Kind of funny that Nintendo could probably outright buy Nvidia without much problem.
- Thread starter Brimstone
- Start date
- Status
Nintendo has oodles of cash. They could buy much larger companies than Nvidia (even at its prime) if they really wanted to, but... i can't understand the connection you're making (especially since they're in almost completely different lines of business, and SGI->ArtX->ATI->AMD have stayed with them since at least the Nintendo 64 days).
Is it a purely hypothetical scenario or do you know something we don't ?
Nintendo has oodles of cash. They could buy much larger companies than Nvidia (even at its prime) if they really wanted to, but... i can't understand the connection you're making (especially since they're in almost completely different lines of business, and SGI->ArtX->ATI->AMD have stayed with them since at least the Nintendo 64 days).
Is it a purely hypothetical scenario or do you know something we don't ?
Just hypothetical. It is amusing and ironic after all the fuss around CELL over the last few years.
Think about if you were the CEO of Nintendo. If there was ever a time to make a move in this area, what a dirt cheap bargin Nvidia has become. All of the Nintendo devices use a GPU in some form, and the convergence trend of GPU/CPU even Intel recognizes (Larrabee). With the Yen soaring against the dollar, what a shiny jewel Nvidia has become to a cash rich Nintendo.
It would be an incredibly intresting and fairly low risk move by Nintendo if they did it.
Sound_Card
Regular
They can buy AMD for even cheaper and have much better tech.....
ok I'll shut up.
ok I'll shut up.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Buying them is one thing, but the next is using Nvidia which means they will have to spend what in the end will be alot more money on actually having nvidia constantly developing new things. Unless nintendo wants to start selling pc hardware I dont see why they would buy Nvidia. They only need new chips once every 5 years or so and given that it seems they wont go for high tech in the future they could go shop around everywhere to get what they want.
I dont see whats so funny, allmost all companies are priced at 30-60% below their stock price just half a year ago.
Calling it "dirt cheap" or cheap, is completely wrong thought, market price is market price, its not cheap, its a fair price based on the markets current expectations of the future.
BTW: Microsoft can swallow Sony or Nintendo without breaking a sweat.
Considering how Nintendo was priced when MS was considering to enter the console market, Microsoft would probably have been much better off just buying Nintendo stock rather than pissing away billions on the Xbox 1 and X360. In 2000-2001 a $10 billion investment would have given Microsoft more than half of all nintendo stock outstanding,.
Dunno why you want Nintendo to buy Nvidia thought, unless nintendo has a strong desire to sell PC hardware there is absolutely no point in such a buy. Nvidia is valued at around 4 billion right now, no point in spending 4 billion dollars in order to get cheap GPU's in the future. I dunno how much GPU licencing costs, but i suspect 4 billion usd is enough to buy atleast 100 years worth of licences.
Which makes the prospect of buying Nvidia in order to get cheap GPU's like ridiculously expensive way to aquire GPU's.
Calling it "dirt cheap" or cheap, is completely wrong thought, market price is market price, its not cheap, its a fair price based on the markets current expectations of the future.
BTW: Microsoft can swallow Sony or Nintendo without breaking a sweat.
Considering how Nintendo was priced when MS was considering to enter the console market, Microsoft would probably have been much better off just buying Nintendo stock rather than pissing away billions on the Xbox 1 and X360. In 2000-2001 a $10 billion investment would have given Microsoft more than half of all nintendo stock outstanding,.
Dunno why you want Nintendo to buy Nvidia thought, unless nintendo has a strong desire to sell PC hardware there is absolutely no point in such a buy. Nvidia is valued at around 4 billion right now, no point in spending 4 billion dollars in order to get cheap GPU's in the future. I dunno how much GPU licencing costs, but i suspect 4 billion usd is enough to buy atleast 100 years worth of licences.
Which makes the prospect of buying Nvidia in order to get cheap GPU's like ridiculously expensive way to aquire GPU's.
Last edited by a moderator:
inefficient
Veteran
It really isn't this simple. There are several major obstacles that would most certainly cause those involved to break a sweat.
