[bob1029]

I think much of this boils down to perspectives some of us have regarding the value of in-house manufacturing capabilities relative to design time & software capabilities.

I get arguments that maybe one fab is better than the other, but what about all of them combined? All of our modern chipmaking capability all at once.

Nvidia has no factories. You can ship their output on a USB flash drive. Valuation: ~3.1T.

Intel, TSMC and Samsung have all the factories. Every modern chip made on earth in this circle. Combined valuation: ~1.1T

This is simple napkin math for this arbitrary retail investor. I don't know when the music will stop but it absolutely will.

[wormlord]

I agree with this sentiment overall, but we have to remember that for valuations, profit and growth is really all that matters. Even if an industry is irreplacable.

I think I read this from Warren Buffett, but basically as of the early 2000s the airlines, in their entire history, had only managed to break even. If you had bought an airline company in 1940 and held it until 2000, you would have never profited from it. The business itself would be worth significantly more, but your only exit strategy would be to sell.

I haven't looked at any of these company's balance sheets, but it might be that semiconductor fabbing is less profitable and has less room for growth. In the short term that's all that matters. The question is if Nvidia can hold on to its current growth and margins (I don't think it can).

[matwood]

Are you saying a software company has less value for some reason? See MS. Or are you saying a hardware company that doesn't own their production has less value? See Apple.

I think we've seen over many years at this point that there is huge value in the final product.

[_zoltan_]

hard depreciating assets (factories) + selling chips are way worse than actually selling an ecosystem. NVDA is just getting started :-)