It’s NVIDIA Week! On Episode 263 of The Six Five Pod, hosts Patrick Moorhead and Daniel Newman share a lively dialogue on the week’s most compelling tech news and earnings reports. From new US chip software restrictions on China, and Salesforce’s strategic acquisition of Informatica, to the latest tech earnings reports. This episode heats up! This week’s handpicked topics include:
- NVIDIA Earnings Analysis: Breakdown of NVIDIA’s strong quarterly performance despite trade restrictions with China. Key highlights for growth in the gaming, automotive, and networking segments.
- Pure Storage Earnings Review: Discussion of Pure Storage’s revenue beat and ARR growth slowdown. Insights on the company’s pivot towards AI-ready data solutions.
- Synopsys Earnings and China Impact: Analysis of Synopsys’ earnings and the potential impact of new China restrictions. The company’s suspension of guidance due to uncertainty in the Chinese market.
- HP and Dell Earnings Comparison: Contrasting HP’s challenges in the consumer PC market with Dell’s strong AI-driven growth. Plus a discussion on Dell’s significant $12 billion AI-related orders and backlog.
- Coherent Investor Day Highlights: Overview of Coherent’s investor day presentation and financial projections. – Discussion of the company’s strategy in optical connectivity for AI and data centers.
- US Manufacturing of iPhones Debate: Patrick argues for the potential of US-manufactured iPhones while Daniel counters with challenges in supply chain, workforce, and cost considerations in this segment of “The Flip.”
- The Six Five Summit Preview: Teaser of high-profile speakers and AI-focused content, 100% virtual and free to attend, streaming June 16-19 at sixfivemedia.com/summit
For a deeper dive into each topic, please click on the links above. Be sure to subscribe to The Six Five Pod so you never miss an episode.
Watch the full episode here:
Or listen to the audio here:
Disclaimer: The Six Five Pod 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: You literally have your own show. What’s the name of it on Fox?
Daniel Newman: Oh, the big money show. I’ve hosted it a few times. I’ve hosted it. Pat, we need to start prepping for when we’re no longer relevant as analysts. What are we going to do? We’re going to become pundits.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah. I think what you mean is when does Pat Bot and Dan Bot show up? I’m waiting for meetings and advice.
Daniel Newman: Remember when we used to go out to lunch, like when we didn’t kill ourselves working and we’d like to go and hang out on Second street in Austin, like if we could get our bots doing this, we could be off having coffee. I mean, there is an upside to this.
Patrick Moorhead: The Six Five weekly Pod is back. It’s episode 263. I am ready to rip it Daniel. I’ve been in town all week, navel gazing, counting beans as opposed to doing big deals. How are you doing, bestie?
Daniel Newman: Yeah, this can be like some subtle public indictment of the stupidity that we deal with at times and we need the therapy of just getting it all out there. Yes, there’s so much just stupid that is going on, but at least, at least the cone head has shown up. I’m running with this. You know, part of the benefit, Pat, of thinning down is now I have a giant bald melon head but it’s thinner, so now I look more like a capsule.
Patrick Moorhead: Dan, you do look great. And I just want to put this in context. Somebody on YouTube in the comments section basically wanted to see more of the conehead. And I don’t know if that’s you or I. Let’s just suppose it’s you, but you need to have a big cone to fit that big freaking brain. Birthday boy Daniel Newman. You had a birthday.
Daniel Newman: I did another trip around the sun. Big 44 on May 27th. I can tell you all that. I don’t care if you steal my identity. It’s on my Twitter handle. You can actually see it. In order to be verified, we had to share that now. It was nice. I got 40 or 50 messages. You know, I don’t use Facebook anymore, but I still have 40 or 50 people that I’m apparently friends with that very kindly left me messages. Most of them, I don’t even know who they are anymore because I haven’t talked to them in so long. But yeah, I mean, look, we are at that point, Pat. And you know this because you had your birthday too, where birthdays are just another work day where, you know, you get a few extra text messages.
Patrick Moorhead: Excellent. No, you know, I, I, I usually did a big public embarrassment campaign for you, Daniel, and then I just decided to, to pull back and just give you hugs and kisses via text.
Daniel Newman: But anyways, they brought me a cake on, you know, TV and celebrated my birthday on national television.
Patrick Moorhead: So amazing how well we get treated when we’re on the road. Like, I sometimes wonder, wonder why. And I really think that people think we’re smarter than we actually are. Or I’ll speak for myself when I say that but you know it is kind of funny. No, it is a blessing and an honor and saying but I am excited about this week’s show. But before we dive in, I want to give a plug for The Six Five Summit. Here we’re going to be talking all about making AI real. We’re calling it AI Unleashed. June 16th through the 19th. We are two weeks out. We’ve got Michael Dell, who may or may not be the 10th or 11th richest man in the world ARM CEO Rene Haas, Box CEO Aaron Levie, Coherent CEO Jim Anderson, highest paid CEO in tech and Palo Alto Networks with Nikesh. IonQ’s Niccolo De Masi, Paul Cho, Samsung Semi President, Dave Shull, HP President and a lineup of others. Register at SixFiveMedia.com so let’s dive in. As you know, we now have different segments on the show. We’ve got The Decode where they go into the latest tech news and yeah, pretty much decode those. We go into The Flip where Dan and I argue both sides of the coin on a topic. It’s all for fun. Typically we agree both agree or both disagree. But it’s just fun to do the counterpoint and also if you remember CNN Crossfire for all you boomers out there. And then we finalize.
Daniel Newman: Is it sad to you, Pat, at all that we just tend to agree on so many things? Because wouldn’t it be way more interesting like the best flips are when you and I genuinely don’t agree. That is always fun. But the problem is you’re really smart and I just tend to follow whatever you think, at least that’s the rumor.
Patrick Moorhead: I just keep Fox on and watch your tag 10 segments.
Daniel Newman: Yesterday, Pat, that the Fox shows unfortunately are now beating CNBC and pretty much every major show. So at least on ratings, I, I don’t think it beats in terms of the CEOs.
Patrick Moorhead: You literally have your own show. What’s the name of it on Fox?
Daniel Newman: Oh, the big money show. I’ve hosted it a few times. I’ve hosted it. Pat, we need to start prepping for when we’re no longer relevant as analysts. What are we going to do? We’re going to become pundits.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah. I think what you mean is when does Pat Bot and Dan Bot show up? I’m waiting for meetings and advice.
