backtop


Print 38 comment(s) - last by unimatrix725.. on Aug 13 at 8:12 PM

Nvidia expects significant declines in Tegra profits for fiscal 2014

NVIDIA recently announced that it is expecting a significant drop in its Tegra chip revenue this year. NVIDIA is predicting that revenue may drop as much as 40% and is laying the blame for that significant drop at Microsoft's feet citing poor Windows RT adoption as the cause.

"We don't expect as much return from the investment as we had hoped," NVIDIA CEO Jen-Hsun Huang said this week.

Microsoft and NVIDIA worked together closely to ensure that Windows RT would work on the NVIDIA Tegra 3 chips. Lenovo was one the manufacturers that produced a tablet that used NVIDIA's chips, but that tablet, the Yoga 11, was yanked from Lenovo’s online store.

NVIDIA posted revenue for its Tegra line in the last fiscal year of around $750 million. The expectation is for revenue from the chip family in fiscal 2014 to be $200 million to $300 million less than last year.

Despite the fact that revenues are expected to significantly declined for NVIDIA's Tegra line, NVIDIA continues to work with Microsoft on the second-generation Surface tablets. Jen-Hsun Huang says that NVIDIA is working very closely with Microsoft to make Surface 2 a "big success."

If NVIDIA is onboard with Surface RT 2.0, we’re likely to see Tegra 4 as the brains behind the machine.

Sources: Computer World, CNET



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

why
By inighthawki on 8/9/2013 11:13:24 AM , Rating: 2
Why all the blame exclusively on Microsoft? They are more than free to use their terra chips to power smartphones and other android tablets. If they're not making enough revenue because people don't want winrt, whose fault is that really?




RE: why
By Guspaz on 8/9/2013 11:15:27 AM , Rating: 1
That's... Microsoft's fault. The hardware in the RT was fine, it was the software and marketing that were the big issues.


RE: why
By zorxd on 8/9/2013 11:51:43 AM , Rating: 2
The hardware was a little outdated for the time. At least considering the price point.
Low-res display, year-old SoC. 32 GB flash wasn't bad but half of it was occupied by the OS.
The software wasn't bad. Having office was its strong selling point.


RE: why
By Mitch101 on 8/9/2013 12:22:51 PM , Rating: 2
Three things wrong with Surface RT

1. Price (Cant charge $500 for a startup product without keyboard option)
2. Hardware like you said and if I were paying top dollar I would have wanted something more than the Tegra 3 at the time.
3. Lack of Office E-mail application.

Price is coming down and Microsoft is adding e-mail but will be get there before Surface Pro becomes a competitor to Surface RT?

Surface Pro wont have these issues because its full blown Windows they just need to get the price down on Surface Pro which the next gen Intel Atoms might resolve.


RE: why
By chizow on 8/9/2013 2:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, MS overpriced both Surface models and overestimated demand for their devices across the board.

RT was almost 100% more expensive than competing ARM/Android tablets and Pro was more expensive than cheaper Ultrabook alternatives, encroaching on MacBook Air territory.


RE: why
By Mint on 8/9/2013 5:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well, only the license cost is MS's fault. The rest is the OEMs trying to get a fatter margin.

The real problem with RT is that it's pointless now that Intel has such low power x86 chips. Why use RT when you can put full Win8 on it?

Have you seen Anand's MacBook Air 11 review? Using the tablet browsing test, Haswell lasts longer with a 38 Wh battery and 11.6" screen than the A6X does with a 42.5 Wh battery and a 9.7" screen!

Granted, Retina needs more power per sq. inch than non-retina, but it's still amazing, and we haven't even seen the ULX and ULY processors yet.

Assuming Intel is serious about the low end, Silvermont makes RT completely pointless unless they want to give it away for free.


RE: why
By othercents on 8/12/2013 8:44:55 AM , Rating: 3
I agree with the OP. Why are NVIDIA's hardware chip sales dependent on one software platform? Shouldn't Android be included in this? Maybe NVIDIA is just making an inferior product to other vendors regardless of what software platform it is using.


RE: why
By Reclaimer77 on 8/12/2013 8:52:53 AM , Rating: 2
Yup.

I was laughed at last year when I opined that Intel would make serious headway in the mobile space sooner rather than later.

