On this episode of The Six Five Webcast, hosts Patrick Moorhead and Daniel Newman discuss the tech news stories that made headlines this week. The handpicked topics for this week are:
- Welcome Stacy Rasgon, Bernstein Research – AMD, Intel, Qualcomm
- Intel, Qualcomm, and Huawei Licenses
- Arm Q4 FY24 Earnings
- GlobalFoundries Q1/24 Earnings
- Apple iPad Event, M4, and Crush Ad
- Visit to Solidigm HQ – State of Storage for AI
- ServiceNow Knowledge 2024
For a deeper dive into each topic, please click on the links above. Be sure to subscribe to The Six Five Webcast so you never miss an episode.
Watch the episode here:
Listen to the episode on your favorite streaming platform:
Disclaimer: The Six Five Webcast is for information and entertainment purposes only. Over the course of this webcast, we may talk about companies that are publicly traded and we may even reference that fact and their equity share price, but please do not take anything that we say as a recommendation about what you should do with your investment dollars. We are not investment advisors and we ask that you do not treat us as such.
Transcript:
Patrick Moorhead: The Six Five weekly show is back. It’s Friday, 9:00 AM Central, doing my favorite thing of the week with my bestie, Daniel Newman. How you doing?
Daniel Newman: Hey Pat. Good morning. It is Friday. It is that time of the week and you know what, I have to say, I’ve been waiting all, well, ever since that dumb Apple ad came out, I’ve been waiting all week for this podcast because I could not wait to have the opportunity to come on here and rip Apple a new one. Now, you and I typically are really Apple bulls, so that never, wait, no, we’re not. Yeah, so Pat, it is Friday. I’m happy to be here. Buddy, you look good. Did you lose weight again this week?
Patrick Moorhead: Dan, I don’t think I did. I brought out the same shirts that I wore during the eighth grade and they’re a little smaller than the ones I had before, but hey, thanks for noticing. I appreciate that.
Daniel Newman: Hey, look, everyone needs a compliment from time-to-time.
Patrick Moorhead: Yes. So we are episode 216. We have not been canceled yet, although we might throw some F-bombs, sometimes we get cited for explicit language, but we are here to educate and entertain. We are going to talk about public companies, but please don’t trade on anything Dan and I say. Seek professional advice. We’ve got-
Daniel Newman: That might be more important today than ever that little disclaimer I think. What do you think?
Patrick Moorhead: Well, there are some people who are qualified, like our special guests that we’re going to tease just a little bit, but we’re going to be talking Intel, Qualcomm and the Huawei licensing in China. We’re going to be talking about Arm, GlobalFoundries earnings. We’re going to be talking about that Apple iPad event M4 and that awful crush ad. Dan and I visited ServiceNow 2024 Knowledge Conference. We were there for, seemed like for a long time. And then we’re going to talk about a visit to the Solidigm headquarter. We met with their leadership team to get the update on what they are doing in data center AI. But with that said, I am super, super, super excited to introduce Stacy Rasgon, Bernstein Research. Stacy, how you doing?
Stacy Rasgon: I’m good, thanks. Good to be here. Thanks for having me.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, so Stacy, I don’t know who gets on CNBC more, you or Daniel?
Daniel Newman: Or you?
Patrick Moorhead: Well, I think I’m available when Stacy’s not, like he’s going to the bathroom or something, they call me to talk chips on there with Fortt, but man, it’s great to see you. The first time we met I think was at a Board of Directors’ dinner for a chip company where we were their entertainment.
Stacy Rasgon: This is true.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, and I think they were entertained, but hey Stacy, let’s talk a little bit about what you do, what you don’t do. I know everybody in the chip space knows you, but we have a pretty broad audience here.
Stacy Rasgon: Yeah, you bet. So again, I’m Stacy Rasgon. I’m a managing director and senior analyst at an equity research firm called Bernstein Research where I look at the US semiconductor and semiconductor capital equipment space. And so what does that mean equity research ’cause you guys are tech analysts? I know you talk about companies, you do talk about stocks. I do that as well. There are some other considerations though. I also explicitly put out ratings and target prices on stocks. I articulate investment conclusions for those stocks and I write about those to my clients. Now that being said, I also do a lot of what you guys do. I spend my time immersed in the tech supply chain, in the semi supply chain.
My background for those in the audience that don’t know, I used to be on the technical side. So I have a PhD in chemical engineering. I used to build semiconductor manufacturing equipment, plasma etchers. My PhD thesis is on the plasma etch transfers a roughness down feature sidewalls during semiconductor manufacturing. And I did work at IBM T.J. Watson back in the days in their advanced lithography and processes group. Then, I went actually instead of going directly into the industry, I went into McKinsey instead and I spent my time at McKinsey doing business consulting for semiconductor companies, and now I’m on Wall Street and I look at semiconductor stocks.
Patrick Moorhead: I love it. I love it.
Stacy Rasgon: It’s fun. I’ve been doing this 16 years now. This is the longest I’ve ever been anywhere and it’s still fun.
Patrick Moorhead: Stacy, thanks for coming on. A question I get, and then we’re going to jump into Intel, AMD and Qualcomm, is how long is your timeframe of interest? Is it 5 years, 10 years, 3 years? How far does it go out ’cause I think that’s going to be important for this conversation?
Stacy Rasgon: So theoretically, target prices that I said are supposed to be a 12-month target price, so setting a target price a year. Now that being said, in this space you can’t constrain yourself. I’ve got, and it really depends on my clients, so I have clients who may just care about the next data point. It may just be the next week or the next month or next quarter. I’ve got clients that have a 5-year or 10-year horizon. And so you need to be able to sort of dial in and out depending on who you’re talking to and have a point of view across a variety of timescales. But in theory, the target prices, ’cause you got to put a stake in the ground somehow in theory, that is a 12-month target when I do put out target prices and ratings.
Patrick Moorhead: I love it, man. Yeah, I don’t tell many people I actually have a finance degree and I was supposed to be in Wall Street, but I picked a tech instead. So hey, let’s jump in here.
Daniel Newman: Hey, Pat, do you have a real job?
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, no, I used to have a real job too. Dan loves when I point that out ’cause-
Daniel Newman: ‘Cause I never did ’cause that’s the joke.
Patrick Moorhead: No, Dan, you kind of had a real job. You were CEO, a distributor. Okay, hey, let’s dive in. Let’s do easiest first.
Stacy Rasgon: Yeah.