Daniel Newman: Remember when we used to go out to lunch, like when we didn’t kill ourselves working and we’d like to go and hang out on Second street in Austin, like if we could get our bots doing this, we could be off having coffee. I mean, there is an upside to this.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, Dan, I made that comment to you. So, you know, I probably work 16 hours a day. I’m walking down second street during lunch and there’s all these people on a weekday having fun outside, drinking wine and eating lunch. And I’m just, I’m asking myself, what am I doing wrong here? Right? How did I end up holding this wrong?
Daniel Newman: Well, the first thing is you only drink only what you need, protein, which tastes like absolute garbage. And then you inject yourself with baby’s blood. So there was a time where going out was fun with you because we would eat and then you got me hooked on this whole thing. So now all we do is basically eat. Like we bite into the side of cows, we eat raw broccoli, and then we inject ourselves with peptides or whatever it is and then we go to the gym. And so eating isn’t fun anymore because we’ve taken all the fun out of it. But the other part of actually just being able to sit out, think, have a coffee, actually observe and enjoy the world. I think we should try to figure out how to get ourselves back to that at some point. That would be nice.
Patrick Moorhead: I agree. Hey, let me finally close out this intro just by saying, hey, if you do want to see Patrick Moorhead injecting himself with more things, hit me up on Twitter. And I also started up a new, a public Instagram account too where I had a PRP plate, platelet rich plasma therapy yesterday where they pulled out my blood, they spun it in a centrifuge and then they injected it directly in my shoulder. And the thesis here is that I’m going to be benching 250 again when I get back up to speed.
Daniel Newman: Two hundred and fifty seems light. We should go big. Why don’t we go past my warm up weight and we’ll, we’ll think bigger for you.
Patrick Moorhead: I know Dan.
Daniel Newman: You want to talk about some tech? I’m sorry. I am clearly feeling very reminiscent today. I’m going back in time to the better times, the warm weather, and coffee. But a lot of stuff happened this week, right?
Patrick Moorhead: I mean, yeah, a lot of tech news. Hey, let’s jump into The Decode. The administration has told us chip software makers like Synopsys, Cadence and Seamans that you cannot sell to China anymore. What’s going on here?
Daniel Newman: Well, the next turn of the crank, right? Where’s the leverage? Just this morning, President Trump came out and basically said China was in terrible shape. I made a quick deal with them to help them because their factories were closing and this. But let’s be clear. You and I have talked about it on this show. AI is the most significant leverage that the US has right now in terms of getting to a trade negotiation. And I think this is pulling another lever. I mean, look, we’re already in this situation where we’re cutting access to chips. Jensen Huang, and we’ll talk about Nvidia later, has come out and really slammed the president, the administration, and saying that we’re going to enable China to build and diffuse AI technology. If we don’t let them keep buying Nvidia, I think they’re going to do that anyway. I don’t think that really matters that much. But what’s another thing that the US provides to China that is significant in terms of its success in building and developing chips? And that’s the EDA technology that we have. We have some of the most advanced in the world, companies like Synopsys, Cadence, Siemens, that provide a lot of the tooling, the mapping, the ip, the core components to help companies build and design the future. And the US is looking at this as another lever. Now, Pat, I think, and I don’t know what you think I’d like to hear, but I think this is just a lever. I think everything that’s going on right now is leverage, negotiation. I think obviously China has some of these capabilities on their own. They don’t need us entirely. A lot of our stuff is better. Just like Nvidia is better than Huawei, Our EDA tools are among the best to help companies quickly design the leading edge chips and things like AI. And we want to make sure that we have as many cards in our pocket as possible as we come out of this final trade negotiation with China.
Patrick Moorhead: You know, Dan, I’d like to think that this was part of a, of a strategy that had different milestones, that we were going to pull this trigger when. But I just think the administration is just like, I don’t know. Yeah, just shotgunning this, this whole thing. And somebody walks into the White House and says, hey, did you know that there are three major companies essentially, you know, 80 to 90% of all the design of chips is done with this software. Oh my gosh. Really? You got to be kidding me. So you know, it just seems, and this started off with Huawei, Huawei’s smartphone chip, where everybody’s like wait a second, how on earth did this happen? And then it ended up that they had die banked a bunch of TSMC dies that, that had made its way over there and then they put it together, they packaged it up on a, on a legacy process and then you’ve got SMIC who finds a way to do this and then you’ve got Huawei Ascend and then you’ve got Huawei Ascend Cloud Matrix which is the rack scale stuff. The Chinese just keep figuring this out. Now how are the Chinese going to develop chips without licenses to this? A, they can just steal it and use the tools that are paying for it, which most Windows operating systems in China are not licensed. And secondly, there are one off companies in China that will do. Let’s say they specialize in design or verification or validation across that software and hardware validation. There are companies out there that will do that, but none with the comprehensiveness that the U.S. based, I guess Siemens is out of Europe can, can provide here. So I don’t know what’s next here. They don’t have access, Chinese don’t have access to the Leading Edge process, they don’t have access to Leading Edge IP and they don’t have access now to Leading Edge EDA tools. And it’s likely that physical design companies like Ansys will be, will be piled in as well. And there’s a ton of companies like Dassault right out there that do a lot of the physical design resources.
Daniel Newman: Yeah, it’s interesting Pat. There is an absolute brute force willingness in China to get stuff done and you’re seeing it with how they’re getting to some of these higher transistors, you know, you’ve seen things about some of the future being able to get even down to 5 with SMIC. I’ve seen some of that, you know, DUV, it’s incredibly inefficient and basically that’s kind of where we’re leaving China right now, is that, yes, they will get there but with great inefficiency. The cloud matrix example you gave with Huawei, yes, it’s very powerful but when Jensen says it’s even as powerful as Blackwell, he also means it’s like 500 times more energy. Inefficient. I mean, it’s not literally 500, but it’s much less energy efficient. But China’s also building what, two coal fire plants per week now?
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, they have a lot of power and a lot of space. You need space. And we have to move to a city. We’ll move the city and relocate everybody.
Daniel Newman: They don’t care about green sustainable climate, by the way. We don’t know if they’re right or wrong on that. But what we do know for sure is that they actually see energy as sort of the key enabler of AI. So they can basically say we can build these really inefficient chips and if you don’t give us technology, we’ll use these. So I mean, look, I continuously say, but don’t underestimate their resolve. But without EUV, without advanced eda, without access to the. It does put China at a disadvantage. Anyone that’s saying otherwise, to me it feels political, not factual.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, glad you brought in the energy piece. A little fun fact. In 10 years, China built 11 nuclear plants and the west built two just to give you an idea. And Germany shut down their nukes. France to their credit, enriched more uranium and doubled down on it, by the way.
