When someone from "Finance Department" is going to take over, it means this is the right comparison: It is going to kill the innovation in company and destroy what was considered to be the identity of the brand and the company, for some numbers and statistics in Excel.
The stock price of NVidia is quite volatile this week. Suggesting that people do in fact care, and care enough to move substantial sums of money to move the stock price more than usual.
What correlation are you seeing? What I see is that investors started losing confidence in Nvida on October 6th. Nobody knew who Jensen, except maybe as the leather jacket guy, was back then.
What seems to actually be happening is that the AI bubble started to pop and this was timed to act as a way to try and explain to investors why the AI bubble isn't actually popping — its just the market reacting to one guy's indiscretions, yea that's it — in hopes of recovering market sentiment. There is no reason to believe the story is fabricated, but it is also quite clear that everyone around Jensen already knew about this for a long time. They'd have reported it sooner if it was something people actually cared about.
When Jensen Huang was outed, the market moved -12% premarket on the news alone.
Which is quite a big jump even with all the other volatility since early October.
The decline also seems steeper to me since the Chinese Spy affair became public knowledge. Which makes sense, Jensen Huang has potentially opened up NVidia to an illegal sanctions avoiding scheme. It's not very clear what the legal repercussions of these events are.
The multiple affairs are mostly just tabloid bullshit. But one of the affairs has extreme repercussions, especially if something like 20% of NVidias revenue was based off of black market sales. If NVidia moves to become more legitimate after Hunags departure, that means at a minimum a massive decline in sales to Singaporian based shell companies, which seemingly is a large part of NVidias revenue.
Geopolitically, there is the question of NVidias $25 Million donation to the Trump ballroom and whether or not that caused the current White House to look away from the damages NVidias actions caused.
The company still has to deal with Huang's recklessness. Not just his inability to keep his dick in his pants but we're talking about legitimate business issues, geopolitics and more.
-----
Sleeping with fellow executives also leads to the questions of favoritism and whether or not Jensen Huang made the best decisions for the company, or if various promotions were off of his fetishes or sexual preferences. It's a bad look for his management style and his ability to lead a team on a personal level.
So it's also somewhat serious but more from an internal perspective rather than a country wide geopolitical issue like the Chinese Spy affair.
> the market moved -12% premarket on the news alone.
By close the price movement was consistent with the trend already seen. Trading algorithms reacting to the early news is likely, but ostensibly in the end the humans didn't care. No more than they did in days and weeks before the news broke.
However, what you have failed to establish is that the stock market measures care. Perhaps you're too young to remember, but we lived through a "meme stock" era that taught us that many investors see it as little more than entertainment. At best another form of gambling. Do you think casinos offer care or entertainment?
They care about topic of Jensen himself or NVIDIA. This doesn't imply they're anyhow interested into "comparing Jensen to Steve Jobs". I can also AI-write "Comparing Jensen to a sea cucumber is stupid." or "Comparing Jensen to an Arc'teryx beanie is stupid.".
Jensen was ousted for different reasons; his subordinates generally liked him quite a bit; he's an old man and not coming back from this, changed, humbled, or otherwise. Basically everything other than "CEO was fired" is different.
It's strictly regarding the comparison of their ousters. The criticism implies that Apple would have been fine if Jobs wasn't pushed out in 1985, which is what I strongly disagree with.
I admit the concise title has a bit of a click-baity nature to it.
Are you the author? The issue is that the article asserts a claim but doesn't finish the argument. What's the connection of the Jobs' story to Jensen? And why is the comparison bad? Obviously, they are different situations, but that in itself doesn't invalidate some possible lesson from the comparison.
I mean, we have AI now.. shouldn't be difficult for people to put their writing into it to check the quality of the arguments.
I appreciate the feedback! I could have made the topic a bit clearer from the start and rounded that out with Jensen already being a strong leader for his company—his tenure likely would have continued to go on fine, barring the developments of this past week.
The intent was to focus on the Steve Jobs parallel, which misses the entire point of him leaving Apple. The criticism today makes it sound like Apple would have continued on a path of success if it kept Steve, just as Jensen has been a strong leader for Nvidia. The comparison is bad because Jensen has already been producing good results for his company at the time of leaving. Steve Jobs was clearly not.
As for the AI argument check—good thing to do next time :)
When someone from "Finance Department" is going to take over, it means this is the right comparison: It is going to kill the innovation in company and destroy what was considered to be the identity of the brand and the company, for some numbers and statistics in Excel.
Comparison is the thief of Joy.
Who cares?
There's a 3000+ comment thread suggesting that someone cares about this topic.
That suggests many are entertained by the topic. Being entertained does not imply that one cares.
The stock price of NVidia is quite volatile this week. Suggesting that people do in fact care, and care enough to move substantial sums of money to move the stock price more than usual.