Patrick Moorhead: So Qualcomm, Stacy, big upside in automotive, smartphone, better than maybe some expected. So what were your thoughts on, what does your note talk about?
Stacy Rasgon: Yeah, so it was a good print. So Qualcomm has been an interesting just stock. It was death most of last year as were most of the smartphone names and it wasn’t anybody’s fault. It wasn’t anything that them or frankly any of the other folks in that industry were doing badly. It was just smartphones were horrendous. They didn’t really benefit. Like PCs during COVID had a lot of pull forward and for a while we had a lot of demand. Smartphones, we didn’t really see that and in fact, demand was worse. I think smartphone shipments were down eight quarters in a row-
Patrick Moorhead: Right, exactly.
Stacy Rasgon: … In most of 2022 and 2023 and the semiconductors, especially in 2023, there was just too much inventory out there, so they wound up under-shipping that low demand. It was just awful. Smartphones, however, bottomed near the end of last year, and that actually was very good for most of these smartphone names and they had a really big bounce, earnings went up and the multiples went up and the stocks were pretty good over the last six months. Going into this print, people were getting a little more nervous. There were some signs, people were worried about Apple shipments and everything else.
Qualcomm took their pain last year. They’re more exposed to the premium at Android tiers. They had some inventory correction last year, which has bottomed out for them and so they were able to put up some better numbers, I think, than some of the other companies were. The other area where they’re really, really benefiting is content. And this is where I’m actually starting to warm up more to some of those longer-term horizon kind of things. I’m getting more bullish on the prospect for AI smartphones and by the way-
Patrick Moorhead: There we go. Now, you’re talking my love language, Stacy.
Stacy Rasgon: Right. Hang on, maybe or maybe not. I am not bullish on AI smartphones per se in the sense that I do not believe that anybody is going to run out and buy an AI smartphone where they were not going to buy a smartphone already. I am not convinced that it will drive an upgrade cycle yet. However, it should drive content, and this is something where Qualcomm’s actually benefited a lot and in fact if you look, the whole 5G cycle didn’t drive any kind of upgrade cycle.
In fact, smartphones are down, oh, I don’t know, 20% or 30% off the peak during the whole 5G cycle. Qualcomm’s chipset revenues, however, grew at a 20% CAGR while smartphones were collapsing on the back of content increase, as well as some other things you mentioned, auto and everything. But content’s gone up a ton and I actually am getting more and more convinced that at least AI can continue those kind of content trends. And I do think when people do buy a smartphone, they will buy an AI smartphone because that is what will be for sale.
Now, I also think Qualcomm has been doing a lot more on the ecosystem work for AI smartphones, whether it’s software support, OS support, SDKs, pre-trained models. They’ve got a whole website with a ton of pre-trained models that are optimized to run on Qualcomm Silicon and nobody else in the supply chain is really doing that kind of optimization. So they recognize that there needs to be use cases in killer apps for this and we’ll see if that happens or not, but they’re doing what they can to try to create that ecosystem within this space that is really important. So I’m starting to really warm up to that thesis and look, if there is a killer app, maybe Apple comes up with something that everybody has to do and if it drives an upgrade cycle, even better. That’d be great.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, we have Google’s big conference coming up next week where they would likely drop something about what they’re doing in Android. And I think, by the way, all this discussion is very understandable ’cause we haven’t seen what Google, what Microsoft, we haven’t seen exactly what they’re going to be bringing out. With Build coming up in a couple of weeks and we’re going to see this. We have WWDC coming up that should talk about that.
Daniel Newman: You mentioned Computex.
Stacy Rasgon: Yeah.
Patrick Moorhead: Oh, yeah, yeah. Dan is going to be in Computex, I am not.
Daniel Newman: I’m going to be sweating profusely in Taiwan.
Stacy Rasgon: I will not be there unfortunately.
Daniel Newman: Guys, I will carry the water for you.
Patrick Moorhead: Congratulations, Dan.
Daniel Newman: Again, carry your bags, carry your, anything just to be in this kind of circle. Can I just hang with you guys?
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah. So hey, just a final quickie on Qualcomm. They have this $45 billion auto backlog. Definitely, big growth in the quarter, but definitely out of your one-year target, it goes out eight years I think is, is there… How do you factor that in Stacy?
Stacy Rasgon: Yeah, you bet. So they’ve given some medium-term as well as longer-term targets for revenues. What they’ve said is they think they can do more than $4 billion by fiscal year 2026, which is actually the out year of my forecast period.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah.
Stacy Rasgon: And more than 9 billion by fiscal year 2030. So those are the targets they’ve given. They’re running right now annualized a little under 2.5 billion and it’s growing a lot. So they’re on that glide path to hit those numbers and what they said was, the last time they’d given a pipeline number was 30 billion a year and a half ago whenever it was and now they’ve taken it up to 45 billion. They’re not taking those targets up yet, but what they said is we feel even better about hitting those targets. Yeah, it’s looking really good. So I’ve got a glide path in my numbers for something that looks like that.
Daniel Newman: And the real revenue, Stacy, has been pretty impressive too ’cause that’s been the thing is like some of these pipeline numbers and then you’ll hear why-
Stacy Rasgon: Yeah, you never know, right?
Daniel Newman: But you’re seeing that trajectory of actual revenue that’s showing up in that business that sort of seems like the ramp is calibrated.
Stacy Rasgon: Yeah, yeah. You got to remember when people give a pipeline, those are engagements. You never quite know how much of that’s going to actually convert into actual orders, you don’t know over what timeframe. I mean it could be 45 billion over 30 years, who knows, right? It’s not going to be that long, but in general, when companies talk about pipelines, they tend to leave those details out. At least Qualcomm is putting up very reasonable revenue numbers along order numbers or pipeline numbers that look like that.
Patrick Moorhead: Hey, let’s bounce to AMD. EPSV revenue, small little beat outlooks, lower than expected. Your headline in your report was “Not awful, but not awe-full” as in full of awe.
Stacy Rasgon: Yes, yes.
Daniel Newman: Was that actually his headline? I didn’t-
Stacy Rasgon: Yes.
Daniel Newman: Nice. All right, well done.
Patrick Moorhead: Just wait for the Intel one.
Stacy Rasgon: Yeah, by the way, I should say, like we were talking earlier, titles are really important. My clients get a thousand e-mails from folks like me every single day. You got to give them some reason to click and so tight titles are best. I spent a lot of time on the titles. So AMD, the stock has been tougher recently, although I think year-over-year it’s still pretty good. It had a big ramp up last year, frankly in the wake of NVIDIA’s, when NVIDIA kind of blew the doors off the car in May of last year and really got the whole generative AI cycle going and AMD, at least from a narrative standpoint, has been benefiting from that. The stock has sold off a bit off the peak and it partially is because it’s a few reasons.