Daniel Newman: You know, and there was a study that came out, I just saw about subsidies to chip fabs during the past decade. Not this decade, but did you know that like South Korea, it was a single, about 1% subsidy to their fabs. The US for Intel was about 2% in the last decade. TSMC was about 3 to 4%. In China, SMIC was subsidized over 40%. So over 40% of it was subsidized. Tsinghua Unigroup and Huawei Huahong both were over 30%. It was really interesting because this was going back a decade. So imagine now as China turns it up, how much more they’re subsidizing this. And you wonder why we can’t build the chips here. Well, we’re not investing, so it’s just another piece of this puzzle. So the US is using protectionism to make up for, you know, in many ways some bad policy that’s gone on for a very long time.
Patrick Moorhead: This story keeps getting better and better. It’s the hallmark story.It’s a gift that keeps on giving. Hey, let’s jump to the next topic here. Salesforce is set to acquire Informatica. It is not your imagination. Informatica has been viewed for a while as a legacy database vendor, but they have gone through a lot of transformation, having essentially become a hybrid cloud fabric for data and governance, things like that. Sounds a whole lot like cloudera. Interestingly enough, $8 billion. A lot of people are debating the price of this. I think at a time of AI building, you have to look the other way and you really have to believe that what, what you’re buying and what you’re acquiring can actually generate the hundreds and billions of dollars in revenue. As I dialled Daniel, my first thought was, okay, totally expected this. I think, you know, two years ago, as you and I sat in Microsoft’s announcement with Sam Altman and OpenAI, the first thing that popped into my head about the enterprise was data. Data has always been a challenge, regardless of what we call it. I like sometimes, and you bring up the old days of big data, which I appreciate a lot, but the fact is that when you’re trying to do east-west workloads, data management is even more important. And even though garbage in, garbage out has been true since the 50s on what you put in there, it gets amplified with agents and generative AI. So I think this, I can confidently say that I believe this acquisition will help them in the workloads where they are strong, which is in CRM sales. You know, they’re getting into service management. But I’m skeptical right now if this helps them pull in, let’s say ERP data or SCM data or PLM or finance data. You know, I tried to, tried to cull through the press release and see what the company was really, really trying to say. And it’s funny, there was nothing, you know, they talked about CDP, which, to me, makes sense when you’re talking about customer sales and marketing. But when it comes to these other east west types of applications, it’s still a, it’s still a, a TBD for me. You know, they also mentioned very regulated industries as well, which got me thinking about Cloudera as well. So right now, the way that I look at this is to increase, improve data management in highly regulated industries with applications that are north, south applications that Salesforce is strong at. Beyond that is a big TBD for me.
Daniel Newman: Yeah, this was an interesting one. I think Marc Benioff understands the gap I’ve talked a lot about. Where does agentic AI get built inside of an enterprise? Does it start on prem. Does it start in the infrastructure layer of the cloud with your hyperscale partners? Does it start at an application layer? The early instantiations were mostly coming out of an app, meaning like running an agent on Salesforce, Agent Force. Run an agent in Workday, run an agent in Oracle, run an, you know, and the question mark is, is that really where companies and how companies function? So then if you do that, like say you say, I’m going to make Agent Force my agentic platform. What about the workloads in Workday? What about the workloads of systems on prem? What about your ERP system? What about your, you know, any other back office tools? What about your, you know, using agents for data that’s not in the cloud or not in your SaaS? And so Mulesoft, a lot of people kind of initially came out and said, well, they have MuleSoft. Well, MuleSoft is an API tool that connects data sources in the cloud primarily. It’s not particularly robust beyond that, but it’s very well designed. But this is really more about things like ETL, like big data sets that sit on prem. You’ve got lots and lots of data. And so I think what Mark is thinking about is how does Salesforce become sort of the agentic on agentic platform of record for enterprise’s entire need, moving across all the different agent requirements? And this is where I think there’s been some advantage.
Patrick Moorhead: Wow. Is that what ServiceNow is gonna be? And I think that’s what ServiceNow, Microsoft. And AWS.
Daniel Newman: The hyperscalers are trying to do it. And I think that’s what Watson or orchestrate or, you know, is trying to do. And I think what Mark doesn’t want to become is a point solution for agents. He wants to be able to connect all the data across all the systems and let Agent Force really be the epicenter of the enterprise’s agentic experience. So I think they’re seeing this as a way to sort of connect a lot of legacy data, to connect a lot of prem data and different requirements because that’s been the gap Salesforce doesn’t have. You know, they’ve been trying with data Cloud, but they don’t have all the data and they don’t have all the workflows. So everyone’s coming at it differently. But this is a step that I think Salesforce fields it needs to take to be more relevant across more agentic workflows than what it will be if it really stays kind of a sales service, you know, marketing centric platform that’s, you know, a SaaS app that businesses use among a bigger app ecosystem.
Patrick Moorhead: Hey, I have a question for you, Daniel.
Daniel Newman: Yeah.
Patrick Moorhead: Do enterprises trust Salesforce to connect east west workloads like PLM and financial systems and legal systems and things like that.
Daniel Newman: I think that’s what they want to find out. I think obviously they are a trusted system of record for some very important core applications. If you run like we run , NET suite plus Salesforce platform, there’s a lot of data that can transmit between those systems. And I think that for most enterprises, a lot of financial data ends up being displayed through Salesforce, but I don’t know that it’s currently seen as that sort of core business application that would be the sort of epicenter is what I kind of keep saying. But the question is also like building on a Google cloud platform. Google doesn’t hold all the data. Google has access to all those systems and data through the infrastructure. So in any case, whether it’s IBM, whether it’s Google, whether it would be Microsoft, I mean, they’re all going to have to talk to systems that aren’t their own. There’s no monolith system that represents the entire enterprise where an agent can work within one, you know, completely integrated system. So all of them want more of it. Because ultimately what happens, I think you would agree, I think is if so say, for instance, you know, it’s. It’s like being the primary cloud versus the secondary or the third cloud. Right. They all want to be the primary source. And I think Salesforce has had an early advantage of having working agents in the field. They’re leading through the customer lens. But why not have HR workflows? I don’t know. Same reason. ServiceNow is basically saying that about ITSM and HR and now they’re going into CRM workflows. I think everybody’s trying to work to be as relevant across the east west expressways as possible.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, they’re going to have a lot of work to do to be able to be looked at as that provider. You know, I’ll look at their marketing, which is, you know, to me, fluffy bears and, and ohana and you know, forests and, and stuff like that at events. I think sometimes that can be written off as fluffy marketing and, and sales stuff and to be looked at as a serious, system of, of record for a lot of these things. Because quite frankly, to be a system of record, to do agentic transactions, you know, you have to be viewed as a system of record vendors 100%.
