Doomtrooper
Veteran
I don't think so
Another nVidia/GF FX concern?
- Thread starter martrox
- Start date
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NVDA&d=t
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ATYT&d=t
The market cap (cost of shares * number of outstanding shares) of NVIDIA is about 50% higher than ATI. That would make NVIDIA more expensive to purchase...if you had 1.5 billion dollars, that is.
EDIT: sigh...took too long.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ATYT&d=t
The market cap (cost of shares * number of outstanding shares) of NVIDIA is about 50% higher than ATI. That would make NVIDIA more expensive to purchase...if you had 1.5 billion dollars, that is.
EDIT: sigh...took too long.
Doomtrooper said:
This is really not true, ATI aquired a company that already had built the flipper chip.
The second part is however true
edit
Sorry I can see some one already said this.
I personally think that the fact that ATI is being investigated for certain unethical practices as we speak
("K.Y. Ho, Betty Ho, Jo-Anne Chang, David Stone, Mary de la Torre, and Alan Rae are alleged to have committed insider trading contrary to Ontario securities law, resulting in more than $7.9 million in profits or avoided losses and triggering significant tax benefits. "
And lying to staff to help themselves)
goes to show that trusting any large company to actually be honest is ridiculous, of course that doesn't mean we cannot hope for honesty.
Sxotty said:
No, you're wrong.
Facts:
Acquisition date is February, 2000. http://www.ati.com/companyinfo/press/2000/atiartx.pdf
Nintendo launched the GameCube in Japan on September 14, in US on November 18 - both in 2001. http://www.nintendo.com/corp/history.html
Do you think nothing happend during 19 months?
once again, I have to say I don't really understand this outrage business...
Good business ethics in my eyes is not killing people or cheating people for financial gain. Trying not get your throat cut because you failed a product launch is not unethical. At least not to me.. What the hell do I care? I mean I don't get my nv30 when I want it, but it's not like I can make it myself so I can't really bitch at them, besides I can go buy an ATI at any point that I lose patience.
I think your ethical standards are pretty unrealistic. Business in today's environment is about survival. Nobody is going to commit harikiri by telling their customers to go buy a competitors part because there's just isn't going to be ready any time soon.. I'll repeat that, nobody.
If you want to get worked up about business ethics complain about oil companies, military contractors, drug companies, etc.. shit, basically 99% of world economy is more corrupt and unethical than a bunch of geeks making graphics hardware.
Well at least that's my take on it. You certainly have the right to have higher standards than me. (shit, a lot of people do
)
Good business ethics in my eyes is not killing people or cheating people for financial gain. Trying not get your throat cut because you failed a product launch is not unethical. At least not to me.. What the hell do I care? I mean I don't get my nv30 when I want it, but it's not like I can make it myself so I can't really bitch at them, besides I can go buy an ATI at any point that I lose patience.
I think your ethical standards are pretty unrealistic. Business in today's environment is about survival. Nobody is going to commit harikiri by telling their customers to go buy a competitors part because there's just isn't going to be ready any time soon.. I'll repeat that, nobody.
If you want to get worked up about business ethics complain about oil companies, military contractors, drug companies, etc.. shit, basically 99% of world economy is more corrupt and unethical than a bunch of geeks making graphics hardware.
Well at least that's my take on it. You certainly have the right to have higher standards than me. (shit, a lot of people do
)SirPauly said:
Business has always been about survival. "Today's environment" certainly hasn't invented this attitude. Anyone think the Medici family were angels? Which explains why I was a liberal arts major (greed over ethics/integrity, not a Renaissance family of merchants).
megadrive0088
Regular
T2K - ARTX finished the Flipper before ATI acquired them. there was a tweaking/adustment process for GameCube, Gekko and Flipper from that time until the GC launch in Sept 2001 (Japan) but ATI did not have anything to do with the design of GameCube or Flipper. Flipper and the overall GC design was a joint effort between NDT and ARTX, with contribuations from other companies. IBM has more involvment on GC's deisgn than ATI... same could be said about Panasonic, NEC, Factor 5, and S3.
When a console's technology is complete, it usually sits around for a year or two before it's actually on the market.
When a console's technology is complete, it usually sits around for a year or two before it's actually on the market.
Doomtrooper
Veteran
Of course a business wants to survive, but ethics come into play on how a company does business..as the old saying goes 'what comes around, goes around'.
There is some large corporations in a monopolistic position that border on the edge of law suits daily, then there is some that believe in producing the best product and let their product speak for themself.
I prefer company number 2, as company number 1 will step on alot of shoes on its way to the top, and it will come back and haunt them.
