exist and whistling until they go away.
So many billions of dollars and no one is even 1% close to displacing CUDA in any meaningful way. ZULDA is dead. ROCM is a meme, Scale is a meme. Either you use CUDA or you don't do meaningful AI work.
It's impossible to assail their monopoly without utilizing far lower prices, coming up under their extreme margin products. It's how it is almost always done competitively in tech (see: ARM, or Office (dramatically undercut Lotus with a cheaper inferior product), or Linux, or Huawei, or Chromebooks, or Internet Explorer, or just about anything).
Note: I never said lower prices is all you'd need. Who would think that? The implication is that I'm ignorant of the entire history of tech, it's a poor approach to discussion with another person on HN frankly.
In the case of ARM, Office, Linux, Huawei, and ChromeOS, these were all actual alternatives to the incumbent tools people were familiar with. You can directly compare Office and Lotus because they are fundamentally similar products - ARM had a real chance against x86 because wasn't a complex ISA to unseat. Nvidia is not analogous to these businesses because they occupy a league of their own as the provider of CUDA. It's not exaggeration to say that they have completely seceded from the market of GPUs and can sustain themselves on demand from crypto miners and AI pundits alone.
AMD, Intel and even Apple have bigger things to worry about than hitting an arbitrary price point, if they want Nvidia in their crosshairs. All of them have already solved the "sell consumer tech at attractive prices" problem but not the "make it complex, standardize it and scale it up" problem.
Intel seems to have thrown their weight behind SYCL, which is an open standard intended to compete with CUDA. Its not clear there has been much interest from other hardware vendors though.
High speed, low latency server grade DDR5 is around $800-$1600 for 128GB. Triple that for $2400 - $4800 just for the memory. Still need the GPUs/APUs, card, VRMs, etc.
Even the nVidia H100 with "only" 94GB starts at $30k...