One is their core business has not been great and this is by the way, we haven’t talked about the broader cycle semis. There’s a lot of overhang that they’re working off from the COVID years, AMD and their core businesses getting hit by that, and the AI piece for them, as sizable as it is for them, has not been enough to offset some of the weakness in the core business. Plus I would also argue, in the context of the overall AI opportunity from some of their peers like NVIDIA are saying, even the multi-billion dollar numbers that AMD is putting out are fairly small in that context. NVIDIA might do a $100 billion in data center revenues this year. AMD is guiding for four plus. I mean it’s not that… Although AMD do their credit, they don’t have to do a $100 billion in revenue this year.
The issue with AMD stock and it did sell off off the printing, it was kind of like inline-ish, which the stock is fairly expensive and inline in that context isn’t always enough. The core business was weak in particular, what they call, Embedded, which is mostly the Xilinx business that they bought a little while back and their gaming business were already weak and getting weaker and some of those cyclical issues. And the AI piece, they took it up modestly, their prior guide had been more than 3.5, now it’s more than 4. And so that was kind of like expectations are already there more, so it just wasn’t enough. Now I will be honest.
We’ve been a little lukewarm on the thesis, but again to the title, I didn’t think the quarter was all that bad in the grand scheme of things. They are still, their core client and data center businesses, they’re not super because the markets are not super, but they were not horrible. They’re clearly taking share from Intel. We’ll probably talk about Intel. Intel had suggested when they reported a week or so before that they thought they held share. They clearly did not-
Patrick Moorhead: Yes.
Stacy Rasgon: … AMD still took share and the embedded and other weaknesses, presumably some of its cyclical, eventually that will hopefully come back and the AI numbers, they were in line, but I mean they’re still growing. It’s not awful, but “not awe-full” isn’t quite enough when expectations are high.
Daniel Newman: It’s not aw-full?
Stacy Rasgon: Yeah, this is something that people sometimes get confused when they look at how stocks trade in the wake of earnings and I’ll see sometimes, Pat even I’ll see tweets from you and you’d be like, “Oh yeah, the earnings were great, the stocks down a ton.” Maybe it’s the guidance that was bad.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah.
Stacy Rasgon: Maybe it was the expected, it can be great, but expectations are much higher. The real question is how are they performing relative not to my expectations or my peers’ expectations, but my clients’ expectations, the folks that are actually doing the investments themselves. Those expectations are not written down. Part of my job, by the way, is to figure out what those expectations actually are, but you can get a good idea of where they are relative to the numbers by observing what happens with the stock when these guys report. So that’s what happened with them this quarter.
Daniel Newman: I know you might not be able to comment on this, Stacy, but my take on it all is that NVIDIA is setting the expectations of pretty much every data center chip company on the planet right now and the comparative is, well, we’re expecting NVIDIA’s 875% growth, I joke, but… So Lisa comes out and raises the number 3.5 to 4, but people, they wanted her to raise to 5 or 6.
Stacy Rasgon: You got to remember, so last quarter they raised it from 2 to 3.5 and the stock went down. Why? Expectations for AMD going the last quarter was that they would do 8 to 10.
Daniel Newman: Right.
Stacy Rasgon: Right?
Daniel Newman: There was no number big enough.
Stacy Rasgon: So they lowered it to 3.5, this is the quarter before. That was good because you want to get expectations down and so they lower it to 3.5, but people still think they might do 5 or 6. So now they’ve raised it to 4. Great. But people are still thinking they might do 5 or 6.
Daniel Newman: That’s fair.
Stacy Rasgon: And they’ve only got two quarters left now.
Daniel Newman: Yeah, I think that’s where I was trying to go was basically there was no big enough number that she could have said. If she said 6, they would’ve been like, why not 8? I mean it was like-
Stacy Rasgon: You have to remember, they’re relatively small, there were other constraints. Part of the issue for the whole space has been supply constraints. These guys are all ramping it up a ton. Remember, you don’t just snap your fingers and the chips appear, you have to make them and you have to put the infrastructure and capacity in place to manufacture them and that takes time, and it’s very difficult to gauge. And AMD because they are smaller, NVIDIA is pre-buying a lot of this capacity, there are limits to how much, even if AMD, and I don’t know what they, even if AMD had demand for $50 billion worth of parts this year, there’s no way they could supply anything like that. They’re probably doing the best they can. And again, it’s not bad. This business was zero just a few quarters ago, like a year ago. So even to grow it to 4 billion in a year from nothing is not a bad thing necessarily.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah. I’m going to end on AMD. In December, I said 6 billion and we’re going to see where that ends up and that was-
Stacy Rasgon: It’s not an insane number. It probably won’t be 10 this year, but what AMD said is they will have supply in the back half to generate upside to that number if the demand is there, is kind of what they said.
Patrick Moorhead: That’s good. So let’s pop to Intel. So Intel, a big EPSV for the quarter and proof gross margins, lower than expected top line, and a lower forecast.
Daniel Newman: He’s cringing.
Patrick Moorhead: Stacy, your note was “Hello, darkness, my friend, I’ve come to talk with you again.”
Stacy Rasgon: Yeah, they’re in a tough spot. They know. Look, what I’ve said prior is this was always going to happen. It took 10 years to break it. It’s going to take 10 years to fix it. Intel had a Foundry. There’s a few things that are going on with Intel. One is just their numbers have been bad. They just have, it is what it is. Again, we can talk about some of the dynamics. The PC market has not been great. There was a lot of channel impact. During COVID, they were over-shipping. You had a massive inventory correction. I think they’ve actually been over-shipping again the last couple of quarters. So that has impact for the forward trajectory of their client business, plus they’re losing share in servers, plus traditional data center, in the wake of all the AI strength, traditional data center has been quite weak, server chips and networking, in that sense. So that’s been impacting them.
They were impacted on their Altera business, the same issues with AMD’s Embedded business, that’s very weak. So they’ve got issues just in general, near-term cyclical issues in their business, longer-term potential structural issues around share losses to AMD and then now maybe AI and accelerators taking share from traditional data centers. They don’t have anywhere near the AI or accelerator story that some of their peers do. So you don’t have that, and now they have this foundry business that they’re trying to build. They’re investing a ton of money that they don’t really have. They’re burning cash.