What correlation are you seeing? What I see is that investors started losing confidence in Nvida on October 6th. Nobody knew who Jensen, except maybe as the leather jacket guy, was back then.
What seems to actually be happening is that the AI bubble started to pop and this was timed to act as a way to try and explain to investors why the AI bubble isn't actually popping — its just the market reacting to one guy's indiscretions, yea that's it — in hopes of recovering market sentiment. There is no reason to believe the story is fabricated, but it is also quite clear that everyone around Jensen already knew about this for a long time. They'd have reported it sooner if it was something people actually cared about.
When Jensen Huang was outed, the market moved -12% premarket on the news alone.
Which is quite a big jump even with all the other volatility since early October.
The decline also seems steeper to me since the Chinese Spy affair became public knowledge. Which makes sense, Jensen Huang has potentially opened up NVidia to an illegal sanctions avoiding scheme. It's not very clear what the legal repercussions of these events are.
The multiple affairs are mostly just tabloid bullshit. But one of the affairs has extreme repercussions, especially if something like 20% of NVidias revenue was based off of black market sales. If NVidia moves to become more legitimate after Hunags departure, that means at a minimum a massive decline in sales to Singaporian based shell companies, which seemingly is a large part of NVidias revenue.
Geopolitically, there is the question of NVidias $25 Million donation to the Trump ballroom and whether or not that caused the current White House to look away from the damages NVidias actions caused.
The company still has to deal with Huang's recklessness. Not just his inability to keep his dick in his pants but we're talking about legitimate business issues, geopolitics and more.
-----
Sleeping with fellow executives also leads to the questions of favoritism and whether or not Jensen Huang made the best decisions for the company, or if various promotions were off of his fetishes or sexual preferences. It's a bad look for his management style and his ability to lead a team on a personal level.
So it's also somewhat serious but more from an internal perspective rather than a country wide geopolitical issue like the Chinese Spy affair.
> the market moved -12% premarket on the news alone.
By close the price movement was consistent with the trend already seen. Trading algorithms reacting to the early news is likely, but ostensibly in the end the humans didn't care. No more than they did in days and weeks before the news broke.
However, what you have failed to establish is that the stock market measures care. Perhaps you're too young to remember, but we lived through a "meme stock" era that taught us that many investors see it as little more than entertainment. At best another form of gambling. Do you think casinos offer care or entertainment?
They care about topic of Jensen himself or NVIDIA. This doesn't imply they're anyhow interested into "comparing Jensen to Steve Jobs". I can also AI-write "Comparing Jensen to a sea cucumber is stupid." or "Comparing Jensen to an Arc'teryx beanie is stupid.".
we call it a botnet around these parts
So, OK, Steve Jobs had a life lesson.. but why is comparing Jensen to Jobs stupid? The article doesn't answer this question.
Jensen was ousted for different reasons; his subordinates generally liked him quite a bit; he's an old man and not coming back from this, changed, humbled, or otherwise. Basically everything other than "CEO was fired" is different.
> he's an old man and not coming back from this, changed, humbled, or otherwise
Look up Hock Tan. Maybe Jensen won't come back to first place, but he still can make a lot of money for himself or someone else.
Anyway, these arguments are not supported by the article.
It's strictly regarding the comparison of their ousters. The criticism implies that Apple would have been fine if Jobs wasn't pushed out in 1985, which is what I strongly disagree with.
I admit the concise title has a bit of a click-baity nature to it.
Are you the author? The issue is that the article asserts a claim but doesn't finish the argument. What's the connection of the Jobs' story to Jensen? And why is the comparison bad? Obviously, they are different situations, but that in itself doesn't invalidate some possible lesson from the comparison.
I mean, we have AI now.. shouldn't be difficult for people to put their writing into it to check the quality of the arguments.
I appreciate the feedback! I could have made the topic a bit clearer from the start and rounded that out with Jensen already being a strong leader for his company—his tenure likely would have continued to go on fine, barring the developments of this past week.
The intent was to focus on the Steve Jobs parallel, which misses the entire point of him leaving Apple. The criticism today makes it sound like Apple would have continued on a path of success if it kept Steve, just as Jensen has been a strong leader for Nvidia. The comparison is bad because Jensen has already been producing good results for his company at the time of leaving. Steve Jobs was clearly not.
As for the AI argument check—good thing to do next time :)
Going by this article's theme, Jensen Huang will fall too, learn his lesson through suffering, grow humble, and return even stronger
Or he'll do a Sam Altman instead and get re-hired in five days.
Personally, I like your numeric nickname. It seems our senses of humor are similar by a margin of 10.
This post was #6 on HN with just 3 upvote points. Is there a "Steve Jobs" buff or something?