Daniel Newman: I mean, they are a system of record from a CRM standpoint, but they certainly are not core ERP business apps. You know, they’ve had plugins over the years, financial force became something else that you could. There’s a lot of those kinds of things out there, Pat. But by the way, I ask the same questions you ask. I’m not saying they can. I’m just saying I don’t see a world where Mark is okay to just be a point solution in this agentic race. I think if you believe the satya deprecated crud database narrative then why would Salesforce not have that same risk?
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, I think there are and quite frankly I think it, this, this new thing gives the ServiceNows AWS, Microsoft and Google Cloud potentially a leg up. I what I do like about Salesforce that does actually have north south vertical apps that it’s good at unlike AWS and Google. Right. So this is a great conversation. It’s so funny. Goes all the way back a year and a half ago to you know, when Google came out with east west agents at their prior Google Cloud next. And again this is another one of these hallmark moments something that you and I are going to be discussing for a long, long time. Let’s move to the next topic. We had a lot of humane information that’s humane as in M A I n as in Hugh Main street as opposed to humane treatment of people. But a huge, huge news when the Trump contingency showed up there with it with just a bevy of of core technology vendors. But now news came out was covered by TechCrunch that they’re planning a 10 billion dollar VC fund to invest in US European and Asian startups. Daniel, is this newsworthy? Is this a big deal? What is this?
Daniel Newman: Well by the way, I mean we talked about an 8 billion and now a 10 billion. These numbers feel so small when we’ve been dealing with half trillions and trillions out of Qatar. You know I just, I need that spare billion and then we can work from there.
Patrick Moorhead: I don’t know Daniel. When I’m counting pennies it seems like a lot.
Daniel Newman: It does.
Patrick Moorhead: Like picking up pennies off the ground.
Daniel Newman: Only when you’re picking them up and tripping over dollars in the process. That’s particularly agitating by the way for.
Patrick Moorhead: All of you out there. Dan and I have a lot going on throughout the day and we will subtly hint in code at some of the stuff, some of the stuff that we discussed. Anyways, if you’re wondering where some of these off the wall weird statements come from. Yeah, yeah.
Daniel Newman: It’s like a married couple fighting in code in public and doing it while laughing. And no one knows how serious we are. Probably sometimes it’s really serious. Like this is like stuff that we’re like heads exploding off the cameras. And sometimes we use this as a big therapy session. And sometimes it’s just funny stuff. Like when you talk about connecting the back and the front for 20 years straight in every meeting, and I just don’t know how that still continues to create head nods. And I’m just like, it’s still not.
Patrick Moorhead: As good as when I see the opportunity, I smile and then I say.
Daniel Newman: 200th person a week that I have to hear about how great you look.
Patrick Moorhead: And then I look directly at you in the eye just to see if, if you’re, if you’re hearing it.
Daniel Newman: I just walk away anyway. Yeah. So humane. Look, the Middle East and Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE. This is a complicated part of the world, but energy is still trading at about 60 bucks a barrel oil. And why do I share that? Well, they’re writing a lot of checks right now over there in terms of their planned investments in AI. And I think it’s because the region understands the criticality of diversification away from just fossil fuel. Having said that, it’s also a very wealthy part of the world because of fossil fuel. And they’re making big bets into the future. So, you know, they’re looking to bet on the biggest and world leading AI companies. I think the Trump administration went over there and this is a great example where it’s sort of what’s going on in China is not what we’re doing everywhere in the world. We’re clearly making big bets in trying to partner with even parts of the world that have complicated historic relationships with the West. You know, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are some of the most advanced parts of the world, but there’s still a lot of controversy there. And if you asked Israel how they feel about those places, you’d see there’s still a lot of complications in the global relationship. But those parts of the world do want to be in the AI trade. They do want to take dollars and invest. It’s very commonplace, in my opinion, that these parts of the world look to diversify profits of oil into other things. And AI is the most obvious. So getting within. You know, they talk about them partnering with Andreessen and OpenAI and, and XAI. These are the right places right now to put dollars to work in this particular AI arms race. To me, it’s not like super news, Pat, but I mean, it’s an interesting continued development as the Middle East is betting on Western AI which is what we want.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah Daniel, if I look at just the sheer size of this VC fund, the only one that’s larger from the last five years is Andreessen Horowitz. So if I’m pulling the right data, I mean it’s, it’s, it’s significant. So just the dollar size. I know we were joking about billions across trillions but this is a very large one that I’m interested to see which companies that they’re going to be investing in in the future. So hey, let’s move to the next topic. Jony Ive, formerly of Apple and OpenAI and Sam Altman are collaborating on a new project. I think the price tag was $6.5 billion. There were a lot of skeptics, sorry there were a lot of discussions on what kind of device it is. Is it going to be a necklace, a pin, a set of glasses, something in your ear. But the macro idea here is that in the age of agentic AI there is room for another device and there have been a couple missteps out there. Rabbit was one AI pin. They all crashed and burned up to this point. They just didn’t do enough and they cost too much and there was too much friction and
Daniel Newman: Isn’t that called humane by the way? Humane pen.
