alt Hacker NewsWhat’s the non-cynical explanation here which doesn’t involve Jensen having ruffled feathers he shouldn’t have?
Elon regularly gets away with way more morally (and perhaps legally) egregious stuff and yet he has increasingly cemented his position. Partly through indirect leverage from his companies and partly from buying access to power directly.
Even Sam managed to stage an employee revolt to stay in control.
For founders of companies perhaps the lesson keeps repeating itself - keep control of your companies no matter what.
I’m not sure this is good for shareholders and the larger AI ecosystem either. Corporate governance is obviously important especially for mature industries.
But Jensen has consistently demonstrated ability to keep Nvidia alive during dire times and eventually delivered the biggest profits in corporate history.
Edit: some cynical explanations:
1. China hawks in tech and admin wanted him out
2. Nvidia competitors found oppo research too juicy to ignore and sequenced a set of destructive reporting
3. People in AI found Jensen’s grip of the supply chain too annoying and wanted to loosen it somehow
4. Internal politics / someone wanting Jensen’s job
5. Some combination of the above
Replies
I would be surprised if every publicly traded American company didn’t have policies against fraternizing with subordinates or customers. Every one I’ve worked for banned this or required oversight. Additionally, companies of this scale would almost certainly have policies demanding due diligence with customers. But given Jensen is the founder, I’d expect he could survive that.
What’s really hurting Jensen here are the accusations of sanctions violations. That can impact Nvidia. It’s already hurting the stock price. That hurts the investors. A 20% drop while the rest of the market is fine is probably enough to oust him.
I think you should consider the genuine do-gooders inside the federal government who wanted to blow the lid on this for a year but were blocked by the president. Now that he’s weak, they went for it.
6. Huang's public persona wasn't unhinged enough, and too Asian, to withstand such a scandal.
There are three forms of accountability here, that Elon and other newer tech founders meticulously calcified themselves away from
First
The board. Elon and his brother are the board, and some sycophants. They are also heavily weighted shareholders.
Jensen doesn’t have that.
Second
The wife, who also is entitled to significant shareholdings. Musk avoided that, and major shareholders are already in trusts, his private foundation, his donor advised fund, and just outside of any future marriage to begin with. The market doesn’t care what a disagreement with his partners mean
Third
The state, and the product. Elon sells cars and it isnt the backbone of economies. The rockets and starlink do pursue waivers or avoid sanctioned countries. Indiscretions were already paid for in the campaign.
So “canceling or not” masquerades as a societal view or tacit consent, when it is solely a matter of who your masters are and if they will stand by you or have any capability of a choice.
> 1. China hawks in tech and admin wanted him out
kinda weird China would want him out, considering he's been begging to sell chips to them
Eh, the hammer will down on Musk for his Ukraine betrayal.
> Elon regularly gets away with way more morally (and perhaps legally) egregious stuff and yet he has increasingly cemented his position. Partly through indirect leverage from his companies and partly from buying access to power directly.
I'm not an Elon fan at all, but ... while he sure sleeps around, I have not heard he slept with subordinates, or Chinese spies.
You're making the assumption implicitly when comparing to Musk that this should be fair or about morality.
That ship has sailed.
Huang has a problem now because his ability to advocate for NVIDIA in a politically charged environment is damaged.
He can't be an effective CEO for NVIDIA if there's a plausible (even if unproven) suspicion that he's on a geopolitical adversary's side.
He was very strongly advocating for selling to China before this. At that point, it could be understood simply as him looking out for NVIDIA's business interests. Now, there's doubt sowed in everyone's mind about whether it really was just that.
Maybe you don't care, because you think selling to China is the right thing to do - fine, there can be different views on this.
But, a lot of influential people very much do not hold that view, and he needs to be able to effectively communicate to them also.