|
Great question, and perhaps at the point where decisions were being made, it'd be hard to argue a different path internally (hindsight being 20/20). However, it seems clear that the business built both insane prices and the crypto lockup of devices (whether explicitly, or implicitly) into their forecasts for the business. They didn't have a good pulse on the actual demand/usage of their product, and when that usage pattern would shift. The path they're taking right now, specifically regarding pricing towards & serving higher-end enthusiasts with newer products, makes sense while the used inventory gets cycled around the lower end of the market. From a product perspective, I don't have any useful opinions to share because I'm not in hardware, and I don't have the information set they're operating from internally. But, they should have hoovered up as much cheap capital as they could while their stock price was high and the going was good to make the next period of heavy investments (to be fair, shares outstanding did grow, just not by a ton, %-wise, and they have a fair bit of cash on the balance sheet) https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/NVDA/financials/quart... is painful to see, and I don't foresee it getting better in the next year. |
This approach might take a beating if AMD is willing for a price war. And AMD can because of their chiplet approach being cheaper.
I will buy nVidia purely because of dabbling interests in ML images... so a price war might not be so effective thanks to a technical moat.