But here we are, already.


RE: why
By JPForums on 8/12/2013 9:16:37 AM , Rating: 2
I remember that, though to be fair, I wasn't laughing.
I thought you were spot on, but there was so much anti-Intel/pro-ARM sentiment at the time that nobody would even consider the idea that Intel could achieve competitiveness.

That said, I had hoped Intel would address the graphics situation a little earlier, but C'est la vie.


RE: why
By ResStellarum on 8/9/2013 7:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The hardware was a little outdated for the time. At least considering the price point. Low-res display.


The displays are low res because the RT software (Metro) is designed to run at 720p. Much the same reason why Windows Mobile /Phone can't even support 1080p. The hardware is limited by Microsoft's software, as usual.

quote:
32 GB flash wasn't bad but half of it was occupied by the OS


Again, a problem with the software. A Windows 8 base install can eat up to 20GB easy. While Android uses maybe 2-4, and a GNU/Linux perhaps 3-5.

quote:
The software wasn't bad. Having office was its strong selling point.


The software is the whole damn problem. The apps are non-existent, and the ones that are there are feeble at best. No where near the richness of the Android or iOS ecosystems.

Consumer's aren't interested in office. Enterprise IT departments might be, but they're not going to buy RT tablets for an Office suite that has no commercial licence, and no x86 legacy support.

And besides, there's a myriad of office suites available on iOS, Android, and GNU/Linux. Both offline and online. No one needs MS Office any more. I use LibreOffice / GnomeOffice on GNU/Linux, and OpenDocument Reader/Google Docs on Android. I need neither MS proprietary formats, nor MS software to create/view/edit my documents.


RE: why
By inighthawki on 8/9/2013 10:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The displays are low res because the RT software (Metro) is designed to run at 720p. Much the same reason why Windows Mobile /Phone can't even support 1080p. The hardware is limited by Microsoft's software, as usual.

This is not a software limitation. Metro apps were not "designed for 720p." 720 is a MINIMUM requirement, but metro is 100% dpi aware and scales to any resolution. Windows Phone can almost certainly handle higher resolutions as well. The limiting factor here is probably hardware performance.

quote:
Again, a problem with the software. A Windows 8 base install can eat up to 20GB easy. While Android uses maybe 2-4, and a GNU/Linux perhaps 3-5.

This is true, but Win8.1 addresses this a bit. The install is actually a lot smaller and no longer requires the fully copy as a recovery partition. Granted it's still no 3GB, but it's also WAY more fully featured than Android, that's for sure.

quote:
The software is the whole damn problem. The apps are non-existent, and the ones that are there are feeble at best. No where near the richness of the Android or iOS ecosystems.

You need a platform to make apps for. You cannot just magically release a new OS and have a million apps waiting for it when you're developing on a new platform (ARM). It's also foolish to ignore the market because of this. You have to try in order to succeed, not just give up.

quote:
Consumer's aren't interested in office. Enterprise IT departments might be, but they're not going to buy RT tablets for an Office suite that has no commercial licence, and no x86 legacy support.

I think you'll find this to be very untrue with high school and college students. Office (primarily word and powerpoint) are still at the top in any school environment, and tbh, I've tried alternatives like OpenOffice, and quite frankly they suck in comparison. x86 is also obviously not that important for most of these same people who have ipad and android devices or a macbook which (newsflash!) cannot run windows apps, which is really what people mean when they say they want "x86 compatibility"


RE: why
By Reclaimer77 on 8/10/2013 11:21:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Granted it's still no 3GB, but it's also WAY more fully featured than Android, that's for sure.


Man you are just spreading a TON of FUD on here about Android. Like this statement. Or saying "Android was made to run on phones". Where do you get that?

Can you name some of these "features" RT has over Android. And by features I mean those people would actually care about.

quote:
You need a platform to make apps for. You cannot just magically release a new OS and have a million apps waiting for it when you're developing on a new platform (ARM).


????

Microsoft is the biggest software company in the world. Hell they INVENTED the big software company. Now call me crazy, but I have to believe the largest software company on the planet, f'ing MICROSOFT, could make some very good apps for the platform that they so highly tout.

