Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
How integral is Huang to the success of Nvidia? As much as he seems to have done a good job, he appears less integral than with some companies like Bezos/Amazon or Zuckerberg/Meta (whether these are/were or not is besides the point, they are seen as such).

I'd expect a board to fire a CEO over this, so he will have to be critical to the business, more than a normal CEO is critical, to survive. The market reaction to him going would also be interesting. Seems like the markets are starting to figure out what the value is here.

As an Nvidian, I strongly disagree. I'm sure somehow the company would be fine in the long run without him, but until today I believed that his vastly superior judgement to his peers is to credit for Nvidia's success. Not to minca words, I think he is a far more qualified and intelligent CEO than pretty much anyone in big tech. There's a reason Nvidia doesn't have to lay people off ever.
> until today I believed that his vastly superior judgement

What changed today?

Every major leader and CEO has obvious blind spots. They're geniuses at X but idiots at Y.

Look at all the great CEOs with ridiculous political views. It's fine: they do have vastly superior judgement, just not in areas where it doesn't directly affect their business.

For the NVDA CEO, it happens to be a woman. That puts him in probably the 80-90% of great leaders on whom that works.

Even ignoring the alleged spitting, shagging someone who works in a position of authority at a customer company if obviously a massive conflict of interest.
I don't think the second half what you're saying is true. He has had a good hand, yes, but I think what we're seeing is "simply" the effect of a successful company being run by one of its founders. There is always a kind of reversion to mean once a successful company moves away from founder control, and that hasn't happened for Nvidia.
> ...but until today I believed that his vastly superior judgement to his peers is to credit for Nvidia's success.

Have you considered how many billions of dollars of Nvidia sales were through entities diverting chips to China?

While there's no doubt that this is not the majority of the company's revenue, it's also not an insignificant amount.

If you had to pin Nvidia's success on one thing, the honest answer would be "right technology, right time." Without AI...And the questions about how sustainable that market is are now being asked by the market.

They've been investing in CUDA and machine learning for a long time before the current wave of LLMs. It's absurd to say "right technology, right time" when they were the ones who helped develop it.
The technology was built for 3D graphics and video game processing. The company was very smart to recognize the opportunity that AI presented when AI researchers realized that gaming GPUs could vastly outperform CPUs for their workloads, but this was a "happy accident", not something Nvidia actually predicted, planned for or initially pushed.
If you bothered to learn a little bit about Nvidia history you'd know this is false. They invested in supporting transformers before most people in this thread heard of that name. That's just one example. Look at InfiniBand and you can tell they made correct decisions years before it's obvious to everyone.
Sorry. Nvidia started supporting transformers in 2017. AI researchers discovered that its GPUs were way better than CPUs for their workloads almost a decade earlier. Specifically, Rajat Raina, Anand Madhavan and Andrew Ng at Stanford published a paper showing that GPUs could train large deep networks up to 70x faster than CPUs back in 2009.

Nvidia released CUDA in 2006-2007, which made that discovery possible, but Nvidia wasn't targeting AI with CUDA. It was targeting general high-performance computing (physics simulations, molecular dynamics, medical imaging, etc.).

There's no doubt the company seized on the AI opportunity superbly but the suitability of its product for AI, and the AI boom, was absolutely a "happy accident".

{"deleted":true,"id":50425779,"parent":50425389,"time":1794233049,"type":"comment"}
Yes, but they placed a bet on the development of the tech and on the time it would be relevant which was a huge risk.
> Have you considered how many billions of dollars of Nvidia sales were through entities diverting chips to China?

its always been well known. its that line item of suspiciously high sales to singpapore. its never been a real concern.

> its never been a real concern

Except it has been. There are people in multiple countries, including the US, Singapore and Taiwan, facing lengthy prison sentences for this. In the US in particular, violating export controls is a game you only play if you're looking for years of free federal accommodation.

Examples:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-authorities-shut-down-majo...

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndga/pr/chinese-national-and-tw...

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/california-man-arrested-smugg...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2d9y18g73o

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/25/taiwan-ch...

https://asiatimes.com/2026/11/taiwan-to-criminalize-nvidia-a...

I think that says more about other CEOs than of his brilliance.
It is definitely the era of 'footgun leadership'
"I'd expect a board to fire a CEO over this, "

God god, no.

There's very little he could ever accidentally tell someone that would matter that much.

Other than handing over very detailed schemas etc, there's almost nothing important he could tell them.

Maybe some future ideas and plans, maybe some government things about the Administration, it's small peanuts.

Nvidia is an operational success, their IP is embedded within deep layers of know how and expertise.

