jonpeddie: nvidia keeps losing market share

[(sic)Klown12]

I think the FTC made the VIA x86 license transferable on sale.

It's not so cut or dry in regards to transferring the x86 license.

The FTC has not gone so far as to require that Intel drops these provisions, but it does weaken them. If either AMD or Via has a “change of control” (i.e. a buyout/takeover/merger/joint-venture), Intel cannot immediately take the resulting company to court to terminate the license. Intel is required to enter in to good-faith negotiations with the new company to continue x86 CPU design and can only begin court proceedings after a certain period of time. As far as we can tell this does not require that Intel extend a license to a buyer of AMD or Via, but it does require that they consider it. If Intel does not act in good-faith in these negotiations, then the FTC can sanction Intel over it.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3839/intel-settles-with-the-ftc/2

They can't outright deny the transfer, but neither are they forced to give it to the new owner.

 

[WelshBloke]

It's not so cut or dry in regards to transferring the x86 license.


http://www.anandtech.com/show/3839/intel-settles-with-the-ftc/2

They can't outright deny the transfer, but neither are they forced to give it to the new owner.

What the fu** does that mean?

"yeah we thought about it but...mmmhh...nope. sorry!"

 

[Idontcare]

What the fu** does that mean?

"yeah we thought about it but...mmmhh...nope. sorry!"

"good faith effort" means that if the terms of offered compensation are reasonable then Intel would not have justification to refuse the terms.

The FTC won't/can't require Intel to assure the transfer because then the buyer knows they have it in the bag and they could offer Intel something ridiculous like $1 for the license knowing the FTC would require Intel to accept it.

On the flip-side the FTC isn't going to let Intel set the terms otherwise Intel could ask for something absurd like $100B or $1T for the x86 license knowing there is no way the company would accept the terms. In this extreme case Intel could claim they offered a license but the other party didn't accept the terms.

The FTC basically says both parties have to make "good faith" effort - i.e. reasonable terms of compensation and restrictions on the license from both parties.

For example, if a third party evaluator says an x86 license is worth $40m/yr then the FTC would expect Intel to offer terms and conditions that were in that ballpark, they wouldn't have to accept low-ball offers but at the same time they couldn't charge outrageous amounts either.

It's actually a rather well-balanced ruling by the FTC.

 

[Chiropteran]

For example, if a third party evaluator says an x86 license is worth $40m/yr then the FTC would expect Intel to offer terms and conditions that were in that ballpark, they wouldn't have to accept low-ball offers but at the same time they couldn't charge outrageous amounts either.

I'm a little confused about this. It sounds like you are saying transferring the existing license to a new owner after purchase of the existing company owning the IP would cost the exact same as buying usage of the license independently of buying the company which previously owned the license.

If so, why would a company buy AMD or VIA for their x86 license, if the license would cost the same without such a purchase?

 

[Idontcare]

I'm a little confused about this. It sounds like you are saying transferring the existing license to a new owner after purchase of the existing company owning the IP would cost the exact same as buying usage of the license independently of buying the company which previously owned the license.

If so, why would a company buy AMD or VIA for their x86 license, if the license would cost the same without such a purchase?

I'm not saying it would cost the exact same, I'm saying that whatever it would cost that price is something that would be viewed as "fair market value".

At any rate, presumably an x86 license is of little value if you don't have any of the IP that you need to make a competitive processor. Buying the company gives you that IP, enables you to enter into continuing cross-license agreements and enables you to actually build x86-based CPU's that the market would be willing to buy.

For example Texas Instruments has an x86 license, it is basically worthless though because they don't have any IP for building a modern, sophisticated, x86 architecture.

 

[poohbear]

I think the way everything is shaking out this is a real possibility. I also believe by the end of this decade gaming and general computing will be much different than it is today. Mobile and ultra mobile devices gobbling up marketshare from traditional desktops, laptops, and gaming consoles.

so u really believe gaming is gonna move to a 4" screen on people's smartphone from their 27" Desktop setup? I dont see what all the hype is about, i tried gaming on my smart phone, its good for 5 min or to kill time, but overall it sucks.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I've seen this pointed out several times but it's worth repeating. No one wants an x86 license. Getting one just means you are competing directly with Intel, which is damn near impossible, given Intel's business practices, not to mention their deep pockets. Even AMD, who is long established in selling x86 products, has nearly become extinct trying to compete with Intel.