And yet the preloaded apps for Windows 8 are mostly garbage. Especially the e-mail app, my god, it's gotta be the worst e-mail app ever EVER. You go to the app store and what's there? A bunch of garbage too.


RE: why
By inighthawki on 8/10/2013 7:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Man you are just spreading a TON of FUD on here about Android. Like this statement. Or saying "Android was made to run on phones". Where do you get that?

There's nothing wrong with Android, it's just not as full featured as windows. this is not bias, it's just pure fact. Also, when did I say *anything* about phones in that post?

quote:
Can you name some of these "features" RT has over Android. And by features I mean those people would actually care about.

How about a desktop? command prompt? bitlocker encryption? storage spaces? A full version of MS office? Better support for user accounts? Better localization? Significantly better support for external devices such as printers and scanners? A fully featured file browser? Better security? A full administrator toolset?

Android is great, but the only thing that it is "better" at than Windows RT is app count, install size, and maybe some performance because it's designed as a smaller and leaner OS.

quote:
Microsoft is the biggest software company in the world. Hell they INVENTED the big software company. Now call me crazy, but I have to believe the largest software company on the planet, f'ing MICROSOFT, could make some very good apps for the platform that they so highly tout.

They push very hard on developers and a large number of the "top apps" are available. But if you seriously think a single (even really huge) company can push out apps in numbers to counter an existing library of a million apps on a new platform, then you're insane.

quote:
And yet the preloaded apps for Windows 8 are mostly garbage. Especially the e-mail app, my god, it's gotta be the worst e-mail app ever EVER. You go to the app store and what's there? A bunch of garbage too.

Agreed, I think they could've done much better on their in-house apps. But let's be fair. A good 95+% of the apps on android and ios are garbage too. Don't be biased here. There's really only like 50 apps that everyone in the world use, and the rest are just mediocre or bad.


RE: why
By testbug00 on 8/10/2013 12:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, that sums it up pretty well.

I don't get MS doesn't just try to beef up W8P for the RT, on my Lumia 920 the OS only uses 1.6GB of space.

The largest flaw was actually the lack of outlook, followed by the inability to make the OS idle as under ~50% of Tegra 3 power... than comes rest of software.

I wonder how much more battery life MS could have gotten if they had lowered idle usage to 10%....

-Q


RE: why
By inighthawki on 8/9/2013 4:27:47 PM , Rating: 4
You miss my point. Nothing dictates to NVidia that Microsoft is the only company they can sell their chips to. They are more than welcome to expand their business to a sector that can be deemed as more profitable.

It is not Microsoft's responsibility *at all* to ensure the success of NVidia's chips. It is NVidia's responsibility to do that.

If they can't find anyone other than Microsoft to use their chips and Microsoft's products aren't selling well, then all they've done is make a product that isn't good enough.


RE: why
By althaz on 8/10/2013 3:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
The hardware WASN'T fine. The physical hardware was fine (aside from screen resolution it was in fact best-in-class), but the SoC (Tegra 3) was fairly out of date and noticably underpowered. Especially considering the price point. Surface RT should have had the latest Qualcomm silicon, a Full HD screen and included the touch cover (or been $100 cheaper). Then it would have had a chance to shine. Discounting the state of the MS app store, Win8 is mostly far superior to Android/iOS on a tablet - it uses less power, performs similarly at worst and much better at best and is designed for a tablet (unlike iOS and Android which are designed for phones, although Android still works quite well thanks to widgets and a superb browser).

It might still have been a flop (the mail app still would have sucked and the app store still would have been fairly lacklustre), but at least it would have had a chance.

MS were too slow to market and tried to sell last-gen hardware at next-gen prices. That's not going to work (unless you're Apple).


RE: why
By retrospooty on 8/9/2013 11:33:53 AM , Rating: 5
OEM's are'nt jumping on the Tegra 4 at all. The "blame" is just that, blaming, rather than addressing why OEM's are avoiding them. They are even making their own stuff because OEM's are preferring Qualcomm. The Shield nad now we are seeing the Tegra tab. No thanks. I had a new Excite pro for about 2 weeks and sent it back. It was fast, but hot as hell and crappy battery life. The Tegra4 isnt going to cut it.


RE: why
By sprockkets on 8/9/2013 9:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
The hi res Asus Transformer Infinity 2nd gen will use it.


