Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Hugging Face acquisition explained “A man making $120BN a year selling compute decides to buy a company that helps make compute more cost-effective so he can sell more compute. If end users have $1TN to spend on tokens, Nvidia would prefer that money flow through open-source people at 30%...

71,375 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

24 Comments

Austin's profile picture
Austin1 month ago

Started casually listening to series a year ago and now its a weekly must listen. Love the analysis and discussion Rory and Jason bring every episode. Thank you!

Harry Stebbings's profile picture
Harry Stebbings1 month ago

@rodriscoll @jasonlk are incredible.

Jake K's profile picture
Jake K1 month ago

That and I'm sure nVidia is reacting to the major models developing their own silicon and using alternative AI chip platforms as well.

Abdul Wasey's profile picture
Abdul Wasey1 month ago

commoditize your complement, infra edition. every point of margin the model layer loses to open source becomes gpu demand. nvidia doesn't need to own the models, it needs them cheap and everywhere. hf is the cheapest way to keep it that way

Sofia w,'s profile picture
Sofia w,1 month ago

Thanks for sharing this

Gordon Wang's profile picture
Gordon Wang1 month ago

this is also the price justification. ~13B on ~$150M ARR (~86X) only makes sense if youre not valuing it as a pure software business. Its a distribution channel for margin compression on your competitors

Jason Zhang's profile picture
Jason Zhang1 month ago

The flywheel is pretty clear: make open models easier and cheaper to run, expand usage, and ultimately create more demand for compute.

Ehsan Azish's profile picture
Ehsan Azish1 month ago

yeah that tracks

Nguyen Hongduys's profile picture
Nguyen Hongduys28 days ago

And that’s exactly why this strategy is so powerful. 😂 Nvidia doesn’t need to own the biggest model.,.it can make the entire AI ecosystem hungrier for compute. Lower inference costs… more adoption…more workloads… more GPUs. That’s the flywheel.

Gareth Barry Davies's profile picture
Gareth Barry Davies1 month ago

It seems selling the shovels in the AI gold rush was not enough. 🪏 Now NVIDIA has bought influence over which models become tomorrow’s enterprise standard!

NextMedia.London's profile picture
NextMedia.London1 month ago

Is the real play here making compute cheaper enough that overall demand for it grows even faster?

StockIncubator's profile picture
StockIncubator1 month ago

I like this acquisition, adds more horizontal capture for nvidia #dyor

Alex Prince | Prince Capital's profile picture
Alex Prince | Prince Capital1 month ago

The mechanic worth watching is who owns the discount. If Nvidia routes token spend through its own cheaper-compute subsidiary, every other AI infra buyer is underwriting a competitor's cost curve, not the market's. Different question than the one about Hugging Face alone.

Ty's profile picture
Ty1 month ago

this also makes nvidia less dependent on any one closed model company. open-source demand still becomes compute demand, and now they own part of the distribution layer too

YonLe's profile picture
YonLe1 month ago

The bet only works if open weights actually increase total inference volume instead of just redistributing it.

Jonathan Sandhu's profile picture
Jonathan Sandhu29 days ago

NVIDIA likes open models because they commoditize the layer above compute. But $12.93B buys more than cheaper tokens: it buys the place 18M developers decide what to run. The moat isn’t margin compression, Harry. It’s owning demand formation before the GPU gets chosen.

Mario's profile picture
Mario1 month ago

Free market for the win 🇺🇸

Nicolai's profile picture
Nicolai1 month ago

The strategic beauty is that Nvidia doesn’t necessarily need to own the highest-margin application layer. It benefits when thousands of companies can afford to build, train and run more models. Sometimes the best position in a gold rush is making sure everyone can afford to keep digging.

Celesnity's profile picture
Celesnity1 month ago

Nvidia doesn’t need inference to stay expensive. It needs inference to get cheap enough that almost everything becomes worth running AI on.

Priyanshu Bhati's profile picture
Priyanshu Bhati1 month ago

so nvidia buys the shovel factory to sell more shovels during the gold rush. classic move.

Milan's profile picture
Milan28 days ago

Nvidia may have bought itself a very expensive headache. HF doesn't just bring distribution. It brings copyright exposure, malicious-model risk and an enormous software supply-chain attack surface. And the irony? Nvidia probably would've sold the compute either way.

Jason White's profile picture
Jason White29 days ago

thats a pretty funny way to put it and also probably exactly whats happening

Pramod Agrawal's profile picture
Pramod Agrawal1 month ago

As Bezos said - someone’s margin is someone else’s opportunity

Carlos Rene's profile picture
Carlos Rene1 month ago

That’s business 101. Super obvious why Jensen did it. Let’s he makes open source #1 🙌🏽

Related Videos

SITUATION EXPLAINED: Dwarkesh argues compute could get 10X more expensive. • Anthropic's revenue has been 10X-ing year over year while lab compute only 3X's • Three ways that gap can close: margins rise, compute gets more expensive, or labs shift compute to inference • All three are already happening, Anthropic went from 40% margins in 2025 to possibly 80%+ this year • But labs don't want the third one, heavy inference spend signals AI progress has stalled and you're now a cloud provider • Spot compute prices are up 40%+ since February, and labs pay well above spot for security and scale • Google is reportedly paying SpaceXAI $900 million a month for 110K GPUs, roughly 2X spot • Key claim: if a human-level software engineer ran on an H100, that H100 should rent for $250K a year, 15X today's price • The 3X annual compute growth is 1.4X Moore's Law, 1.2X new fabs, and 1.8X from AI taking wafer allocation from other devices • The fab piece is bottlenecked by EUV tool supply through 2030, and the wafer piece hits a wall by end of 2027 • If compute stays scarce, new labs need far more capital just to reach the same starting line • Compute gets cheap again only once robots can turn sand and copper into computers, which is gated on robotics, not RSI sof 𓋹: "This is what I'm most concerned about, a lack of innovation, not within companies, but a lack of new companies that can actually do something substantially new, because of the scarcity of compute." Theo Jaffee: "The biggest companies in the world by revenue are Amazon and Walmart, at 743 billion and 725 billion. If Anthropic makes 100 billion by the end of this year, that puts them at Target. To go from Target to bigger than Walmart in a year would be very impressive."

MTS

10,617 views • 2 months ago

Ben Thompson says Nvidia has already cut prices, they just show up as backstops and neocloud equity instead of margins "They're actually not maintaining their margins, because who is buying?" "This whole question of circular financing, people talk about Lucent and things like that. This whole deal and Nvidia's providing 25% backstop." "But if you actually ascribe a value to Nvidia's taking equity in the Neoclouds or whatever, they guarantee they're going to buy all their compute to 2030. And why do they do that? So that the entity in question can get a lower cost of capital, so they can buy more GPUs." "But implicit in that, why do they get a lower cost of capital? They get a lower cost of capital because Nvidia assumed risk." "This is my point before. Risk never disappears. It just appears somewhere else. Taking on risk has a price." "Now there is a world where AI takes off, it never stops, and everything is fine, and Nvidia captured all the upside of their risk." "But there's also a world where, say, this Neocloud they backed, a ton of compute comes to market, the hyperscalers have plenty of compute, they don't have enough demand, Nvidia is paying for a computer that no one wants. They just lost a bunch of money." "So if you think about it, there's an expected value of that investment. It's not zero. It's not 100%. It's somewhere in the middle." "But that is a diminution of Nvidia's profitability. If you actually look at their business holistically, what that is is a price cut."

Fireside Alpha

56,613 views • 1 month ago