They did a Foundry Day a few weeks ago where they showed us the economics of the two businesses, the product piece of the company and the Foundry business. The Foundry business economics are, I think, unsurprisingly horrendous. They lost 7 billion last year, which was not surprising. What I found surprising was the Foundry losses are going to get even worse this year. That’s in the wake of them- they supposedly cut $3 billion in costs last year and presumably, the revenues are getting better. So what it tells you is there’s some real structural issues.
My biggest takeaway from the Foundry Day was come back in 2030. Again, they gave some medium-term and longer-term models from margins and numbers, which I still think look aggressive personally, and even if you believe them, they basically said this is going to look like a horror show for the next three, four, five years at least. So even if you believe in that long-term, and I can construct a bull case if you wanted to for what that long-term could look like, but it’s a long ways out. It’s hard. This is why the stock has been selling off and then, we had the Huawei news the other day, right?
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, we’re going to dive into that. So Stacy, what would you have to see from Foundry and when for it to make a change?
Stacy Rasgon: You want to see volumes, right? They’ve announced customers and engagements, which is fine, but again, by their own, they showed their own forecasts. They’re not expecting any sort of material revenues till the latter half of the decade in Foundry, and it’s still an open question. I don’t doubt that they’ve got a ton of engagements. I think anybody that’s looking for leading edge process technology is going to be looking at them. Why wouldn’t you? Everybody wants second sources. The whole geopolitical question and how sustainable is having the world’s leading edge manufacturing in Taiwan, that is a real worry. I understand all of this, but these are not problems that like, you can’t just throw money at these problems and fix them.
Patrick Moorhead: Well, their long-term… The tech has to be there. Hey Stacy, it’s going to be getting advanced EV machines. That’s what it’s all about. Didn’t you read the memo?
Stacy Rasgon: Yeah, yeah. The High NA?
Patrick Moorhead: Exactly.
Stacy Rasgon: That has a whole other set of issues that we could talk about. Now, I will say back in the days when Intel was actually at the forefront of new innovations, they were actually doing better. So you can think, they were the first ones to do silicon-germanium and the first ones to do High-K/Metal Gate, the first ones to do FinFETs, right? And they were phenomenal for them, and you could make the argument that when they stopped, part of their big issue when they has the problems going to 10 nanometers is they didn’t want to use EUV. They decided they could do it using multiple patterning. As it turns out, they were wrong. In the meantime, TSMC aggressively went after EUV, and you know how this works, it’s a learning curve.
Patrick Moorhead: BK to the end was saying that EUV didn’t work and TSMC got it to work. So Stacy, let’s bounce and Dan-
Stacy Rasgon: We’ll see what High NA does for that. There are other issues with High NA.
Daniel Newman: As we move into the… Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Stacy.
Stacy Rasgon: We’ll see, but again, call me in a few years. It’s going to be a slog and I think it was always going to be a slog.
Daniel Newman: As we move into the back end of this and get into our topics of the week, by the way, thanks Stacy for giving us the rundown. Pat and I did this last week, so everybody out there want to check out our comments compared it to Stacy’s and then send Pat and I a note and let us know how great we did or how great we didn’t do. But the one thing I say is I talked to Bloomberg this week about Intel and they basically asked me the question, “In the near term, is there any reason to invest?” Boy, was that a hard question to answer because I think what you said was exactly what I said is there is a really compelling long tail, but the short tail is really hard.
Stacy Rasgon: It’s tough. Yeah, so it goes back to your question on what’s your horizon, right? It depends and look, the book values is, I don’t know, 27 bucks a share. It’s not that far off of there, right? They’re burning, they’re burning cash, although they’re getting subsidies, and again, I can argue the geopolitical benefits, but it’s probably going to be a slog.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, I’m interested to see when we have a TSMC-created compute tile, so it’s kind of mano a mano with AMD. Now, on the cost side, that isn’t good, but on the competitive side and getting that market share, I see that as positive. And by the way, the company has moved from a completely monolithic design to distributed and theoretically that means your net could die per wafer.
Stacy Rasgon: They’re doing the wrong thing. What is Pat’s alternative? It’s to lay down and die.
Patrick Moorhead: Exactly, and some people are like, “Oh, they need new leadership” or “they need to just split.” It’s like, no, no-
Stacy Rasgon: It’s exactly what he said. I think his biggest error was how he set expectations. So he came in and he was really a cheerleader. He said, “Everything’s fixed and it’s going to be great.” They had an Analyst Day in 2022 where they put out targets that were outlandish, but you also have to remember, investors, we’re not the only audience for what he says, right? It’s also the US government and its employees and its customers and its suppliers, and you have got to keep the boat from totally sinking even though there’s a hole in it, right? He has to maintain all of that, so the investors themselves are not the only audience for the messaging, but at some point you’ve got to put up or shut up and we’re at that point now where everything is now starting to hit him. I think it was always going to be like this personally.
Patrick Moorhead: Right.
Stacy Rasgon: We’re just at that point now. They’re going to have to get through. It’s going to be a while.
Patrick Moorhead: Let’s dive into the next topic. We alluded to it before. US government has cut off potentially the last semblance of support from Intel and Qualcomm to Huawei. Dan, why don’t you kick this one off?
Daniel Newman: Yeah, look, there were some licenses that were granted. A lot of people still wonder how that actually happened in the first place, but they were, and then Qualcomm and Intel were able to sell to Huawei. Now, of course, Huawei’s had a lot of change. They spun off the Honor brand. They are building their new Harmony OS. You saw the Apple numbers, which again, there’s debate if you’re an Apple fan. Last quarter, Apple did way better than the China setup had been. If you’re harder on Apple, you’re saying that the world is falling and China is ending. Tim Cook’s flying over there.
But the net of it is that there’s some long tail stuff that impacts Qualcomm on the 4G side. If they can’t sell these any longer, there could be an opportunity for media tech. Intel, of course, impacted by Huawei, and this is another microaggression as I see it. This isn’t on the end of the scale of selling the advanced AI stuff. So all the walls that are going up between us and China has to do with leading the arms race globally to be the most advanced and most capable in delivering these AI. This, to me, is odd. It doesn’t actually fit within that. It fits more within these consistent, we’re going to jab at you, you’re going to jab back at us and it’s going to create pain for your companies, we’re going to try to create a little pain for your… Back and forth, Pat. Stacy, I’d love to hear you’re all on it, but that’s my feeling of what’s happening here.