RE: why
By hpglow on 8/11/2013 1:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
The Tegra 4 hasn't been avalible long enough to get design wins. I don't think adoption of Tegra 4 has anything to with performance. The Tegra 4 has proven to have acceptable performance for its power useage. The main issues are that Nvidia rode out the T3 too long (the T4 should have been on market months sooner), and rumor'ed pricing of the T4.


RE: why
By nafhan on 8/9/2013 1:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah! It's Google and Apple's fault for making better/cheaper products! :|

The problem with the recent MS phone/tablet stuff isn't that it's bad, it's that people don't want to buy it.


RE: why
By Mitch101 on 8/9/2013 2:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
Cant lump Windows Phone in there that Market is growing even as the market for smartphones is still growing its outpacing that to show market share increases. Its a slow increase but none the less an increase and customer satisfaction on the Windows Phone is extremely high.

Surface RT is a real question mark. Part of me thinks Microsoft should do like Cyanogenmod and make ports of Windows RT for other tablets.


RE: why
By nafhan on 8/9/2013 5:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
Symbian is gone, there's not much more take away from BB, and first world (for lack of a better term) smartphone market growth has mostly stagnated due to saturation. For MS to continue growing, they'll have to take from iOS and Android or go after the developing world. It'll be interesting to see where those growth numbers go over the next year - for everybody.

That said, I think going after the developing world is a BIG part of their strategy. See: Nokia 521, probably the best phone in it's price range, and Nokia has historically done very well in those markets. Plus, I like Android, but the cheap Android phones are almost universally terrible.

Letting people buy and install RT on their own tablets is an interesting idea, but one that would appeal mostly to people who are stuck with Win RT for some reason, and want better hardware - likely a very small market.


RE: why
By Mint on 8/9/2013 6:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if that's legal. Assuming they can get drivers written for the internal components, is MS allowed make an OS for a Nexus 7 or 10?

If it was, would Google go to war with MS and make a virtualized version of x86 Android to attack the x86 market? Such a move could slow adoption of Win8/RT apps.


RE: why
By inighthawki on 8/9/2013 6:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
a Neuxs 7/10 is nothing more than a piece of hardware which contains an ARM CPU. If WinRT runs on that particular variant of the hardware, there's really not much anyone can do to prevent someone from doing it.

The same reason allows Linux to run on just about everything.


RE: why
By Reclaimer77 on 8/10/2013 1:20:38 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Surface RT is a real question mark. Part of me thinks Microsoft should do like Cyanogenmod and make ports of Windows RT for other tablets.


Right, that would work. Let's mod a tablet to run an OS much worst than the one it's overwriting, and that nobody likes in the first place.


Why?
By Guspaz on 8/9/2013 11:14:30 AM , Rating: 2
Why is there even a Surface RT 2.0 in development? The first generation didn't fail because of hardware problems. I think Anandtech's tests with Haswell battery life proved that a Haswell-based Surface Pro that's price and size/weight competitive with Apple and Android tablets is where Microsoft should be focusing.




RE: Why?
By karimtemple on 8/9/2013 11:28:28 AM , Rating: 2
An RT 2 is in development because RT isn't going anywhere. As far as Microsoft is concerned, Windows 8 is a version of RT that has legacy compatibility features added on. Windows Runtime is the future of Microsoft.

All they'll be doing from now on is trying to figure out how to 1) get it a foothold and 2) convince people to move to it, not only as opposed to competing platforms, but as opposed to Win32 as well. There will continue to be a Windows Proper and a lower-priced Windows RT alternative, even when there's a Windows 9 and Windows 10, until everyone finally gets off the Win32 boat.


RE: Why?
By Luticus on 8/9/2013 11:54:08 AM , Rating: 3
well to that i say, good luck. Windows primary advantage is it's legacy support. Literally the only reason i'm not on linux primarily is because of all the software that works on windows and will likely never see a linux port. So it's either win32 for me... or linux


RE: Why?
By karimtemple on 8/9/2013 12:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. But trudging along with Win32 indefinitely obviously wasn't going to cut it. They were right to try to move things along -- they were right to aim for a lot of the things they aimed for -- it's just that they're abysmal at execution.