There is some large corporations in a monopolistic position that border on the edge of law suits daily, then there is some that believe in producing the best product and let their product speak for themself.
I prefer company number 2, as company number 1 will step on alot of shoes on its way to the top, and it will come back and haunt them.
My take in this distinguished discussion....*chuckle*....is that
Business is about profit, not about ethics, not about survival...it's about profits. Profits shared with the employees in the way of salaries, stock options, benefits, etc. Profits for the shareholders in the way of dividends (sometimes) and stock share valuation. But in ATI's business along with nVidia's we are talking about hardware manufacturing from two different perspectives, really. ATI has long years of manufacturing experience that nVidia lacks, which puts them in a much different position than nVidia. ATI is where 3dfx wanted to be with respect to nVidia when 3dfx bought STB, IMO.
I guess people don't remember that it was just a couple of years ago that ATI dwarfed nVidia--heck, it wasn't that long ago when 3dfx dwarfed nVidia. This illustrates how rapidly fortunes can change in this business and it ought not be assumed nVidia can go nowhere but up.
Since the withered, wizened corpse of 3dfx was ingested by nVidia a couple of years ago nVidia has enjoyed an unprecedented period of relative non-competition. There were some products which made it to market and at least attempted to compete, but the reality is nothing made by anyone else has been able to compete with the offspring of the original TNT architecture nVidia put together years ago and continued to refine and enlarge, with no shortage of help from timely advances in chip manufacturing processes and the development of hardware like DDR SDRAM. Convenient and available to nVidia, the company eagerly adopted these technologies to enhance its architecture while companies like 3dfx remained too skeptical about them for their own good.
The irony is it would have behooved nVidia greatly to have been much more skeptical of the golden promises of .13 microns and DDR II, as is plain to all at this point, but by this time nVidia had become so dependent on these outside technologies as pivotal foundations for its own technology that it simply would have been unable to design a product like the R300 which does not depend on .13 microns nor upon DDR II. If the business strategy of the nVidia corporation could be said to have a tragic flaw then this fundamental dependency on outside technology would certainly be it.
Some have said that ATI "bought" another company which enabled it to come up with R300, and that may well be true. But it does not in any measure diminish the achievement. Lots of companies buy other companies for this or that technology, expecting a bonanza that never materializes because in the end nothing comes of the purchase. So if ATI did have the good judgement to be able to look at ArtX's potential before buying the company then this is merely a measure of the excellence of ATI's management in being able to call that shot so well. Imagine what would have happened had the company spent hundreds of millions of $ for ArtX...for nothing. Again, this is not something that happens rarely when a company acquires another based on a probable future product sales potential--half the time the potential never pans out. (And the deal makers and lawyers walk away from the table rich men--but that's another story.)
In the end the bottom line is not talk but the products a company ships. In its last days 3dfx was 90% talk, while it's competitors (like nVidia) were shipping products people wanted to buy. And now for nVidia the shoe is on the other foot and nVidia can't come up with the products while its competitors are shipping a series of products people want to buy. And literally millions of people are buying them. 3dfx eventually shipped its product but when it did it was already too late and the company could never recover.
Compared to ATI as a competitor it looks to me as if 3dfx was a pussycat, and I guess the real question is how well nVidia will perform when faced with a competitor equally as capable and determined, if not more so, than nVidia itself.
Business is about profit, not about ethics, not about survival...it's about profits. Profits shared with the employees in the way of salaries, stock options, benefits, etc. Profits for the shareholders in the way of dividends (sometimes) and stock share valuation. But in ATI's business along with nVidia's we are talking about hardware manufacturing from two different perspectives, really. ATI has long years of manufacturing experience that nVidia lacks, which puts them in a much different position than nVidia. ATI is where 3dfx wanted to be with respect to nVidia when 3dfx bought STB, IMO.
I guess people don't remember that it was just a couple of years ago that ATI dwarfed nVidia--heck, it wasn't that long ago when 3dfx dwarfed nVidia. This illustrates how rapidly fortunes can change in this business and it ought not be assumed nVidia can go nowhere but up.
Since the withered, wizened corpse of 3dfx was ingested by nVidia a couple of years ago nVidia has enjoyed an unprecedented period of relative non-competition. There were some products which made it to market and at least attempted to compete, but the reality is nothing made by anyone else has been able to compete with the offspring of the original TNT architecture nVidia put together years ago and continued to refine and enlarge, with no shortage of help from timely advances in chip manufacturing processes and the development of hardware like DDR SDRAM. Convenient and available to nVidia, the company eagerly adopted these technologies to enhance its architecture while companies like 3dfx remained too skeptical about them for their own good.