Stacy Rasgon: To be fair, these licenses apparently were up for renewal in Q3 anyways and I think it was going to go, I don’t think any of these companies was expecting a renewal. Qualcomm had already said that Huawei we was going to be out of the model by the end of the calendar year, and that was two issues. One of them could have been the license. The other is part of the reason that Qualcomm’s revenues are over in the folio, Huawei is doing their own internally manufactured 5G chips now at SMIC, the 4G portfolio is transitioning to 5G, so it’s going away anyways, but I think, I don’t know that it’s necessarily, it’s petty to do it one quarter early, but I think it was going to happen anyways.
We sized this for both companies, it’s not that big. Qualcomm had already said it was going away. You can do the math. They’re only selling low-end 4G to Huawei. All the high-end stuff, Huawei to transition to 5G. Our math suggests it was probably a few hundred million dollars, maybe 15 cents in EPS, and this is in the context of a company that, at least street consensus, has it doing $11-plus in earnings next year. It’s not that big. Huawei also pays licensing. The Huawei licensing agreement with Qualcomm, for those of you that don’t know, Qualcomm has a chip business and licensing business, the Huawei licensing agreement expires early next fiscal year, and so they’re actually actively engaged in re-negotiations right now. If Huawei stopped paying licensing, it’s another 10 cents.
For Qualcomm, it’s not that material. For Intel, similar kind of magnitude. The problem is Intel’s not doing 11 bucks next year. The street has Intel doing 2, right? It’s probably, I’d size the potential impact to Intel if Huawei does 5 million pieces a year, give or take, makes them ASP assumptions, it’s 500 million to a billion dollars, maybe 10 cents an EPS. Intel, by the way, the day after pre-announced, they actually lowered their guidance for the quarter. What they said is the old guidance, I think, was 12.5 to 13.5 billion, so the midpoint is 13 billion. They said we’re going to come in below the midpoint, so it’s kind of consistent figure. They knocked the number down by a couple of hundred million dollars in the quarter, consistent with our annual, we said 500 million to a billion for the year and that feels about right. Qualcomm also came out.
Qualcomm actually held their guidance for the quarter. They said we’re aware of it. We’re not changing our guidance. So it all kind of hangs together. It’s not that big of a deal from a number standpoint for either. The issue that Intel had is just it’s one more thing on the pile.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, a whole lot of nothing here. Just to close this one out, I found it interesting that Xeon wasn’t part of the conversation here because Huawei has a very sizable infrastructure business where they ship a lot of these into Chinese carriers, Middle Eastern carriers, Southeast Asia.
Stacy Rasgon: That may have already been shut down by the, I don’t know that they’re selling that stuff anymore. Most of the other guys that were selling infrastructure chips to, for example, like Xilinx or Altera, Intel owns Altera, AMD owns Xilinx. That got shut down several years ago.
Patrick Moorhead: Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Hey, let’s dive into Arm, fourth quarter fiscal year 2024 earnings. Arm crushed it quarterly, beat, beat, raise, raise, but the stock got hammered because of the annual guide out there. And Stacy, I’m going to kick this off and I know you have another colleague who covered this from an investment point of view, but listen, this story was very similar to the prior quarter, which was more data center, and we just saw Google Axion come online and this adds to Cobalt and what they’re doing over at AWS with Graviton and a couple other folks, Richer what’s called CSS, which is a product that it’s not just a royalty, it’s not a license, they’re actually helping their customers with their solution taking it all the way even to software verification/validation. They had bigger mobile cores, right?
You’ve seen companies like MediaTek create, where it doesn’t have any of the efficiency cores, it’s all performance cores, and based on their royalty model, that is much more expensive. Now, we also are seeing a shift from v8 instruction set to v9, and Arm pays more money for that. Now, there is a rumor out there that the new Apple M4 uses v9, which gives it via, what’s called, SME a little bit of a performance pop, but you know what? Still wasn’t good for the street.
Stacy Rasgon: Yeah. Well, so again, so my colleague covers Arm, so I’ll refrain from any investment conclusion, but some factual statements. You’re right, the stock did sell off. I don’t think it ended, it wasn’t horrible. Arm, by the way, has been really interesting. They had an IPO, I can’t remember when it went out, $46 a share or something like that.
Patrick Moorhead: It had a one-day pop of 50% or something.
Stacy Rasgon: Well, it was even bigger than that because I think their first earnings, you had a massive short squeeze on it and it went to I can’t remembers, for the top $120 or something. It was just massive, right? And it’s been very volatile since then. The float, it’s not just the float, it’s how many shares are actually out there or actively traded? There’s a lot of it that’s still locked up.
Patrick Moorhead: Yes.
Stacy Rasgon: Usually after an IPO, there’s like a six-month lockup period before all the other big shareholders can sell, and when the trading volume’s not very high, you can get bigger swings. So it’s been very volatile from that standpoint, and it’s a very expensive stock and that was the issue. You’re right, the quarter was good, the quarterly guide was good. The full year guide was slightly, I think, a little below on revenue versus the street. I think EPS was a little above, but I don’t know, stocks was, where was it, 68 times earnings or something like that, just expensive. So expectations were high and it wasn’t quite enough. That’s it. I don’t think it was anything more than that, and I doubt that anybody’s view on the company really changed one way or the other based on their earnings-
Daniel Newman: There’s another-
Stacy Rasgon: … Based on the number of the tailwinds potentially that they have going for them.
Daniel Newman: Yeah, this seems to be another one of those with all the excitement, enthusiasm about the new NVIDIA flavors, how much was Arm going to indicate its acceleration. We both, I think Pat you talked to Rene, I talked to Rene. He was beaming. He felt really good about the result. It was a guide. There was a couple of deeper things on there. The profit, I think almost all the profit in the quarter actually came from a subsidy, there was like a tax break, 177-
Stacy Rasgon: Oh, I’m not close to Arm.
Daniel Newman: That’s okay. Fairly enough, because I was leading with the headlines a bit myself. I got underneath it, put something out on Twitter, got some person that was doing deep technical analysis, started yelling at me about it ’cause all I want to say is this, Stacy, everybody starts scrutinizing the way companies get to their adjusted number. We will never have a conversation again about an earnings report ’cause everything from taxing to depreciation to the way people make these numbers hit, we could scrutinize every one of these reports or we just go back to GAP and only talk about GAP.