Patrick Moorhead: It was, yes. Yeah. Humane and Rabbit were the two. But you know, Jony Ive. Right. He was Steve Jobs’s sidekick to create all of these new incredible devices in a way that really captured the imagination of consumers. There are going to be a lot of challenges here. Right. I mean anything, you know, we went through an age of consolidation for 15 years which took, you know, combined your phone, your MP3 player, your digital camera and you know, even your headphones. Your headphones are into one single device. It also incorporated GPS so that you know, aggregation versus disaggregation. So the big question is why would we need another, another device here? You know we’ve gone through glasses on the forehead all the way back to Google Glass. I was one of the idiots who paid 2,500 bucks for one. I’m also the idiot that spent three grand on Apple Vision. I’ve had every pen, I’ve had every type of ring out there. But I’m a little bit skeptical on this one. I think the best use cases would either be. My preferred use case is sitting in your ear. But if something is in your ear, like an airpod, why not just leverage the power of a smartphone to make that work on your face? It’s an incremental adder that can see things and you don’t have to put your phone up to do that. But then again, it comes into the friction of I have to wear something on my. On my face. And most people just don’t want to do that unless it’s for something specific like driving or maybe shopping or something like that. And I also think there is a current phobia knowing that, you know, I’m having a very deep and personal conversation with you, Daniel, that, you know, I potentially, a camera can be running or you can be recording me, and that’s just going to creep out people for a while. My final volley here, though, is that, you know, 15 years ago, if you’d have told me most people would be comfortable publicly posting on exactly where they are, where they’re eating, what they’re doing, who they’re with, most people would say that’s creepy. And now most Gen X millennials are doing this, and certainly Gen Z.
Daniel Newman: Yeah, You hear that flushing sound of money going down the toilet? I just, I don’t buy this one at all. I mean, Sam is so ambitious. I don’t know if he’s just a. Just a crazy narcissist that thinks he can win everything because he’s won and done well in one thing. I mean, he was going to build the world’s network of fabs and foundries for $7 trillion. He is going to replace Google Search, which, you know, he’s made very small but dense. To his credit, he is going to take out xai, build a new social network that would replace Elon, and now he’s going to replace Apple. So, I mean, it does take a certain hubris to believe that you can displace Apple X Google and, and become the TSMC of the world, when right now you’re still burning like $5 billion cash a year in your startup. I do get that it’s a highly valued startup, but it doesn’t even make money yet. Pat. Actually, those pennies you pick up is every penny you pick up is a cent more than profit that that company creates. So, anyway, I think it’s an idea. I think hardware is really hard. I don’t think it’s the same as building software. I think the entrenched user base of Apple is going to be very hard to disrupt and displace over the long term. But I will say this. There have been inflections in history when Apple came and knocked off the BlackBerry and when BlackBerry came and knocked off the Nokia phone that everybody had for a period. So it’s not zero, it’s not a zero percent chance. I just think it’s difficult and by the way just the amount of capital that it’s going to require to do this and you know this Pat, but anytime you do this it’s what are you not doing? Because you can’t do everything, you just can’t. So I’m not against the idea, I just, I don’t know if this is where I would have put six and a half billion.
Patrick Moorhead: Where would you put six and a half billion? Dan?
Daniel Newman: That’s a great question. Why are you asking me these questions I have to actually think about? I mean right now they have to figure out how to create a long term sustainable and competitive advantage right now. And so how do models evolve? I mean some of the things they’re doing like agents and deeper research and building out the sub model seems to me like a good way. I also think, you know the way Google spent money to be the favorite on devices with Apple and stuff, I think those dollars could be spent to get more preferential treatment within embedded ecosystems. I don’t know about the wearable and the pin thing. It’s just to me, I still don’t know that that’s the format. I don’t know we’ve gotten there yet by the way. I don’t know, maybe there’s something that we don’t know. Maybe he’s got something up his sleeve. I mean there are things that even you don’t know about Pat. You’re pretty, pretty well locked on the inside.
Patrick Moorhead: A lot of stuff. I don’t know Daniel. Sometimes I admit it and sometimes I don’t.
Daniel Newman: Yeah, but not worth admitting. Just so you know everything.
Patrick Moorhead: Exactly.
Daniel Newman: In the beginning when I say we know what we’re talking about, don’t we? And you say I think so. I think so.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah. But you. I’ll always do a victory lab where I nailed it. So hey, let’s jump into the next topic here. Meta has split its product teams in AI into what looks like core research and then consumer facing applications. You know, there’s been a lot of talk and discussion and the question is, you know, is Meta losing their edge on foundational AI. I mean, their P and L certainly says that they’re getting the cash out of the advertising and implementing AI in a good way there. When it comes to Llama, for instance, you know, Llama looked like the runaway hit open source that everybody was going to use like Pytorch and, you know, OCP hardware and, and things like that. But we’ve got Gemini 2.5, OpenAI came out with their models. IBM has some very competitive enterprise models. So there’s some question even after the last LLAMA release, on whether Meta can. Can be successful here. Dan, what are your thoughts?
Daniel Newman: I mean, this is primarily just a structural update. They want to move faster. We’re actually seeing whether it’s GPT5 or seeing, what do they call it, Ginormous, whatever, Metalama, Ginormous or whatever the name is for it. This is delayed. I think we’re also just having a hard time because of the speed of innovation right now. And then getting the kind of improvements, generation to generation that we’ve been able to get at the beginning is proving to not be as easy as we continue going forward. And so I’m not particularly negative on Meta. I think they’ve had some great breakthroughs in open source. They clearly are a company that’s proven they can build something and actually monetize it. To their credit, they’re using technology and they’re incredibly successful. But I do think there are. And we met in Davos, you and I chatted with the head of AI research there, Yann Lecun. And I do think there are these kinds of fundamental differences in a company like Meta that’s part of the group and should be really focused on breakthrough research. This is all about the private sector doing the R and D. You like to talk about this, the R part of R and D, the real heavy lifting. And then there’s the other part that is really all about monetizing and building products and getting things to market. And I think sometimes when the commercial interests are intertwined with the research interest, you don’t get the best of both because we are always putting the commercial first, which, you know, these companies have to do to be profitable. But there does need to be that part of the business, that sort of curious, studious, disciplined side of the business that’s saying, hey, we are approaching this through the lens of really bringing breakthrough innovation. We are going to do this right. We’re going to take our time, we’re going to understand the possible risks and consequences of the things we’re building and doing. And then there’s, like I said, the other side that’s like we’re going to embed an agent into the buyer’s journey of a T shirt custom made on Facebook. Totally different things, in my opinion. And I think having different people focused on the monetization and the commercialization versus the research, it’s just a sensible thing to do. I’m not as concerned about Meta stalling, even OpenAI. I just think this is part of the generation leap that people want. Some are going to be bigger than others, some are going to work better than others. This is what research is for. It seems like a sound business decision, but we’ll have to track what, what comes of it.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, I’m glad you brought up Yann LeCun. It was really a great conversation with him and Davos. He is going to be running the fundamental AI research group, otherwise known as FAIR out there. And I think that completely makes sense. There also have been reports of brain drainage as well. On the original team. So I’m super interested in seeing how that goes. One thing I know for certain is that capable open source models are going to be a requirement for scale and competitive markets. So I do hope that the FAIR team is successful in cranking out stuff. Great conversations, Daniel. Let’s jump into our next segment and that is called The Flip, where we choose and take predictions, insight and news. We’re going to debate them maybe on stuff we don’t even believe.