He's the 'father' of that org, he set the tone, they like him there.

Nvidia would risk being an Intel without him.

He denied, implausibly, all knowledge about Supermicro. I don't think that is going to work this time.

The crime here isn't giving secrets to the Chinese, it is helping them evade export controls. Again, this is something that Nvidia and Jensen has been investigated on repeatedly. If he knew that Megaspeed was a front for China, quite hard to deny given that Alice Huang seems to have brought Chinese execs to every meeting with Jensen then it is very bad. And yes, the stuff that Jensen would have said would have been very useful because, I assume, the inference is that he would have been helping them evade sanctions.

The very best case from here is that the board fires him.

"The crime here isn't giving secrets to the Chinese, it is helping them evade export controls. "

If that were true, then it's fair game, but I don't think that's what is going on.

US gov has not stated they are targeting him.

Also, there is a gigantic difference between 'avoidance' and 'evasion', like with taxes.

We'll see.

loading story #50419841
> The crime here isn't giving secrets to the Chinese, it is helping them evade export controls.

This would have generated extra profit for Nvidia. So I doubt they'd care unless the US government chose to take legal action against Nvidia. And that's unlikely to happen under the current US administration.

A spy like this isn't looking for chip schematics, they're looking for strategy. Strategy that comes from the CEO. Ultimately the main thing a CEO brings is judgement, and this was extremely poor judgement.
Strategy changes all the time. It will change overnight with the election results. What matters most is the information underlying that strategy, like, if ASML was coming out with some very specific new thing that would tilt the industry - that would be key.
I don't care that he had an affair (none of my business; who knows the terms of his relationship with his wife; Americans / humans are far too moralizing in controlling sex) and, even if it was wrong in the context of his marriage, I don't think someone should be fired for that.

If he knew / suspected she was a spy, yes, absolutely. If she was given access to confidential information, yes, absolutely.

If he thought it was a romantic relationship, fine, that doesn't affect me / NVDA / America.

Obviously he should stop now that he knows! But if he didn't at the time, you know, I think I can still trust him to make computer chips.

I agree. Judgement on love affairs and judgement on chip strategy are completely unrelated categories of judgement.

"Bad judgement" is a tool used in political rhetoric used to blame someone when there's nothing of any substance to blame them for.

However, all of this changes if it turns out that he gave his lover's company any kind of preferential treatment or that she was involved in China related lobbying.

This is what the investigation will focus on in my opinion. If they find anything at all then he will have to resign.

Not knowing someone is a spy is extremely poor judgement? Telling his mistress all kinds of corporate secrets would be "extremely poor judgement" but at this point I see no evidence that this happened?
> God god, no.

> There's very little he could ever accidentally tell someone that would matter that much.

I think the practical implications matter a lot less than the PR and legal ones.

If the stock price plummets tomorrow and doesn’t recover, the board may have to act.

Similarly, if the right governments start asking hard questions, the board may have to act.

This is likely going to be a slow-rolling shit show for a while. At the very least, it’s legitimate grounds for one or more congressional investigations, which may start here but could go anywhere.

If the stock price plummets tomorrow and doesn’t recover, it is likely ppl are afraid he'll be replaced. If the board "act" by replacing him, the price is likely to dive more, not recover
Elon Musk makes nazi salutes and says radically unhinged things, and does many things which are arguably illegal.

Most investors don't care.

Unless there was some 'materially detrimental disclosure' this is just tabloid.

The fact that Elon has a literal harem, Tesla has $500M loan from Chinese banks with all sorts of conditions etc.

Elon literally does Zoom calls with Vladimir freaking Putin.

I think this is a nothing burger.

If there isn’t anything important he could tell, then he isn’t very important and they don’t need him.
I've interned at NVIDIA and my impression was, he is extremely vital to its past and ongoing success. I don't know about him personally and his character, but he knew how to foster a motivating work culture with a sense of excitement and purpose. Maybe Nvidia is now at a place where he could be replaced, but I don't think Nvidia would be where it is now without him.
> How integral is Huang to the success of Nvidia?

He's the visionary behind what they do and the person who influences industries around him to make it real.

What percent of nvidias success was due to vision, vs luck?

I made a boat load of money off of the Tesla IPO(and then holding for 12 years) but I only invested because I thought they wouldn't be a successful car company but would produce a bunch of patents that would be valuable when licensed to the big auto makers.

Obviously I got that wrong, but my investment still worked out - and I still have friends and family coming to me for investing advice because I made the right move but for the wrong reasons

If it happens 1 time, you can call it luck.

But CUDA, Ray tracing acceleration, DLSS? It's not luck anymore.

Although I'm still more of a "Voodoo person" myself, the "Riva128 guy" has shown bold vision and relentlessly fierce execution on top of it - consistently - since the early 90s..
Jensen being a Taiwanese and his connection with TSMC plays a big part.
> what they do

So, he is responsible for the crypto and AI bubbles? If tomorrow AI crashes and Nvidia share value with it would that make Nvidia CEO an idiot?

CEO worshiping is going too far.

Somehow Intel can't take advantage of the very same bubbles.

Jensen is extremely hands on. If he is replaced NVidia is cooked.

The dude is 63, there has to be some kind of succession planning? Or is it just expected the company is one helicopter accident away from becoming completely doomed?
Holy change of topic Batman!

Intel is apparently fine (it's not fine) with a rotating cast of CEOs.

You are right though. At least whoever is trying to oust Jensen is nice enough not to bring out the usual tools.

He's a vulnerable founder just like Steve Jobs was and he's also the closest to Jobs in terms of brilliance and impact in the current playing field.

He's been consistently showing up and proving himself over decades to be core to Nvidia's success - core as in leadership. I would look to sell my Nvidia shares without knowing him being at the helm.

Navigating this political/diplomatic climate is key to Nvidia's success, and he appears to be driving that? In normal times maybe it would be different.
At the current state, maybe not much. He was integral to the journey, of course.

The bigger threat is Jensen selling all his stocks at peak (if he was fired). Then, this dude with $100B in the bank could've easily started an NVIIA competitor. He has every component needed for a success. This is why NVIDIA's board would never let this guy go.

I think his fear of failing is the reason for their success.
loading story #50428380
I hope he at least gets a nice severance package in that scenario. Tough job market in tech right now.
What's this puritanical streak? Men in power have been having affairs from time immemorial. It's not great but it's also not original. The guy works for a corporation, not a church. Yawn.
We’re going to find out tomorrow and I suspect in this case the answer starts with a B.
I have seen and read this a lot over the years and I am starting to wonder may be it isn't Pat Gelsinger that called Nvidia lucky but people actually felt it that way naturally.

For over a decade CUDA was nothing but a money and silicon wasting function that brought in very little extra revenue for the amount of company resources it uses. And arguably it started even before CUDA with Cg. And I will say another unpopular thing, they are in hardware business, apart from the past 1 - 2 years which they are enjoying massive success, for most of the past 30 years hardware business are 10x tougher than Software side.

Most CEO would have given up. Paul Graham invented the term to describe it, Founder Mode.

And for another note about comments elsewhere in the thread that Open AI is what brought up the current AI craze. Nvidia was already selling to OpenAI via introduction of Elon Musk in 2016.

I seriously doubt Nvidia would have been anywhere close to what they are today without Jensen's Leadership.

That Nvidia exists, it is ATI / AMD GPUs. They are doing mostly OK, but nothing like Nvidia especially in the dollars department.
I'm skeptical that he gets fired for this. The "Spy I loved" James bond style twist combined with his iconic leather jacket might actually come off as badass.
We can look across the aisle to AMD to see how much difference the CEO makes.
Not really. The key difference IMHO is not the CEO, it is that ATI/AMD always was the smaller underdog, while the established players Intel/NVIDIA get thrown money at them due to the "no one got fired for buying IBM" effect.
My understanding is that he has something like 50 direct reports. Which would make him a pretty major single point of failure.
loading story #50427361
Not to sound too negative but IMO NVidia has largely been "right place, right time" and I don't think Huang has had much to do with it. NVidia made computer graphics cards and CUDA long ago; they just happened to be in the right place, twice, in quick succession: first crypto/blockchain, then AI, neither of which they really had any part in boosting. It's like they set up a general store that sells pickaxes and drills, then someone found gold in the mountain right next to them, and then the goldmine ran out but someone found oil right under them.

The one big thing I will given Huang credit for is not going all-in on blockchain and recognizing it as a bubble. NVidia never really pivoted from their core business/customers to support crypto miners, unlike what they're doing with AI.

There were a lot of computer graphics cards manufacturers back in the 90's. Nvidia survived amongst the whole pack of them. 3dfx, Matrox, S3, ATI, Cirrus. How much of that is soley due to Jenson vs outside factors outside of his control, only he really knows, but I think her deserves a bit more credit than right place right time. CUDA was a very expensive investment with zero guarantee of payoff. The market could have gone an entirely different way and Nvidia would have failed.
That's fair. NVidia's execution has been rock solid for as long as they've been around and Huang deserves credit for that. But I would say most of the reason they've 100x'd since 2017 has been external forces.
Yes the demand of comapnies for AI compute which Nvidia delivered. These are still the external forces which let it grow at 100% YoY despite >$200b in revenue.
loading story #50423176
> first crypto/blockchain, then AI, neither of which they really had any part in boosting.