Stacy Rasgon: I only have one company in my coverage that does GAP reporting. Though they all report GAP, I only have one company that doesn’t do any sort of pro-forma adjustments. It’s Texas Instruments. They do straight GAP. Analog Devices and some of the other guys, my semi caps, they do a pro-forma, but they include stock comp at least in the numbers. And I’ve got a number of others that exclude, most of the others exclude stock comp. A lot of them that do acquisitions will exclude amortization, which is fair maybe, but you kind of have to know what you’re comparing. If you’re just comparing on one multiple to another, it may not necessarily be apples to apples. That’s true.
Daniel Newman: It was interesting.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah. Hey, let’s jump into GlobalFoundries. Dan, you want to kick this one off?
Daniel Newman: Yeah, let’s touch on it. Look, they beat on the top of the bottom. They’ve guided above the midpoint, and I think it’s been a stable, steady stock. The company is, it qualifies into what you and I like to call lagging. When I talk to them though they like to remind me that it’s essential notes, though this is a company that focuses above 14 nanometer, but they are catching tailwinds. They do talk quite a bit in their earnings about the gen AI boom and its impact, especially in management. So that seems to be where a lot of it’s coming is the boost to silicon photonics. It’s pretty well diversified. It did look like the revenue is picking up. They commented a bit on Smart Mobile, so that kind of fits the narrative that we talked about Qualcomm, Qualcomm where their company is turning around, but they’re pretty well diversified across the board.
And one of the most interesting things, Pat, I like to circle back, is in the 2020 year when chips became cool again, by the way guys, congratulations on sticking with it long enough to become cool again, it wasn’t actually the leading edge that was the biggest problem. And you and I have talked about this quite a few times on the podcast, but it is the stuff that companies like GlobalFoundries produce. It’s the stuff that was the reason you couldn’t get your seat heaters, so they couldn’t ship a truck. And so GlobalFoundries continues to be really important and essential, but it feels like a deep value to me. It feels like it’s never going to be cool.
Stacy Rasgon: Again, we don’t cover this one either, so again, I won’t give any investment conclusions, but you’re right, they have focused a lot more on the trailing node stuff that was tougher to source. They have a lot more, what they call, long-term agreements. They’ve locked customers in and they’ve been benefiting in some sense from that. GlobalFoundries had an interesting transformation, by the way, again, for your listeners who don’t know, it started its life, it was AMD.
Patrick Moorhead: Exactly. I was there when we stuck it off.
Stacy Rasgon: AMD, Gary Sanders used to say, “Real men have fabs,” but at one point they were spending 50% of the revenue on CapEx and it just wasn’t sustainable, especially when the financial crisis hit and they had to sell their factories to the Middle East or there’s a Hector, I guess is the one that-
Patrick Moorhead: That’s right, Hector Ruiz. That’s right.
Stacy Rasgon: And then, that entity bought Chartered Semiconductor, they bought IBM’s, I guess IBM paid them to take their semiconductor manufacturer.
Patrick Moorhead: Yes, yes.
Stacy Rasgon: But they formed this thing, but the economics used to be horrible ’cause They were still pushing on the leading edge, but then AMD shifted away from GlobalFoundries to TSMC for their leading edge, and GloFo made, I think, what was a good decision. They decided to give up and focus on lagging node and specialty, and they were able to massively cut their capital intensity because that stuff doesn’t have nearly the kind of investment requirements that leading edge does, and there’s a lot of opportunities for specialty processes and pricing opportunities and everything. And it’s clearly much better than it used to be. They’re actually making money now.
Patrick Moorhead: Exactly.
Stacy Rasgon: Right?
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, I was there. It was a fun thing and in addition to the CapEx squeeze, we bought ATI and ATI was supposed to have a top of the stack performance and it ended up not being, and then we had to sell. We had to do a fire sale and everything wasn’t. Anyways-
Stacy Rasgon: Qualcomm bought their Adreno Graphics from, I think it was $65 million they paid for it.
Patrick Moorhead: It was there, and Broadcom bought the set top box business. By the way, Adreno kind of an anagram would be Radion-
Stacy Rasgon: Right.
Patrick Moorhead: … Which is ATI’s brand. I wonder where that came from.
Stacy Rasgon: $65 million.
Patrick Moorhead: No. Like I said, it was a fire sale. You do some crazy things when you need cash.
Stacy Rasgon: AMD, to their credit, forget about where the stock is going now, this was a $2 stock. I remember in 2014-2015, the controversy was are they going to go bankrupt or not.
Daniel Newman: Hey, Stacy, you want to have a little fun. You want to have a little fun? Ask Pat what his stock would be worth today if he’d have held it.
Patrick Moorhead: Let’s not do that.
Daniel Newman: Oh, come on, boomer. I just want to pick on the boomers here. By the way, I bet you two are both Gen X-ers, but I love calling Gen X-ers boomers. It’s my new thing.
Patrick Moorhead: I love that, Dan.
Stacy Rasgon: Proud Gen X-er here, so yes.
Patrick Moorhead: Me too, baby. Hey, let’s dive into the Apple iPad event.
Daniel Newman: This is fun.
Patrick Moorhead: It’s a new iPad, new M4 chip and of course, that crush ad.
Stacy Rasgon: The ad, yeah, yeah.
Daniel Newman: How about the uncrush ad, Pat?
Stacy Rasgon: Is there another one I didn’t even see?
Patrick Moorhead: Let’s start the easiest first. Well, actually, let me start. So new iPad Airs, new iPad Pros with a new pencil. I’m going to focus on the M4 chip. Huge, huge claims of performance. They position it against AI PCs, right, which I think-
Stacy Rasgon: 38 tops, I think. So it’s above-
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah.
Stacy Rasgon: … It’s above Meteor Lake and the current Intel AMD offerings, although they’ll get better as we go into next year. It’s below the nominal numbers from Qualcomm, from the Snapdragon X Elite, which I think is 45 tops.
Patrick Moorhead: Exactly, that’s exactly right. So they’re going to have two weeks in the sun. But what I do find interesting is positioning an iPad with an operating system that is better for single tasking. It does a little bit of multitasking, but they will get their two weeks in the sun. One thing that there was a lot of discussion on was with the M4, “Hey, how is it going to do on performance?” So bigger NPU, and that’s basically a function of laying down more transistors and gates, but secondly, what do they do? It’s funny. People forget what IPC actually means. IPC is an architectural measurement, it’s instructions per clock. So when you boost frequency, that doesn’t mean you’re getting an IPC.