Daniel Newman: What are we gonna talk about?
Patrick Moorhead: We are gonna jump about can iPhones be made in the U.S. thank you for that prompt. All right, looks like I won here. And I am going to debate that iPhones can in fact be made in the United States. But first thing I want to do is give a little background, a little credibility builder here. I’m not one of these pretenders who get on TV and X and one day they’re a pro on tariffs. The next day it’s manufacturing and then next day it’s peptide injections.
Daniel Newman: That actually is exactly you. I’m sorry, go ahead.
Patrick Moorhead: There we go. I spent, no, I spent 20 years working for manufacturers of systems and for chips. I was part of the team at Compaq Computer that outsourced its manufacturing en masse with high volume to Taiwan and China, working with companies like Foxconn. By the way, my product was the most profitable desktop product they had seen in years. So it worked and the quality was good enough for the market that we were going after, which was the consumer market. But with that said, here is why iPhones can be manufactured in the US and I want to get back to history here. Right. Experts say things can’t be manufactured in other countries. Right. I already talked about, you know, 1995, 1998. Experts said that China wasn’t sophisticated enough to even do power supplies for desktop PCs. In 98, it was, hey, they can’t do surface mount technology. Well, we’ve evolved a lot since then. Well, let’s go to something more recent. In 2017, Tim Cook said iPhones could only be manufactured in China. Ironically enough, India made the first iPhone SE in 2017. It’s amazing how that happens. Also in 2017, experts said this is when Trump came to the SMT in Mexico for servers and desktops would just be impossible. But here we are. Most servers and desktops for the United States are actually made in Mexico. 60% of US iPhones that could never be made outside of China are made in India and most servers can again. Now what does this mean to an iPhone which is radically smaller than a desktop or a server? The reality is they could be manufactured in the US but they would have to make some changes. They would have to modify the industrial design to add more automation because we don’t have enough workers here and factory engineers.
So it would take a little bit more time. The ecosystem, which is some of the hardest, could take upwards of five years. And when you’re rolling out the numbers, you can’t say unit one, you have to do unit one million. And then what does the cost look like, spreading the cost across all of this capex. You know, a couple, a couple other things that I want to put up is TSMC said 5 years ago there was no way it could do leading edge silicon inside of the US and it was amazing. We’ve got tape outs on 4 nanometer out in Arizona. And what is harder, Daniel, than cranking out leading edge technology inside of a foundry? Oh, how about quantum? Right, that seems pretty hard. Oh, guess what? We figured out how to do that. Hey, how about rockets bigger than any of the Apollo rockets that can actually land themselves? Some of them blow up upon reentry, some of them don’t. But the fact that we can do this just shows that where there is a will, there is a way. I’m gonna, I’m gonna end this just by saying that if Apple wanted to do this, it could. It’s just not motivated. I would recommend that Apple set up a 200 million dollar research facility here in the United States to figure out how they could in fact manufacture iPhones effectively here in the US.
Daniel Newman: The idea of building an iPhone in the US is like a Kumbaya moment. It’s an idea that maybe like ethanol would someday run our cars. It was a dream and it was a dumb one. And the thought that we will ever bring this type of manufacturing back is why we’re continuing to embarrass ourselves on the world stage talking about trade. We have spent several decades offshoring our entire supply chain, building the factories of the future by sending our dollars over to China, which has led to trillions of dollars in high automation and expansion of its manufacturing capacity. We’ve brought hundreds of suppliers into the China region that we could just never possibly get to move back. We haven’t done the work on rare earths and other dependencies that are going to be required for the building of high tech componentry at scale. And of course we have no idea how to build a specialized workforce here because we’ve had an entire multi decade pathway of taking all that type of skilled labor and sending it elsewhere. We’re not even trying to create it anymore. So now we’ve created a world of nothing but, you know, millennials living in their parents’ basements, wanting to be influencers. And none of these people are going to help us slap together iPhones anytime soon. So yes, if we want $3,000 iPhones, because that millennial is going to cost $65 an hour to work in some sort of highly automated factory or we want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to actually back an industry of building automation here. But we haven’t done semiconductors and we haven’t done anything else.
So why all of a sudden, if I’m Tim Cook, would I trust this administration with no other administration over the past 40 years has spent any meaningful dollars to bring manufacturing here. And on top of it now, he knows it’s a waiting game because if three or four more years go by and this tariff thing fails miserably, it’s all this money. We end up with $3,000 iPhones. We have no workforce to actually staff these facilities. And by the way, I’m not even sure we have labor to build these facilities right now because our immigration policy here is so messed up. So we can’t fix the workforce, can’t make the supply chain work. Our cost of labor is much too high. We just don’t have the infrastructure. And if we were going to build these factories. It’s going to take a decade or more, just like it’s going to take to build nuclear power here, because we messed that up, too. And then regulation will get in the way because we’ll probably have some radical judges that will stop us from making progress or will veto any plans or ideas or laws we put into place, and probably won’t let us allocate dollars because those dollars need to go to USAID so we can help build more tunnels in Gaza. So the bottom line is whether this is feasible or not, I see this as completely improbable, unlikely, and there’s just no way in hell any iPhones at scale are going to be built in the usa. But enjoy whatever the crack is you’re smoking. Moorhead. Because it would be really cool if someday we did.
Patrick Moorhead: Buddy, that was, like, the best I think I’ve ever heard you. I mean, I cackled at least two or three times.
Daniel Newman: Someone’s gonna see this and they’re gonna think, that’s what I believe, too. There’s gonna be, like, an Internet meme of me being, like, the pro China guy that says we should make everything there. By the way, one thing I 100% agree with you, Pat, is that we can absolutely build these outside of China. Like, 100%. We can get this done. Like Musk, what he’s done in the US with the gigafactories and building them, by the way, everywhere in the world. I know cars are not phones, but, like, in a year, he built those things. In 11 months, he stood up some of these gigafactories in different parts of the world. Like, it’s a huge excuse that we can’t do this, but you remember I shared with you earlier how much SMIC is funding? Like, if we really want to do this, the US should take some of these hundreds of billions we keep appropriating for garbage and nonsense politics here in the US and maybe we should spend some money helping bring real automation back here.