I would be a great thing for the marketplace and the consumer to move away from x86 and to an ISA that can be reasonably licensed by anyone that wants it, the sooner the better. x86 has held back the industry for far too long.

 

[happy medium]

so u really believe gaming is gonna move to a 4" screen on people's smartphone from their 27" Desktop setup? I dont see what all the hype is about, i tried gaming on my smart phone, its good for 5 min or to kill time, but overall it sucks.

No new phones have a hdmi output for your big screen TV's, as well as bluetooth mouse and keyboard capabilities. I was playing with one today at Bestbuy. Very cool indeed. :thumbsup:

In the very near future, I can see a bluetooth xbox 360 like controller playing Need for Speed Shift 3 on a Tegra 3 quad core based smart phone on a 40 inch TV. Or perhaps a game of Counter Strike on a 4g/wifi Steam network, with a bluetooth Mouse and Keyboard for controls.

 

[Genx87]

so u really believe gaming is gonna move to a 4" screen on people's smartphone from their 27" Desktop setup? I dont see what all the hype is about, i tried gaming on my smart phone, its good for 5 min or to kill time, but overall it sucks.

For the majority of the market? Yes, I think phones will be their gaming platform. For people who are considered "hard core" or "enthusiast"? No, the phone will not replace their gaming setup.

 

[apoppin]

No new phones have a hdmi output for your big screen TV's, as well as bluetooth mouse and keyboard capabilities. I was playing with one today at Bestbuy. Very cool indeed. :thumbsup:

In the very near future, I can see a bluetooth xbox 360 like controller playing Need for Speed Shift 3 on a Tegra 3 quad core based smart phone on a 40 inch TV. Or perhaps a game of Counter Strike on a 4g/wifi Steam network, with a bluetooth Mouse and Keyboard for controls.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=116466&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1561303&highlight=

NVIDIA announced today that it has agreed to acquire Icera, a leading innovator of top-performing baseband processors for 3G and 4G cellular phones and tablets.

Icera has more than 550 patents granted or pending worldwide, and its high speed wireless-modem products have been approved by more than 50 carriers across the globe. By combining the companies' products and technologies, including NVIDIA's Tegra processor, NVIDIA will enhance its position as a leading player in the growing mobile market.

The acquisition, for $367 million in cash, has been approved by both companies' boards of directors and is expected to be completed, subject to customary closing conditions, in approximately 30 days. The transaction is expected to be slightly dilutive on an operating basis through the first half of calendar 2012, and accretive on an operating basis in the second half of calendar 2012. This expectation does not take into account significant revenue synergies that the companies anticipate.

By offering the two main processors used in smartphones (the application processor and baseband processor), the combined company will help OEM customers both improve their time to market and deliver the requirements of next-generation mobile computing. NVIDIA will also have approximately doubled its revenue opportunity within each device.

The market for baseband processors is one of the fastest growing segments of the technology industry, worth an estimated $15 billion a year. Icera will be able to leverage NVIDIA's momentum in the smartphone and tablet markets to capitalize on this growth.

,,,

Huang added that NVIDIA intends to continue to collaborate with its existing baseband partners and respect its customers' preferences in combining application and baseband processors.
,,,

Icera is a pioneer in next-generation, multi-protocol wireless baseband processors with RF components. Its technology scales from 2G to 4G networks, using a custom-built, ultra-low-power processor. Because the baseband is software-based, manufacturers can develop multiple products from a common platform, reduce development costs, accelerate time to market and secure a route to support future baseband standards.

Icera's third-generation Livanto line of chipsets delivers the industry's fastest data rates, cuts user wait times, reduces battery drain and supports multiple standards on the same hardware. And its forthcoming Espresso(R)450 and Espresso(R)500 line of platforms provides industry-leading performance for 2G, 3G and 4G networks, low-power optimization for voice and high-speed data, and the industry's smallest form factor. Its portfolio of products will expand significantly in the near future.

, , ,

Thursday Conference Call More details will be provided during NVIDIA's quarterly conference call to be held on Thursday, May 12, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. PT.

 

[cotak13]

^ Called that ages ago, them needing a baseband bit.

This is interesting though. With all the rhetoric about ARM on lap/desk tops acquiring baseband seems to open the door to staying in the mobile play yard. I say this because ultimately all engineering designs are compromises and something that's good in mobile isn't necessarily going to be good in ultimate speed. And trying to win in both markets is like fighting a two front war.