Stacy Rasgon: The IPC increases, they are modest, they’re there, but they’re not like groundbreaking, I don’t think.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, well, there’s some debate on it ’cause they boosted frequency, they likely boosted cache, and when you boost cache, you shouldn’t get credit for IPC. Some people give that, but I do think single-threaded performance is going to be better based on something and then there’s this v9 SME for increased performance. And I think they’re going to get blown away on multi-threaded performance. I’m going to call it here. I think they’re going to show up really well on single-threaded. Now, I don’t know if it necessarily matters ’cause in the end, are Apple people going to shift to Windows, are Windows people going to shift to Apple based on all of this? I don’t think so. I think Apple will continue to sell, and by the way, struggle a little to get people to buy new iPads because the differential utility between all of these hasn’t gotten many, I mean I have an iPad-
Stacy Rasgon: Mine is six or seven years old right now.
Patrick Moorhead: … Movies, podcasts, maybe a little bit of music. I pull it out when I need some quick, too much content to be on my smartphone.
Stacy Rasgon: Yeah, I agree. My iPad’s, like I said, six or seven years old. The screen is cracked. I don’t use it enough to need to replace it. I think if it just completely gave up the ghost, I probably would, but until that happens, it’s fine. Now, my smartphone, I live with this, so that’s something that I would upgrade probably much more frequently. And I don’t know how much people… I think if I was to look at frankly one of the new ones versus what I’ve got, I’m sure the performance would be much, much better. I don’t really use it for content create. My daughter, for example, she draws and she does all kinds of stuff like that, so maybe she would benefit, but I watch videos on it at night before I go to sleep. That’s mostly, what I use it for.
Patrick Moorhead: By the way, you just outlined their huge challenge right there. Tablets theoretically break less than iPhones and also people care a lot less about the camera on their tablet. There’s the guy at the soccer game holding the iPad to do this stuff. So a final thing on this crush ad. Dan?
Daniel Newman: No, I know we’re on short time. All I want to say is I won’t talk at all about the tech other than the fact-
Stacy Rasgon: We’ve got somebody joining us by the way.
Patrick Moorhead: Aww.
Daniel Newman: Hey, there. Good-looking pet.
Patrick Moorhead: That’s so cute. Listen, I really appreciate your X game, right? We get a viewpoint into the personal Stacy, whether it’s by your pool overlooking Los Angeles, Chippy, the dog, you also, I know you love bananas, especially bananas that sit for a long time and turn brown.
Stacy Rasgon: So then I can throw them away and my family buys more. Yes.
Daniel Newman: We only have about 10 minutes left for a couple topics. One more we’ll keep you and then we’re going to throw you out of here, Stacy. I’ll give one little comment on Apple, that was the worst. That was absolutely a complete miss on culture and connectivity with its audience. Apple does this about once a decade though where they just totally blow it. And you know what though? I said this yesterday, I’m going to end this little, ’cause you guys did good on the tech stuff. If the goal in PR is to get everyone to talk about you and it doesn’t matter if it’s good or bad, as George Bush would say, “Mission accomplished.” Like George W would say, “Mission accomplished.” So Apple, job well done, you did a terrible, horrible ad and it worked. Everybody is talking about you.
Patrick Moorhead: I love it. Hey, let’s move to Solidigm. So a little background. Intel used to be in the NAND business, by the way, they actually started off as a memory company years and years and years ago before they went to a compute. So in what Intel calls simplification, they started jettisoning certain businesses off and they spun off their memory business, SK Hynix bought it, and SK Hynix rebranded it as Solidigm and Solidigm is focused on data center NAND. They don’t do consumer sets, they don’t do smartphones, they don’t do PCs. It’s all about that. So, Dan, talk a little bit about the visit that you and I had with their leadership team.
Daniel Newman: Yes, so we got to spend some time with David Dixon. He’s their Co-CEO. They have the, what’s somewhat typical when you have an Asian parent company that they have a co-CEO, one based in Korea, one based here in the US. They are basically finding themselves in this really interesting moment now. Memory’s hot. SSD is a very interesting, it’s really unique economic and we’ll spend a lot of time talking about that. Hard drive, of course, is cheap. It’s being done at scale, but we’ve got this issue right now with power, with rack space with capacity, 15 kilowatt racks are going to be harder and harder to come by. I shared a tweet last night where they talk about all the data centers being in Northern Virginia. The only problem with Northern Virginia is there’s almost no power left to build more data centers.
Patrick Moorhead: 3% power left for everybody.
Daniel Newman: So they’ve got very little power left. And so we spent a lot of time focusing on the footprint, the footprint, the ability and the smaller number of GPUs required and the amount of memory accessible, and the fact that there is an economic case for SSD right now. And Solidigm seems to be on a good trajectory, Pat. This was a first-time overview for the both of us since the spin-off ’cause this was a spin-off of the Intel NAND business. And I think what we came away with is that there is an interesting total economic validation that needs to be done to look at hard disk versus solid state, and that directionally Solidigm could be in a very good position for growth based on what’s going on with AI. And by the way, they are focused only on data center. They’re not focused on personal and handset devices and PCs and tablets. They are focused on data center infrastructure. And I think right now, that could be a really good place to be.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah. By the way, I made a mistake on the 3%. It’s actually 0.2% power left on the grid in Virginia-
Daniel Newman: Really?
Patrick Moorhead: … And some people are going to be, “Okay, scale versus specialty.” What do you get out of specialty? Well, what Solidigm does is they do custom firmware for AWS, for Google Cloud, for all of their hyperscaler data customers. And what that gets you is different performance profiles, different power profiles via firmware, and it seems to be working for the company. They’re going to ride the demand curve and the profit curve. We probably didn’t want to see their financials last year, but yeah-
Daniel Newman: See Micron.
Patrick Moorhead: … No, no, exactly. Yeah, see Micron and see Samsung. Samsung doesn’t break out memory, but you can pretty much tell when the memory market hits the skids, they are in no man’s land, and pretty much everybody was negative gross margin. And then, as we map this out, it was okay, maybe making a point on gross margin, negative operating income as a percent and then it’s fricking boom time, right? The skyrocket, we saw Micron just boom, and that was all on HBM. But anyways, looking forward to tracking these folks in the future.
Daniel Newman: Stacy, you want to get a word in before we throw you out of here?
Stacy Rasgon: No, I think we’re good. I can talk about this stuff for hours, so you just let me know.
Patrick Moorhead: That’s good. So, Stacy, hey, thanks for coming on. I’m just so excited.
Stacy Rasgon: You bet, anytime.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, let’s do that.