Patrick Moorhead: I love it, man. Can I just say right off, you won this debate. I’m gonna throw myself upon the mercy of the court here. You cleaned up. But, Daniel, Hey, I’m making a long.
Daniel Newman: I agree with you. Just so everyone knows, like, I actually. I actually think we should try to bring back at least some of it. We’ve completely. Like, we’re stuck, man. We’ve completely become dependent on every other part of the world to make everything we care about. It’s actually really messed up.
Patrick Moorhead: We have. The biggest mistake we made, quite frankly, was in the 80s with, and 90s with NAFTA. But we also got incredibly uncompetitive versus the Japanese. And they took over steel and they took over automaking. I mean our cars were absolute trash from a quality perspective. They were too expensive. Unions drove up the costs to astronomical amounts. And then, they just came in and even the Midwest wanted to buy Toyotas and Hondas and stuff like that. And then what we didn’t do is we didn’t retrain anybody in the Midwest to do this right. And then there should be no wonder why the highest addiction rates are there in Toledo,Cleveland and Dayton, Ohio is the meth capital of the United States.
Daniel Newman: We told all the kids to go get philosophy degrees and just trash education programs for huge debt. You know, we could go on and on, but yeah, we did fumble the ball. You can disagree with how we’re trying to fix it, but man, did we fumble that boy. And Pat, I, I’m gonna actually play host just for two seconds here. There’s a lot of market to cover today, so I know we want to hit our Bulls and Bears and I know you’ve got a hard stop, so.. All right, stop talking about this. But that was fun.
Patrick Moorhead: All right, let’s dive into Market Madness or Bulls and Bears. I don’t know why we have two names up there, but let’s dive in. All right, Dan, we’re going to blow through some earnings here. We’re going to talk about Nvidia, Pure storage, Synopsys, HP, Dell, Coherent. You and I were on with CEOs and CFOs to get the breakdown. Daniel, I’m pretty sure you’re just a Fox Finance News contributor. That’s your full time job.
Daniel Newman: Last week I did CNBC, I did Fox, I did Bloomberg, I did Yahoo. I made the laps. It’s just they make me cakes. No one else makes me cake.
Patrick Moorhead: Okay, I got you. I don’t have my own show yet, but maybe I will someday.
Daniel Newman: Well, we got this show, buddy. So Nvidia, let’s do it. We talked a lot about this. And we’ll put links in the show notes because you can get the Dan and Pat deep dive. We’re all over the media on this stuff. But look, everyone was worried about China. The write down ended up being less than people thought. They lost two and a half billion of revenue in the quarter, but they made it up elsewhere. A couple things I think worth pointing out are very strong gaming numbers. No one’s been talking about that. Very strong automotive numbers. 70/ percent up year over year. They’re back in this space after it seemed like they sort of took a little bit of a hiatus. The networking numbers were really good in terms of all the, you know, what we’ve talked a lot about with networking, the data centers inside the racks. That number outperformed. The actual compute number was good. And look, I am not going to back Nvidia per se because it needs to be able to sell in China because I think there’s enough market around the world with Sovereign AI and other opportunities to sell Blackwell 200, 300 and then Rubin that I think they can keep growing and keep doing really well. No way. There’s enough time to dive deep into this one here, Pat, right now. But my take was it was a really tidy job. They’re being cautious in some of the things they’re communicating as it relates to China, a little more cautious than they’ve been. But I think overall Nvidia will successfully diffuse the world. But I also think that investors need to get comfortable with the idea that China will unlikely be available for data centers anytime soon.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, the company had a double beat which was easy to forecast and I did this live on CNBC, but it was their eighth straight quarter of doing that. I actually feel much more comfortable about Nvidia’s future in the second half than I did in the first half. And the reason is that, you know, transitions are where you’re going to make the big mistakes. And they’ve de-risked Blackwell which I think was, was really, was really a positive sign. Essentially what they did is they’re reusing more infrastructure for GB300 and using GB200 infrastructure for GB300. And I thought, I thought that was super, super important. You know Daniel, I had a conversation with Nvidia CFO Colic Kress and we did peel back some of the onion on this. You know, my takeaway, not necessarily hers, you know, the Middle East will help to offset China, but if you look at the overall size of China versus the Middle East, you know, two very different types of market for consumption. And then if the Middle East is going to tap into and steal share away from Europe, it would be a share shift. You know, the H20 write down, it was good to see. I mean this is the way these go if you get an initial number but you have work, you have whip work in progress that you can refactor and turn into other, other chips and that’s why the number was lower than expected. I guess they’re going to convert those into H200s potentially, I’m just guessing. Or H100s. I, I don’t know for sure. On the gaming side, you know, I asked Colette, the difference. There seemed to be a lot of noise in the system about Blackwell gaming being super hot and you know, even missing ROPs which are the fundamentals for you know, vector processing between the same, the same chip and that Blackwell gaming number was freaking rocking and rolling.
So I think this just says, you know, another lesson on what you see in social media and on YouTube is not necessarily the way it’s going to end up in the end. I do find it interesting that both Nvidia and AMD gained on graphics because AMD is actually absolutely rocking with their mid range stuff. So I’ll probably have Anshel do the double click on that. Let’s move to the next earnings. And that, that is pure storage. You and I both with Charlie to peel the onion back on that. They beat the revenue forecast, they beat adjusted EPS. But the market was a little spooked about the ARR growth slowing to 18% from above 20%. Also there’s a little bit of chatter about the departure of the CEO. You know the net when it comes to this company. When it comes to data in the age of generative AI you need more. There is more data to begin with. Gen AI work. Gen AI and agents work better with more data and this company is just going to be going up and, and to the right. This is not the winner takes all kind of world.
Daniel Newman: Yeah, I mean a Charlie departure would be tough. He’s been a stabilizer in that company for sure and he’s helped them really shift to a significant consistent growth into software. ARR always had that customer centricity. They’ve done a nice job at pivoting some opportunities into cyber resiliency and also their sort of NEO data cloud strategy for making their data more and more accessible to compute because we’ve seen that trend. Line storage will not look like storage in the AI era. It’s a completely new architecture. Making your data available for that future is something that Pure is working on. The slowing of AR of course will concern some, but this is always one of the slower quarters for the company. I still like it. I tend to agree with you, Pat, on the company. I don’t think there’s any real long term concerns for the business.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah. And just to be clear, CFO Kayvon Chrysler stepped down.
