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

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The hardware was a little outdated for the time.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).


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














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