Daniel Newman: Let’s do this again, maybe once a quarter we’ll bring you back and have you pop on with us and we’ll bring you on to focus on the three, four companies that you’re focused on and then occasionally we’ll just throw you a curve ball and ask you to talk about something you’re completely not allowed to talk about and then you can just awkwardly pause and be like, “No.” I mean, look, my Twitter people are already lighting up, couldn’t be happier to see you on our show. I really do appreciate you doing this. Pat, and I don’t take bringing guests on lightly.
Patrick Moorhead: This is the first guest we’ve actually had on in our weekly show that wasn’t just a flyby for two or three minutes, but hey, Stacy, thank you so much. Have a great weekend, man.
Stacy Rasgon: You too. I’ll come back anytime, just let me know.
Patrick Moorhead: Appreciate that. Take care. Bye-bye.
Stacy Rasgon: Bye.
Patrick Moorhead: Oh, oh, funny. I took out Dan. Oopsies.
Daniel Newman: Hi, Stacy.
Patrick Moorhead: I need to take out the other guy. Okay, guys. All right, Dan, ServiceNow Knowledge 2024. We spent two and a half days there. What did you-
Daniel Newman: We’re going to try to summate this in four minutes as we are…
Patrick Moorhead: Yes.
Daniel Newman: Yeah, so look, one of the most charismatic CEOs on the planet is Bill McDermott. The guy legitimately said somewhere along, one of the days, “ServiceNow is an idea” and people cheer. The bottom line though is… I’ll go fast ’cause I want you to get your word in, but enterprise apps suck, enterprise apps suck. I absolutely hate using them all. So I’m not picking on anyone, I’m just going to pick on everyone when I say this. The idea of a single pane of glass where a CEO, CFO can basically use natural language and generative technology to interact with all of their software turning all these enterprise ERPs, SCM, HCM tools into a mere mortal database with a generative layer on top of it that can communicate is the best idea on the planet. Now, getting from Bill’s commentary of this is what we’re doing to reality seem to be found somewhere in the series of keynotes listening to CJ Desai, their president, and others saying, “It’s coming, but are we there yet?”
And that was my big takeaway was their vision is to revolutionize and change enterprise software, change the value proposition, minimize the number of vendors you have to work with and the amount of sprawl you have in your enterprise. The question mark is can they do it? Is their AI really capable of doing this at the scale that most enterprises need to? I was shocked to find out that companies have hundreds, if not thousands of instances of certain softwares, although we really should know this, Pat, but I left excited, encouraged, but questioning how quickly can they execute and how fast does this software sprawl change. I’m going to stop there. We may owe this more time, but I want to give you a couple of minutes knowing that we have to stop.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, I appreciate that. So my team has attended their event before, but this is my first event and I really came in to immerse myself and some of my takeaways, first of all, it is a bold and audacious plan to be the front end for every enterprise software app. Now, is there a need to have a better experience and going to a system of action versus just a system of record? There absolutely is. Does AI, generative AI provide the biggest opportunity to do this? Absolutely. Now, these enterprise software vendors are not just going to kick back and be stagnant, right? They’re all trying to kick up their game.
I think the puts and the takes are is that ServiceNow has shown that they could put a front end, let’s say, to Workday as an example, that is being used today, right? This is not fiction. This is not, “Hey, I want to do this in the future.” They are doing the on-ramping of employees as the front end for companies like Workday. And as I go down the list and whether it’s SAP, whether it’s Oracle, whether it’s Dynamics 365, choose your fighter here, there is this opportunity to do that. The even bigger opportunity is when you tie these systems together, right? We’ve talked about this on the pod and a lot of our research is generative AI can tie disparate systems together as long as you have access to the data. So getting insights from your ERP, your SCM, your PLM, connecting the front end of the back end, as I like to say, too much, that is where this incremental generative AI value add.
Now, I asked a lot of questions about the data platform. I’m not fully satisfied yet, but I’ve got my team digging in of how that happens ’cause data management when you’re crossing the streams is the biggest challenge out there for enterprises. I left impressed, I left enthused and having a keynote where people are excited and Bill fricking brought the heat. It was-
Daniel Newman: Jensen showed up.
Patrick Moorhead: Jensen showed up and literally said ServiceNow was the first enterprise software company to lean into generative AI. Jensen is very not into absolutes when it’s not his company, but this was an absolute black hole.
Daniel Newman: And he said he wants ServiceNow.
Patrick Moorhead: Now.
Daniel Newman: He was quite frank. I know he did the little Dell thing where he walked around and said, “Get your stuff at Dell.” This was probably the equal sort of endorsement of ServiceNow. Pat, if they can accomplish, but I want to leave it here ’cause I know we got to go, if they can accomplish what they are saying, they have a very bright future, not to mention growing from 3 to 10 billion since he came on board. That’s a pretty nice run rate.
Patrick Moorhead: That’s the number. That is another reason to believe why I think they could pull this off and whether-
Daniel Newman: Keynote speaker.
Patrick Moorhead: What’s that?
Daniel Newman: Keynote speaker, Six Five Summit.
Patrick Moorhead: That’s right. Bill McDermott is the keynote speaker for our Six Five Summit 2024. We’re really excited to have him on. Everybody, thank you so much for a great show. We talked about a lot. Thanks for hanging in there and if you have any, I don’t know, compliments, you can give those to me on social media. If you have any improvements or hated it, you know where to find Dan and everybody knows where to find Stacy Rasgon.
Daniel Newman: Send your hate to Rasgon.
Patrick Moorhead: At Srasgon on X. All right, thanks everybody. Hit that subscribe button. We really appreciate you. Have a great weekend and take care.
Author Information
Daniel is the CEO of The Futurum Group. Living his life at the intersection of people and technology, Daniel works with the world’s largest technology brands exploring Digital Transformation and how it is influencing the enterprise.
From the leading edge of AI to global technology policy, Daniel makes the connections between business, people and tech that are required for companies to benefit most from their technology investments. Daniel is a top 5 globally ranked industry analyst and his ideas are regularly cited or shared in television appearances by CNBC, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal and hundreds of other sites around the world.
A 7x Best-Selling Author including his most recent book “Human/Machine.” Daniel is also a Forbes and MarketWatch (Dow Jones) contributor.
An MBA and Former Graduate Adjunct Faculty, Daniel is an Austin Texas transplant after 40 years in Chicago. His speaking takes him around the world each year as he shares his vision of the role technology will play in our future.