Nvidia boosts AI a lot. They are the central bank of AI. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49673098

Maybe the verb tense was unclear. NVidia currently boosts AI, for obvious reasons. But OpenAI was the company who did all of the legwork to make AI into an industry, with some minor support from NVidia. NVidia wouldn't have 10x'd since 2022 without OpenAI.
AI has been a (minor but existing) industry before OpenAI. E.g. Deepmind exists since 2010, 6 years before OpenAIs founding. Sure, OpenAI has contributed to it, in great deals, but Nvidia has always been there during the growth of AI. In 2012, AlexNet has been trained on GTX 580 GPUs, in 2016 AlphaGo used Nvidia GPUs, etc.
To be honest other hardware companies had years to catch up to Cuda and ML, but they invested shit into their software stacks.

Even when AI boom was imminient but 10 times smaller 2-3 years ago they did not invested heavily enough and Nvidia went all in.

I have no clue what percent of that decision making was Huang, but all the competition leadership was certainly incompetent.

So at least he did built company with a good leadership. Its a fact. Even if I personally dont like Nvidia or its products.

The had the insight to develop and promote CUDA long before DL was a thing. IIRC AlexNet was when CUDA really paid off.
> they just happened to be in the right place, twice, in quick succession

that is generally what it looks like when someone is smarter than you

> that is generally what it looks like when someone is smarter than you

Maybe. This is also what everyone said about Elon for a long time, though.

It's not that Musk is not smart, he's just erratic, and growing increasingly so. He is the Howard Hughes of our day. They will find his body in an expensive hotel room at some point, surrounded by bottles of his own urine.
Maybe that's the jetfuel we need to get to Mars.
I challenge anyone who says “Elon not so smart” to name a topic in his wheelhouse that you think you can discuss in more detail than him. Because I’m certain he’d run circles around all but experts, in rocketry, auto tech, power cells, and more.

I mean: dude is smart. Everyone just wants to deny him that because he’s now an anti-immigrationist and they can’t stand the thought of him being both awful and smarter than them.

He'd better. It would be a pretty severe embarrassment for a layman to know more than you about your own industry.

The trap he and many other smart idiots fall into is believing that having a high degree of expertise in one area qualifies you to speak authoritatively in unrelated areas. These days maybe you could call it Claude-smart: pairing situational brilliance with unwarranted confidence at other times. The really properly smart people I've met are good at tempering their statements with their degree of certainly based on their own qualifications.

Sure, I agree. My beef here is with people who insist he’s a dummy when it comes even to rocketry, etc. That he only just hired people, but otherwise is not himself any sort of expert. Just lucky (over and over and over, apparently).
Yeah, they had been working on CUDA for a very long time before AI turned out to be interesting again.
Yeah, but in this case they also built the pickaxes and drills and did it better than any other pickaxe and drill builder. In your analogy, they are commodities and a shop like that can be set up by anyone. But in this case, that doesn't apply. And if you look at their sales composition, they never pivoted away from gaming, but data centers clearly became ludicrously more attractive in the AI era. But they were always very good at computing triangles, perhaps the best in the world. They were lucky that market forces made that computation very valuable but they were not lucky in their ability to build it.
I do agree! They execute extremely well and Huang deserves praise for that. I just don't see him as a visionary leader shaping the industry in the same way that e.g. Jobs was. In an alternate world where the NSA doesn't create bitcoin and OpenAI is never founded, NVidia would be a stable, reliable producer of consumer electronic parts.
how can you be sure though we wont find a good use of computing triangles in that alternative universe? that technology would always have abstract value, how it is impmemented will depend on market forces but you have to admit, they know how to go with the flow, maybe to an extent where it seems like they just keep getting lucky
How integral is Nvidia to the success of LLMs? Seems like a few companies could step in and put that TSMC capacity to good use...
I'm sorry, who exactly? NVIDIA essentially has no real competition because of how wildly successful they are.
Google, Microsoft, Amazon, AMD, Apple, Huawei...

These aren't all entirely drop-in replacements, there are some trade-offs involved, but there are many companies with alternatives that could take Nvidia's market if they stall.

> Google, Microsoft, Amazon, AMD, Apple, Huawei...

Which of those sell chips at the Nvidia caliber sell to AI model builders in the US (not use internally)?

loading story #50422408
loading story #50419968