Daniel Newman: Not. Oh, I thought you said Charlie because I hadn’t heard that. So.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, sorry, sorry. Yeah, sorry. Sorry about that. Yeah, it was a. Kayvon Chrysler, the CFO who is stepping down.
Daniel Newman: Okay. I thought you said there was a rumor about Charlie.
Patrick Moorhead: Sorry about that. Yep. Okay, moving on here, Dan, we had a Synopsys. I think both of you had. Both of us had a conversation with their CEO.
Daniel Newman: Yeah, I mean look, there’s almost, it’s like a tale of two stories because going into it as of that day there had not been that WIS letter. The China market, about 12, 13% I believe of their business was still accessible. Its guide was, you know, looking positive. It had reported a good quarter. Clearly they are at the front end of the curve of things going on with AI. Everything changed though. I don’t know if you saw, they put out a note to basically suspend their guidance while they are determining the longer term implications of, of this potential of the ban in China of selling into that market. The company is moving forward with its Ansys deal. It does think it’s going to get that done soon. So that’s a positive for the company. But you know, like I said, I think that these EDA and specialty IP and designer companies are very, very interesting in this AI era. I do worry a little bit about the conflict in the, in the, in the China region. But I do think, you know, with it being, you know, at just over, you know, just in the double digits, it’s not such a massive exposure that it’s not recoverable, but it obviously is very impactful to a company like that.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, listen, big picture. So I was actually on CNBC when the note came out. I was there to talk about Nvidia and they hit me up on this BIS deal. You know Synopsys was already under pressure out of China and this, this is, this is an adder. I think they need to figure it out. They’re figuring out right now, you know, what is the net, what is the true net net impact to this. I mean when I look at their earnings, I mean good revenue, 1.6 billion up 10% year on year. Even with China they beat on non gap non gap eps which was great. Unfortunately, you know, it came out and they were up like 3% and then boom. You know, down 9%, down 10% based on that. But in the end if I look macro here, you need synopsys to be able to do AI. And that’s true in EDA and design IP. The amount, the number of chips is going up, the amount, I mean just the amount of TPUs that used to be a three year affair are now a one year affair and now you have four or five people doing TPU like architectures out there and then there’s all the IP that goes along with it that sometimes we, we forget. Right. You need a serdes, you need something to put into your, into your chip. Boom. They have that. Let’s move to HP. It was a very challenging print for them. They beat on revenue, they missed on the forecast but they really got hit hard because of the forecast based on consumer demand, consumer lack of profitability. But I did like that the company said that by the fourth quarter they will be doing no manufacturing out of China for PCs.
Daniel Newman: Yeah, that was a big thing. Clearly commercial is the strength. Consumer’s just been really tough. And unlike the next company we’ll talk about when you don’t have the data center business for instance and you’re really focused on the PC side, the continued consumer weakness will always make it hard to kind of deliver when they’re so dependent on that part of the business. So they’re managing the part they can do really well. But there’s still some complexity there.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, let’s get into Dell. You know this juggernaut of infrastructure for AI companies. Dan, how’d the print go?
Daniel Newman: I mean look, there’s a lot of numbers. Dell’s got a big business. It’s got storage and network and infrastructure and edge and compute clients and PCs. This was the result. And the in the pop was all about AI was a $12 billion in order I think more than the whole last year was what Michael Dell said in a tweet. And now their backlog’s 14/plus billion dollars. So Dell is clearly one of the big beneficiaries of this AI factory build out and also you know shows a robustness of that Nvidia demand. Look, that was the number Pat. You know margins are going to be down a little because of AI and the competitiveness of it, but huge numbers and it’s really sustaining the company’s entire growth profile.
Patrick Moorhead: Yeah, the company just is crushing it on data centers out there and you know a couple things that really kind of caught my mind which is the percentage growth on stuff op inc. Up 21% non GAAP EPS up 17% but the real double click here for investors are shareholder returns of $2.4 billion. The buyback that they did is an absolutely huge deal. One thing that came out on the same day was that Dell announced that they got Nurse 10 for, for the US Department of Energy at Berkeley and HPE and Cray had been there since 2007. So it’s crazy. You have Dell, Nvidia and ARM and there’s no AMD, Intel or HPE in that. That’s a sea change if you ask me. And you know it’s it, you know engineering matters in the age of AI and Dell has brought their A game to the AI engineering sphere. So it’s really good to see. Let’s hit the final one as that is coherent investor day. You know Daniel, this is a company that doesn’t get a lot of discussion. They should probably get more because in the end connectivity with light is a big deal. You know they brought their A game to the table. I thought I told a pretty decent story on what they’re going to lean into, what they’re going to scale back on. You know, the financial information alone on the improvements in gross margin and the improvements in revenue and the improvements in overall, overall profits I think really support surprised investors. I also think you know when it comes to threats, I think the way that they explain the, the whole co packaged optics versus pluggable alternatives today they do a great job in that and net net there’s very little fall off even when they get to co packaged optics because they’re delivering a lot of the sub assembly systems that are in there. The other risk right might be tariffs. I thought Jim did a great job showing just how diversified his factories are. By the way, half of his factories are in the United States. He has some in China but it’s just. I’m glad that they leaned into that and took that off the table.
Daniel Newman: Yeah, they have a great supply chain. It’s very well diversified. China’s dependence is low. They showed a really strong, you know know mid double digit revenue growth model and almost a tripling expectation of its EPS. So that’s, that’s the, that’s the Jim Anderson effect. He did that at Lattice when he went in there and he’s doing it now at Coherent. You know they also to your point, I mean I like that they’ve really doubled down on making it clear how important they are to data center scale up scale out especially from a scale out standpoint but like pluggable is going to be a big thing I mean it’s the majority of the market for the foreseeable future and so they have a major path there to be important and they’re you know they’re in when you look at the Nvidia conversation you can’t talk about the scale out without thinking about coherence so very positive day for the company.
Patrick Moorhead: Well good pod I turned an hour pod in an hour and 15 minutes but I appreciate everybody tuning in here Daniel have a great weekend bestie hopefully I’ll I’ll be able to.
Daniel Newman: Start it early so we could finish late.
Patrick Moorhead: It sounds just like us but I want to thank everybody for tuning in there. Thank you for coming. I’m finding a loss from words. I’m just so excited to be here but have a great weekend hit that subscribe button Take care.
Daniel Newman: See you at The Summit.
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.