The irony is it would have behooved nVidia greatly to have been much more skeptical of the golden promises of .13 microns and DDR II, as is plain to all at this point, but by this time nVidia had become so dependent on these outside technologies as pivotal foundations for its own technology that it simply would have been unable to design a product like the R300 which does not depend on .13 microns nor upon DDR II. If the business strategy of the nVidia corporation could be said to have a tragic flaw then this fundamental dependency on outside technology would certainly be it.
Some have said that ATI "bought" another company which enabled it to come up with R300, and that may well be true. But it does not in any measure diminish the achievement. Lots of companies buy other companies for this or that technology, expecting a bonanza that never materializes because in the end nothing comes of the purchase. So if ATI did have the good judgement to be able to look at ArtX's potential before buying the company then this is merely a measure of the excellence of ATI's management in being able to call that shot so well. Imagine what would have happened had the company spent hundreds of millions of $ for ArtX...for nothing. Again, this is not something that happens rarely when a company acquires another based on a probable future product sales potential--half the time the potential never pans out. (And the deal makers and lawyers walk away from the table rich men--but that's another story.)
In the end the bottom line is not talk but the products a company ships. In its last days 3dfx was 90% talk, while it's competitors (like nVidia) were shipping products people wanted to buy. And now for nVidia the shoe is on the other foot and nVidia can't come up with the products while its competitors are shipping a series of products people want to buy. And literally millions of people are buying them. 3dfx eventually shipped its product but when it did it was already too late and the company could never recover.
Compared to ATI as a competitor it looks to me as if 3dfx was a pussycat, and I guess the real question is how well nVidia will perform when faced with a competitor equally as capable and determined, if not more so, than nVidia itself.
T2k said:megadrive0088 said:
On the designer's desk. Not the fully functional manufactured chip.
Take a look... you said: ARTX finished the Flipper before ATI acquired them. You said nobody had to do anything for 19 months with it? I doubt it... c'mon...
YES, ArtX finished Flipper before ATi bought the company! There may have been small adjustments to the chip's arrangement, maybe a couple of steppings and such, but no majour ATi tech is involved. It's all ArtX.
In 19 months nothing happens? Sure, that's entirely possible in the console world. Maybe those 19 months were spent preparing the fabs for mass production of the completed chips and console? Maybe those 19 months were spent designing the chassis which would HOLD the finished chips? Maybe those 19 months were spent arranging the chips within various chassis designs? Maybe they even had everything FINISHED several months early so they could work the software magic on finished hardware?
Walt, can a business survive without profits? I do agee, in the big picture it boils down to profits for their survival.
I am just bust'n ya.John.....I don't disagree. I think today's world is a bit more competitive though because of advances in over-all technology; from high-tech to communication to transportation, etc., compared to the past. I think the margin of error has to be much less today than in the past.
Fuz said:
Based on current assets, ATI would be cheaper:
ATI as of 11/30/2002 - 617.9 million US dollars
http://yahoo.marketguide.com/MGI/mg...tion/balancesheet/qbalancestd&Ticker=ATYT
NVIDIA as of 10/27/2002 - 1,346.3 million US dollars
http://yahoo.marketguide.com/MGI/mg...tion/balancesheet/qbalancestd&Ticker=NVDA
kid_crisis
Newcomer
But part of those assets are cash, so I'm not sure I'd count those. Trying to factor out the cash:
Atyt has ~ 236 million shares out, which means its current market cap at a share price of $4.63 U.S. = 1.09 Billion.
Nvda has approx 157 million shares out x $10.48 per share = $1.64 billion.
However, Nvda has about 900 million in cash, whereas Atyt has ~ 200 million.
If those numbers are correct, you can subtract those from the market caps (since you could drain the companies coffers right after purchase and make Millikan proud). That would mean actual cash paid for each would be:
Nvda: 1.64 - 0.9 billion = $ 740 million
Atyt: 1.09 - 0.2 billion = $ 890 million
Which makes Nvda look cheaper at the current market cap.
Atyt has ~ 236 million shares out, which means its current market cap at a share price of $4.63 U.S. = 1.09 Billion.
Nvda has approx 157 million shares out x $10.48 per share = $1.64 billion.
However, Nvda has about 900 million in cash, whereas Atyt has ~ 200 million.
If those numbers are correct, you can subtract those from the market caps (since you could drain the companies coffers right after purchase and make Millikan proud). That would mean actual cash paid for each would be:
Nvda: 1.64 - 0.9 billion = $ 740 million
Atyt: 1.09 - 0.2 billion = $ 890 million
Which makes Nvda look cheaper at the current market cap.
Similar threads
