DanielEran

mytdave said:

AppleInsider said:

...This is particularly a problem if Apple continues to target new areas where Nvidia would like to be, including the data center, professional workstations used for high-end research work, the automotive industry, specialized imaging products, Machine Learning and the development of AR and VR content...

I like you DED, and I'm an Apple fan (iPad, iPhone, etc.) but ya know, Apple's just not that smart. They don't give a damn about the data center, professional developers, and high tech research. Besides, Nvidia is already in that space, and light years ahead of anything Apple is even contemplating. 

Where I work we do extremely high-end tech development, and there is not an Apple device in sight - not because they're reviled or they're "toys" or other such nonsense, but because nothing Apple makes provides even a fraction of the capabilities we need. All our GPU development is done on Nvidia w/CUDA. If Apple ever grows up and builds something that can accommodate four of these PCIe cards, you let me know:  http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla-p100.html

I see Apple and Nvidia going in very different directions. Apple is taking their tech entirely consumer (including dumb-as-bricks consumers), while Nvidia is going Pro - where all the true heavy lifting and next-level tech is being developed (and still providing GPUs for Windows desktop PCs - which are never going away mind you).

Note that I did not suggest that Nvidia's technology isn't impressive or powerful. Nor that Apple is necessarily interested in trying to sell the state of the art in high end pro technology.  

What i I wrote was that Apple's entry of a new GPU technology could accelerate the disruption Nvidia is already feeling in PCs. Perception is focused on what Nvidia could potentially do. What it actually makes its money from is PC graphics. 

Steve Jobs tried to make money with high end Pixar graphic computers and Next workstations. Both were state of the art, incredible machines that lost money. 

He made billions making cgi cartoons, translucent computers and pocket computers that mostly play games, browse Facebook and engage in idle chat. 

Still, I think Apple is actually contemplating some cool ideas that will also make money. 

jfanning said:

AppleInsider said:

Patent troll alert!

How do you know a company is in desperate trouble? Well, take a look at Nokia, AMD and Qualcomm. After they began losing business, they switched from a focus on serving customers to one oriented around "enforcing patents."

So Daniel, are you saying a company is a troll if they decide to protect their intellectual property? 

"They switch focus"

duervo said:

This article completely skipped the NVIDIA GRID technology used throughout virtualized data centres to provide accelerated graphics to virtual desktops.

That is not a small aspect to leave out.

GRID is part if the"exciting server stuff" here:

$5.8B of its $6.9B in total annual revenues are from "GPU," 75% of which come from PC desktop users, leaving a quarter for all of its Tesla/data center stuff. 

So the exciting server/AI stuff "Apple doesn't care about" amount to just $1.45b annually. 

Eric_WVGG said:

This is one of the rare instances where I find myself disagreeing with old DED.

Coincidentally, there is another company that also has aspirations in self-driving vehicles, which likes to talk about the future of AR and VR, which is rapidly expanding its own Deep Learning, Machine Learning and AI initiatives and which invented and open-sourced the first mainstream cross-platform API for GPGPU (OpenCL). That's Apple. 

This only makes sense if most applications of deep learning (to use as a shorthand for all this sort of thing) are consumer based. Much of it will be in markets that Apple either consciously has no aptitude for or simply doesn’t care about — I don't see them resurrecting the Xserve brand for selling Apple GPUs by the rack to Palantir or even IBM.

Furthermore, even in consumer space, nVidia would do just fine. Let's imagine a future where self-driving cars follow the smartphone market, where Apple sells a profitable 30% of vehicles and let's just say Toyota sells an unprofitable 70%. In this analogy, nVidia is not Toyota, it is a combination of Foxconn, Samsung (who sells silicon to both Apple and the entire Android space), and ARM itself. That's not a terrible place to be in!

It's useful to look at where Nvidia actually makes its money: http://investor.nvidia.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1045810-17-27

$5.8B of its $6.9B in total annual revenues are from "GPU," 75% of which come from PC desktop users, leaving a quarter for all of its Tesla/data center stuff. 

So the exciting server/AI stuff "Apple doesn't care about" amount to just $1.45b annually. 

The $0.8B slice counted as "Tegra" includes the remains of tablets and all automotive . That's pretty small potatoes anyway you slice it. 

Remember how "alarming" it is that ~60% of Apple's revenues come from iPhone? Well 63% of Nvidia revenues come from PCs. No amount of flashy car, server and AI hand waving changes that. 

Now, perhaps Nvidia can radically pivot to own new car/AI/ML markets. History shows it couldn't in mobile, despite trying valiantly. 

thewhitefalcon said:

Yes, a company that doesn't buy from Nvidia nor sell their tech to others is a threat to Nvidia. Brilliant conclusion, well done. 

Apple doesn't need to sell A10 chips to impact other GPU suppliers, as the article outlines.