The stock exchange is not like some kind of grocery store. At a grocer, you see a pile of tomatoes and see the price. If you want to buy the whole pile, you just pay price * quantity.
The stock market is very very different. Let's just say the stocks are tomatoes. You see a pile of tomatoes, and you see a price. If you want to buy the whole pile, it is not simply price * quantity. That is because every tomato is already owned by someone. Every time you want to buy a tomato, someone has to agree to sell you that tomato. And they tell you the price they are willing to give it up for.
That stock price you see reported by the exchange and in the news is not the price the seller is promising to sell their tomato for. They will sell their tomatoes for whatever the hell amount is attractive to them. That price is essentially the value of the last transaction that took place for that commodity.
If you want to "buy" the pile of tomatoes you have to place bids with the seller for each and every tomato. The sellers are not stupid, they are going to want the best price for their tomato. And especially if they can sense you really want a lot of tomatoes, and see you putting in bids with a lot of sellers, they will start increasing their prices. And then of course 3rd parties will see the rising share price and try to capitalize on this movement, driving up prices even further. In the end your going to need several multiple times more money than the paper "market value".
If that wasn't enough to put you off as a buyer, there are government regulators to worry about. The government could simply say you cannot proceed with your intentions because of anti competition laws etc. As the idea in the OP most certainly not in the interest of the general public, it would be absurd if it got approved. Complicating things further is you are dealing with a foreign company. Now you have 2 governments to deal with.
The stock exchange is not like some kind of grocery store. At a grocer, you see a pile of tomatoes and see the price. If you want to buy the whole pile, you just pay price * quantity.
The stock market is very very different. Let's just say the stocks are tomatoes. You see a pile of tomatoes, and you see a price. If you want to buy the whole pile, it is not simply price * quantity. That is because every tomato is already owned by someone. Every time you want to buy a tomato, someone has to agree to sell you that tomato. And they tell you the price they are willing to give it up for.
That stock price you see reported by the exchange and in the news is not the price the seller is promising to sell their tomato for. They will sell their tomatoes for whatever the hell amount is attractive to them. That price is essentially the value of the last transaction that took place for that commodity.
If you want to "buy" the pile of tomatoes you have to place bids with the seller for each and every tomato. The sellers are not stupid, they are going to want the best price for their tomato. And especially if they can sense you really want a lot of tomatoes, and see you putting in bids with a lot of sellers, they will start increasing their prices. And then of course 3rd parties will see the rising share price and try to capitalize on this movement, driving up prices even further. In the end your going to need several multiple times more money than the paper "market value".
If that wasn't enough to put you off as a buyer, there are government regulators to worry about. The government could simply say you cannot proceed with your intentions because of anti competition laws etc. As the idea in the OP most certainly not in the interest of the general public, it would be absurd if it got approved. Complicating things further is you are dealing with a foreign company. Now you have 2 governments to deal with.
Even flat out hostile buyout bids are rarely of that magnitude. Besides, you don't need acceptance from every tomato owner, just enough of them. Then regulation tend to force the holdouts to let their tomatoes go at "fair value".
dubyateeeff
Newcomer
they should buy amd and nvidia and refuse ms sony nextgen gpus
or buy some western devs... much wizer
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
they should buy amd and nvidia and refuse ms sony nextgen gpus
or buy some western devs... much wizer
MS wont care and Sony would just go to AMD instead. The funny thing about that though would be that every console would basically be made by only 2 companies. AMD and IBM (given that, for some reason, Nintendo will stick with them instead of going with Ninvidia). If they want to buy something by AMD. Atleast then they can get a complete system from 1 source and ofcourse no bother with royalties and licences.
But anyway, I think they should buy the Honda F1 team. Then they could do F1 kart. Talk to Bernie how to spice things up by using red shields and banana's.
Nintendo wouldn't need to disrupt the daily operations of Nvidia at all. They would still run the company to sell as many chips as possible.
Why wouldn't Nintendo want to control the IP of a company some have dubbed "the next Intel"?
In Japan the old name for the NES was Famicom or Family Computer.
Why wouldn't Nintendo want to control the IP of a company some have dubbed "the next Intel"?
In Japan the old name for the NES was Famicom or Family Computer.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
