Which, given what we know so far, makes sense. Jensen's mistakes didn't jeopardize Nvidia's intellectual property, or lower sales overall. The business has no succession plan, has been led by Jensen for decades, and is riding a wave of ludicrous investments that have made the stock value soar. Many employees are probably afraid of losing a strong leader for something as nebulous as sanctions evasion.
What I've seen is 20% Jensen's fault (which he apparently owns up to), 30% the board's mistake for being so shortsighted, and 50% the governments fault for trusting Howard "Epstein's Next-door Neighbor" Lutnick with a role like Secretary of Commerce. If this entire hubbub is actually about sanctions evasion, then Jensen should be punished proportional to his failures instead of being turned into a useless scapegoat.
It’s easy to say you don’t have a price when no one is offering to buy you.
Like you aren't technically wrong but, idk, are you expecting anyone to agree?
The forces at work answer your question. Why would someone take RSUs from Nvidia? Obviously because that means they're getting hired at Nvidia which is one of the highest valued companies in the world, and the RSUs represent a lot of more money on top of your high salary and permanent resume clout.
In Taiwan, Nvidia and tsmc are the two highest salary payers in the country. It's frankly funny to think of a Taiwanese engineer hesitating at a Nvidia offer letter because of niche FOSS/right to repair/IP liberation ideological qualms when the alternative is sweatshopping it at some no name chip industry side company that pays 30k/year at the high end.
I really hope you take some time to reevaluate this extremely misogynist take.
I don't just mean making money successful like polymarket etc. but he was the head of a company that created multiple huge technical achievements in past decades. He made huge bets on multiple things and the bets actually worked in the end.
And they will very likely replace him with a bunch of accountants. It is not hard to understand why someone would want to have him as a leader instead of an accountant.
Silicon Valley culture jumped the shark.
Anyone senior signing such a petition should get a very close eye from the new HR and outside counsel.
Because no one else can fill the shoes. The best that the next CEO can do is either:
a) make improvements on what exists, and thus effectively stagnate in a moving hardware industry, or
b) cut staff (which Nvidia has only done twice in its history: 1996 (near-bankruptcy), and around 2008 (360 / 6.5%), right in the middle of ironing out the Tesla architecture).
The moment their CFO took over, they already announced layoffs.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BayAreaTalk/comments/1xu5wzy/nvidia...
The CFO is almost never one that makes unique product decisions.
Alexander the Great was an extraordinary warlord and a mediocre king. He died unexpectedly, and his empire collapsed immediately.
Securing succession is a huge part of leadership in any organization that is supposed to outlast its leader. Because unexpected things can happen at any time, a leader must keep the organization in a shape, where a plausible successor can take over and continue leading it successfully. If no such successors exist, the leader has not done their job properly.
This presupposes that there are successors that can fill the roles. Even after curation, what's left will very rarely match what's required, doubly so with tech-centric companies. The CFO now in charge is the perfect example of this.
A regression to the mean more often than not happens as a result.