 

[shangshang]

^ Called that ages ago, them needing a baseband bit.

This is interesting though. With all the rhetoric about ARM on lap/desk tops acquiring baseband seems to open the door to staying in the mobile play yard. I say this because ultimately all engineering designs are compromises and something that's good in mobile isn't necessarily going to be good in ultimate speed. And trying to win in both markets is like fighting a two front war.

ugh NV ain't trying to win in both market. NV has pretty much gave up the desktop chipset business and at the same time heavily investing in anything ARM/mobile related. As I see it, NV is a company that is transitioning to the mobile/handheld space and are using their "graphic desktop" business to fund the investment into mobile space.

And ultimately what's left of NV's desktop business will be in the high margin area, aka professional graphics. NV will probably exit the desktop gaming market (as we know it today) eventually; consoles will kill desktop gaming.

Tablets is where the next game is at. It's where the hype is. It's where investors on Wall St are wanting and willing to see and PAY for the stocks. It's the happening thing right now.

 

[busydude]

NV will probably exit the desktop gaming market (as we know it today) eventually; consoles will kill desktop gaming.

This statement is kind of ironic. PC vs console arguments go back as far as they have existed together.. and yet we see PC gaming pretty much alive and kicking.

Also, you have to keep in mind that these current chips that are being used in desktop gaming will eventually trickle down to Laptops/consoles. If Nvidia exists from desktop market.. they have to also exit from Discreet mobile market and consoles eventually.

 

[exar333]

I remember reading this article about this survey, it was surprising.
After people buy tablets, one of the most used aspect /apps is gaming.
I'm getting a Ipad2 myself, the main reason is for the great screen, ebook reader usage, web surfing. Maybe I will try Shift
links to same survey.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383348,00.asp

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/34045/Survey_Gaming_Top_Activity_On_Tablets_For_US_Users.php

edit: Surveys can return varied results, I won't contend that.

Gaming is very limited on a tablet device. There I said it...

 

[notty22]

Why would they leave discrete desktop video cards. A large segment of their revenue is 3D workstation cards. The facts they have found computing applications for them also is added revenue. Along with making a parallel line of Geforce gaming cards. I don't see this model changing any time soon.
All the way down to the geforce gt 430 there is a Quadro (fermi) 600 model cousin.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-geforce-gt-430-us.html
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-quadro-600-us.html

Beneath this level of gpu performance is now the territory of the cpu/gpu on die. As things progress, this dynamic will change. Eventually faster on die gpu will have to deal with memory bandwith issues. Should be interesting.

 

[RussianSensation]

NV will probably exit the desktop gaming market (as we know it today) eventually

NV needs both the desktop/mobile GPU and workstation markets. The billions of dollars that it costs to develop a new GPU like Kepler only makes sense when you have several revenue streams to support such an investment. If NV were to exit the discrete desktop GPU space, it would be much more difficult to manufacture discrete GPUs for the mobile segment. NV can strive to be dominant in different markets. There is no need for them to abandon PC gaming unless the PC gaming market disappears.

consoles will kill desktop gaming.

Is that why shipments of discrete PC graphics chips increased by 10.3% from the last quarter?

Tablets is where the next game is at. It's where the hype is.

I heard the same thing 3 years ago when netbooks arrived on the scene. Now netbooks are pretty much dead. If smartphones with 5 inch screens come out, there will be even less reason to get a tablet. Besides, Apple has a huge market dominance in the tablet space - and they don't use AMD or NV GPU for that product. Given how poorly everyone else is doing in the tablet space outside of Apple and Samsung, it seems there is not a lot of growth opportunity for NV in this market segment.

 

[happy medium]

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....303&highlight=

Wow, I didn't see that comming. Nice post.

 

[PingviN]

Why would they leave discrete desktop video cards. A large segment of their revenue is 3D workstation cards. The facts they have found computing applications for them also is added revenue. Along with making a parallel line of Geforce gaming cards. I don't see this model changing any time soon.
All the way down to the geforce gt 430 there is a Quadro (fermi) 600 model cousin.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-geforce-gt-430-us.html
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-quadro-600-us.html

With development time for a new architecture being 4-5 years, it will probably be quite some time before (if) Nvidia exits the discreet graphics card market.