And to be honest, it isn't really that problematic that there's a Windows proper and a Windows RT. It makes sense for them to stick with it until they can figure out a valid value proposition. The actual problem is that the clock is ticking; they can't just goof off and stumble around on this forever.

This stuff would've happened to a much worse degree if they hadn't acted as soon as they did. Lugging Win32 into the future would've seen them eventually shrivel up from starvation as the Operating System will no longer be a monolithic cash cow that no one wants to bother with. Everybody's got an OS these days.

The Windows business model was approaching a brick wall and Microsoft took action before it was too late. The tragic thing is that it was stupid action. Perhaps they end up crashing (and starving) anyway.


RE: Why?
By embedded_bill on 8/9/2013 12:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
Most would agree that legacy support is the primary advantage, but I think that it is also a boat anchor.
Apple cut native support when it migrated to OS X, it almost killed the company but turned out to be a great move for them, eventually.
Maybe Microsoft should consider a similar move and support legacy apps through a tranlation layer... not saying it would work, but it might.


RE: Why?
By inighthawki on 8/9/2013 10:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
Win32 is never going away. Eventually if they port all their RT runtime components to allow desktop app development you may see stop actively "developing" on Win32, but it will never go away. The day it goes away is the day nobody buys Windows, and even Microsoft knows that.


RE: Why?
By Flunk on 8/9/2013 12:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure they're release both, Microsoft has enough money to keep making things even if no one on earth buys them. The Surface RT is there to have price parity with Android tablets as well as to make the Surface Pro look better.

Microsoft hasn't given up on Windows RT yet, if they gave up after one failure they wouldn't be selling half the things they are now. Take a look at the Xbox, the first generation lost them millions of dollars but the second became the best-selling console of it's generation.


RE: Why?
By OoklaTheMok on 8/9/2013 4:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
For a v1 product, I think the Surface line is pretty good. Does it need adjusting, of course. The first iPad and Android tablets weren't perfect out of the gate either, but they got better.

I love my Surface RT, and I use it constantly. There are so many things I can do on my Surface that I can't do on an iPad, and with the 8.1 preview, it got alot better. It's not perfect, and there are plenty of things I hope to see in a Surface RT v2.

As history has shown us, Microsoft has a track record of getting things right eventually in the v2 to v3 timeframe. Look at Windows Phone, for example. It was missing plenty of things in the initial release, but now it has general parity with iOS and Android, even though each has features that the others don't. This is a game of chess, not checkers.


RE: Why?
By w8gaming on 8/9/2013 10:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
If Microsoft wants RT to be at a price parity with Android, they seriously need a good device at the cheap $200 price point. Or they will never succeed.


RE: Why?
By Ktracho on 8/9/2013 12:39:29 PM , Rating: 3
For the simple reason that the price of a full blown Windows tablet cannot compete with budget Android tablets due to the cost of Intel CPUs. If Microsoft does nothing, Android will overtake Windows, Apple will continue to make great products, and Microsoft will be relegated to third place. Microsoft has to at least fight.


samuel1c.handel
By samuel1c.handel on 8/10/2013 4:02:37 PM , Rating: 3
Elise. I can see what your saying... Janice`s blurb is really cool... yesterday I bought themselves a Lotus Esprit since I been bringin in $5721 this - four weeks past and even more than 10k lass month. it's actualy the nicest work I've ever done. I started this six months/ago and practically straight away started to make over $83, per/hr. I went to this site,, www.work25.Com




By embedded_bill on 8/9/2013 12:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
Most people who have an opinion of Google/Apple will either love them or hate them, not many who think they are just OK. It's like the new Coke/Pepsi, it seams that there is all this debate between Apple and Google yet MS just seems OK. Hardware may seem outdated but so is the iPad and it works well and sells well at a great profit margin!

The word MS feels old and bloated, even if you haven't tried the RT tablet. They desparately need an image makeover.




By unimatrix725 on 8/13/2013 8:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
Nvidia said it didnt want to invest in another gaming console, but hopped on the Surface wagon? What is shield for...? Really WTF Nvidia? I have noticed also how all the sudden my GTX 560 Ti is killed by a half price AMD/ATi card to. As far as Cuda/Stream is concerned. I think whoever deals to Blackberry has started selling to Nvidia..... lol




"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki