Nokia today is the combination of the network businesses of Nokia, Siemens, Alcatel and Lucent.
They have substantial operations in North America. T-Mobile uses primarily their hardware. Nokia still operates Bell Labs which came originally from AT&T via Lucent.
As the other global options for network hardware are Ericsson, Samsung and Huawei, Nokia is the closest to a “Made in USA” solution. Its HQ is in Finland but at least it’s a NATO country now.
So they’re more important to US infrastructure than might appear at first glance.
What do you imply with "atleast its a nato country"? Its not like finland have ever been anti-west, if this was your point. Nato alone does not imply pro-west (the US/trump leadership being the prime example)
I think the context is clear from what was written:
> As the other global options for network hardware are Ericsson, Samsung and Huawei, Nokia is the closest to a “Made in USA” solution. Its HQ is in Finland but at least it’s a NATO country now.
i.e. with the current US administration, a "Made in USA" solution to critical infrasctructure would likely be seen as ideal; and viewed through this lens, when the other options come from Sweden, Finland, South Korea, and China, Finland is probably the best option.
During the Cold War, Finland was officially neutral, but for pragmatic reasons leaned heavily towards the Soviets in foreign policy. There's even a word for this:
It's of course obvious to everyone now that there has been no reason to trust Russia. US investors have been resourceful enough to realize that investing in Finland carried a significant country risk due to Russia, even in times of relative peace.
Unless they bought back Siemens into NSN, I think not.
I was part of the Nokia => NSN transition, and saw that S change back from Siemens into Solutions, with the money they got back from selling Nokia Mobile to Microsoft.
Ericsson is swedish
Samsung is south korean
I can agree that Huawei is chinese so that's a bad choice
But why is Ericsson(swedish), Samsung(south korean) not considered made in US in the sense that atleast south korea has strong relations with america iirc and also I just recently checked and it seems that sweden has also become a part of nato. So some of these can be just as good.
Although I still agree that Nokia might be important in general but I just wanted to point/question it out I suppose.
UPDATE: the production facilities seem to be closed; only office buildings remain somewhere.
Per Wikipedia [1], Lucent's factories and offices are^W were situated in places like Murray Hill and Mount Olive, NJ, North Andover, MA, Reading, PA, and a bunch of other places in the US.
I think it makes^W made Nokia, which owns Lucent properties, "more US" than, say Ericsson and Samsung, until these facilities were closed.
Cisco, Juniper, and Arista make carrier hardware like cell phone radios and controllers and traditional telephone network switches?
While there's probably a little overlap in all of their product lines with Nokia (I mean Nokia makes simple ethernet switches so that carriers can buy all their gear from one vendor), most of those companies don't really compete in the same markets as Nokia
Cisco isn't selling into T-Mobile and AT&T's customer networks. Nokia isn't selling into JPMorgan's or Walmart's IP networks
A large number of telecom companies have Alcatel routers like the 7750 . My personal thought was that the control plane OS was likely based on Plan9, though I never had access to any source code to verify that.
Nvidia seems to be operating more like a sovereign wealth fund than a traditional business. They have a very-in-demand product, that is not likely to last forever, and is getting their fingers in as many pies as possible with the money and influence while they have it.
Yes but they're using this fund to prop up their core business (and share price) by artificially creating demand for their own products. Most of the money that they invest comes back to them when these companies buy GPUs.
I wouldn't say they are artificially creating the demand. They artificatially create capacity to make a purchase by enabling their customers to pay with ownership of their business rather than with money. It's just an alternative financing scheme.
I think this will continue. They can't change 3GPP's vision with just Nokia. They need to bribe other companies. Ericsson is the other big vendor. I think there is a possibility of that. However, Huawei is impossible. Who is gonna provide a GPU to them? Therefore, they simply can't just put a GPU on every base station around the world.
> To me, that seems to be a requirement for the computing industry for a long time.
Sure, but they have a market cap of 5 trillion. It's about 10x that of AMD, which also sells similar silicon (and isn't in any distress). It's more than Apple, Google, and Microsoft - and these companies historically found ways to make more money than the vendors they buy chips from.
The problem isn't that Nvidia doesn't have good fundamentals or good products, it's that the market is expecting miracles.
In the case of Nvidia, the funny thing is that their high valuations started not with AI, but with cryptocurrencies. Just never really came down - they coasted from a silly hype cycle to a more substantive one. Ten years ago, NVDA wasn't an interesting stock at all.
The problem is not demand going away. No margin in a late stage company goes unassailed for long. Intel has nothing to lose. AMD has everything to gain. Untold other players are finding oxygen in various places. Nvidia is smart to use their spotlight as long as it lasts, but in their pitch, they're saying, "this will put you ahead," not "this will last forever."
Yes, but their moat is not unassailable. If/when the market for massive parallel computations becomes truly competitive, the combined market cap of all companies in it will likely be smaller than what NVidia currently has. NV margins are insane, and are only possible because they have an effective monopoly.
Perhaps not forever but GPUs for AI is likely to be a very solid and profitable business for a long time. CPUs made plenty of money for their makers in that era.
AI, while undeniably powerful and transformative, is in the midst of the biggest, most insane tech bubble we have ever seen. And nearly all of that money is ending up, directly or indirectly, in GPU data centers. And NVIDIA is the largest cost (profit maker) there.
When that investment firehouse gets turned off, the AI providers will stop building new data centers. Likely for some years. That revenue stream for NVIDIA will go to zero so fast…
AI is a bubble and will pop soon, theres no way even 80% of the spending has yielded the returns they were looking for. Nvidia cards will lower in demand though probably the bubble will be a net gain for nvidia over the preceding 4 or 5 years, though it will take them a while to regain their peak market cap
I’m not sure how you mean “… very-in-demand product, that is not likely to last forever…” is an analogue for a sovereign wealth fund, but there is also the issue of one interpretation of what you said very much providing an avenue for sustainability; that all the GPUs for all the AI systems are all going to burn up and/or become outdated in a mere 3-5 years, prompting repurchases.
I’m aware there are some efforts in play to offer alternatives to GPUs and compete with Nvidia, but I don’t see a path for how that actually happens in the near term with Nvidia's market dominance, short of revolutionary technological breakthrough or possibly even anti-trusting Nvidia.
I suspect what you mean is the circular business practices that we’ve been seeing, seemingly starting with Nvidia for some reason. Is that the aspect you are comparing to some sovereign wealth funds that through simply massive scale, they are capturing the whole lifetime cycle in some places and domains?
Im saying that Nvidia’s current monopoly isn’t going to last forever. The product space will (very likely) still exist, but in 10 years Nvidia may not be able to get the ~80% margins it currently does (due to competition, technological changes, etc).
When that happens, they’ll still have their fingers in all the pies.
It’s arguably a much better approach for Nvidia as a company.
Except usually sovereign wealth funds are for diversification, so oil rich nations will use their wealth fund to invest in non-oil linked commodities, since then if they're revenue dries up their investments shouldn't. Even better they can invest in this with an inverse correlation to oil such as green energy, so when their oil revenue dries up their investments go up.
Nvidia is not diversifying, but investing in it's customers, which are very very linked to it's own performance.
Could this be a strategy to scare away overoptimistic stock buyers?
When you have a money printing machine that you don't expect to run forever (but aren't afraid of the future beyond, optimistic that you can still make money, just not that easy), as a publicly traded company you have the problem that eventually all owners who have similar expectations will have sold to more optimistic owners who expect nothing less than the money printing machine running forever. And getting even bigger while at it. When that ownership change has happened, the company does not really have any other option than to die trying. Deliberately diluting the value of the company with ownership in "definitely not a money printing machine!" before that happens could be a way to avoid that death march, a survival strategy.
They know their time is running out. CEO has been selling shares like they are going out of business the next monday, but nobody talks about it because market could wake up from the dream and crash the entire market as the AI bubble is the only thing holding up the entire USA economy(yes, not just the markets) right now.
When an organization reaches a certain level of wealth they become what amounts to as lawyers. Placing money in areas that demonstrate their understanding of the situation even if it may result in potential losses strengthens their brand and reputation.
>I think the US Gov probably "incentizied" Nvidias stake in Intel, and I wonder if they did here as well.
They definitely did, Intel existing is probably an issue of national security at this point, if Intel fell then there'd be the risk of some other nation's company being part of the duopoly.
> They definitely did, Intel existing is probably an issue of national security at this point, if Intel fell then there'd be the risk of some other nation's company being part of the duopoly.
Mind elaborating? Who are the players in the duopoly?
Not a direct competitor, they are at a No3 slot behind Ericsson with a small global footprintmainly concentrated in NorthAmerica and some EU markets.
However most of the 5G/5G+ patents are Huawei owned and FRAND so in any case the entiti in the drivers seat is H , thas why even the whole OpenRAN project didnt get far.
Most likely like you surmiseits a geo-political hedge play.
> I think the US Gov probably "incentizied" Nvidias stake in Intel, and I wonder if they did here as well.
If you wanted something in the x86 space it was either Intel or AMD. AMD is a direct competitor. If I was Nvidia I'd have done something about Intel. At least stop them from crashing further.
The stock of NVIDIA can buy the 230 smallest S&P 500 companies. Which are still quite big companies. I recently learned this fact and I think it is pretty wild.
Do you mean their market cap? Sure but that doesn’t equal their profits or cash reserves which are considerably less so NVIDIA couldn’t buy the 230 companies even if I wanted to
That’s a good point, which immediately makes me curious — how many of the smallest sp500 companies could nvidia outright purchase (or obtain a majority stake in)? It’s just a curiosity, not trying to demand an answer. I might look at it tomorrow if I have time
Its' getting more crazy by the day. Today NVidia added >300B USD in market cap. That's enough more than the valuation of Intel for example. Or more than Toyota. That 1B USD investement was money well spent !
In year 2000, Nokia had a market cap of around $100 billion and Nvidia had a market cap of around $2 to 4 billion.
Nvidia just made graphics cards, at a time when games were still being written for MS-DOS. Nobody was to imagine the real money to be made from repurposing these graphics cards for crypto and now this AI 'application'.
I was reading an article earlier today that said passive investing is more than 50% of the market--and since most ETFs allocate by market cap, it causes a reinforcing feedback loop for market cap leaders.
Passive investing is not an issue, but the default bias towards large cap equities like SP500, Nasdaq100. Passive investing through total market ETFs (like VTI) maintains the status quo.
For example, if they are only two companies, say with 1T and 4T market cap. If one invests 5M into a total market ETF, 1M is allocated to company A and 4M to company B. But since company B is 4x bigger than company A, the upward price pressure is the same for both companies.
This isn't the gotcha everyone in the media thinks it is.
Nvidia is using its revenues to quickly invest in bets that are simultaneously customers.
If anything, it's a triple win.
- taking advantage of cash it needs to deploy
- making new investments in areas NVidia wants to shape
- making new customers that continue to buy Nvidia GPUs, especially if they're successful
Some of these ventures may fail, but it's better than distributing dividends or issuing stock buybacks if you believe this technology will be useful in the future.
Companies doing this purely off of equity, stock valuation, and product/services agreements are even smarter as they're using pure hype to fund strategy.
Cooking your books and calling it a "triple win" is certainly interesting. Nokia just diluted their shares in hopes that AI hype keeps the price pumped up. They do keep the $1B so I guess we'll see what they do with it (other than buying NVDA GPUs, of course)
The problem comes if any of these companies aren't successful with their AI deployments. NVidia is essentially trying to sell GPUs in exchange for stock, but that means if the stock prices of those companies go down, then Nvidia will have payed $1B for the privilege of giving GPUs away below cost.
Readit News
They have substantial operations in North America. T-Mobile uses primarily their hardware. Nokia still operates Bell Labs which came originally from AT&T via Lucent.
As the other global options for network hardware are Ericsson, Samsung and Huawei, Nokia is the closest to a “Made in USA” solution. Its HQ is in Finland but at least it’s a NATO country now.
So they’re more important to US infrastructure than might appear at first glance.
> As the other global options for network hardware are Ericsson, Samsung and Huawei, Nokia is the closest to a “Made in USA” solution. Its HQ is in Finland but at least it’s a NATO country now.
i.e. with the current US administration, a "Made in USA" solution to critical infrasctructure would likely be seen as ideal; and viewed through this lens, when the other options come from Sweden, Finland, South Korea, and China, Finland is probably the best option.
I didn't read any implied criticism of Finland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization
That risk is lesser now thanks to NATO.
Deleted Comment
I was part of the Nokia => NSN transition, and saw that S change back from Siemens into Solutions, with the money they got back from selling Nokia Mobile to Microsoft.
But why is Ericsson(swedish), Samsung(south korean) not considered made in US in the sense that atleast south korea has strong relations with america iirc and also I just recently checked and it seems that sweden has also become a part of nato. So some of these can be just as good.
Although I still agree that Nokia might be important in general but I just wanted to point/question it out I suppose.
Per Wikipedia [1], Lucent's factories and offices are^W were situated in places like Murray Hill and Mount Olive, NJ, North Andover, MA, Reading, PA, and a bunch of other places in the US.
I think it makes^W made Nokia, which owns Lucent properties, "more US" than, say Ericsson and Samsung, until these facilities were closed.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucent_Technologies#Divisions
They also plan to provide AI services in the Edge, that's why Nvidia invested.
sounds totally not a bubble.
Also, why is Nokia closer to the US than Ericsson?
While there's probably a little overlap in all of their product lines with Nokia (I mean Nokia makes simple ethernet switches so that carriers can buy all their gear from one vendor), most of those companies don't really compete in the same markets as Nokia
Cisco isn't selling into T-Mobile and AT&T's customer networks. Nokia isn't selling into JPMorgan's or Walmart's IP networks
That's an amazing trove of IP!
Yup, give them $1B so they can build out AI DC’s stocked with $1B of Nvidia chips.
To me, that seems to be a requirement for the computing industry for a long time.
And, they seemed to have amassed enough capital to comfortably pivot to the next great thing that requires similar calculations.
I think this is their super power.
The next logical step would be to get into CPUs, to become a fully integrated computing solutions provider.
Sure, but they have a market cap of 5 trillion. It's about 10x that of AMD, which also sells similar silicon (and isn't in any distress). It's more than Apple, Google, and Microsoft - and these companies historically found ways to make more money than the vendors they buy chips from.
The problem isn't that Nvidia doesn't have good fundamentals or good products, it's that the market is expecting miracles.
In the case of Nvidia, the funny thing is that their high valuations started not with AI, but with cryptocurrencies. Just never really came down - they coasted from a silly hype cycle to a more substantive one. Ten years ago, NVDA wasn't an interesting stock at all.
They already tried it 5 years ago [1][2] but it was promptly blocked by regulators.
[1]: https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-to-acquire-arm-for...
[2]: HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24464807
When that investment firehouse gets turned off, the AI providers will stop building new data centers. Likely for some years. That revenue stream for NVIDIA will go to zero so fast…
The unknown, as with any bubble, is timing.
I’m aware there are some efforts in play to offer alternatives to GPUs and compete with Nvidia, but I don’t see a path for how that actually happens in the near term with Nvidia's market dominance, short of revolutionary technological breakthrough or possibly even anti-trusting Nvidia.
I suspect what you mean is the circular business practices that we’ve been seeing, seemingly starting with Nvidia for some reason. Is that the aspect you are comparing to some sovereign wealth funds that through simply massive scale, they are capturing the whole lifetime cycle in some places and domains?
When that happens, they’ll still have their fingers in all the pies.
It’s arguably a much better approach for Nvidia as a company.
Nvidia is not diversifying, but investing in it's customers, which are very very linked to it's own performance.
What I think is likely to go away is Nvidia’s monopoly in the space. When it does, Nvidia will still have pieces of all the major players.
When you have a money printing machine that you don't expect to run forever (but aren't afraid of the future beyond, optimistic that you can still make money, just not that easy), as a publicly traded company you have the problem that eventually all owners who have similar expectations will have sold to more optimistic owners who expect nothing less than the money printing machine running forever. And getting even bigger while at it. When that ownership change has happened, the company does not really have any other option than to die trying. Deliberately diluting the value of the company with ownership in "definitely not a money printing machine!" before that happens could be a way to avoid that death march, a survival strategy.
https://fintel.io/n/huang-jen-hsun
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/19/nvidia-ceo-jensen-huang-sell...
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/jensen-huang-selling-nvidia-...
https://www.ft.com/content/36f346ad-c649-42ac-a6b6-1a8cc881e...
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/nvi...
edit: highlight: "not not". I think it's very smart.
It's like "if your going to sell chips to China, you have to spend some of the money funding non-Chinese tech".
Nokia's capabilities to deliver 5G networks is a direct competitor to Huawei, right?
Is Nvidia functionally an strategic hedge fund of the US Government? Would this fall under Jeffrey Sach's realm?
They definitely did, Intel existing is probably an issue of national security at this point, if Intel fell then there'd be the risk of some other nation's company being part of the duopoly.
Mind elaborating? Who are the players in the duopoly?
If you wanted something in the x86 space it was either Intel or AMD. AMD is a direct competitor. If I was Nvidia I'd have done something about Intel. At least stop them from crashing further.
Deleted Comment
Interesting. Trump and the Finnish President meet a few weeks ago and explicitly discussed Nokia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XmnKjx3LYw
The SP500 could merge into one company, regulation permitting.
Nvidia just made graphics cards, at a time when games were still being written for MS-DOS. Nobody was to imagine the real money to be made from repurposing these graphics cards for crypto and now this AI 'application'.
in five years, NVDA's business strategy will be like CocaCola's, forcing bottlers to buy their syrups.
For example, if they are only two companies, say with 1T and 4T market cap. If one invests 5M into a total market ETF, 1M is allocated to company A and 4M to company B. But since company B is 4x bigger than company A, the upward price pressure is the same for both companies.
In a hypothetical market with 100% ETFs, you’d have a status quo.
Edit: maybe not, since you have ETFs that invest in, say, Nasdaq only, which is tech oriented and would influence S&P500.
Nokia today is sort of “everybody who was making networks in Europe and North America except Ericsson”.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3JfOxx6Hh4
Nvidia is using its revenues to quickly invest in bets that are simultaneously customers.
If anything, it's a triple win.
- taking advantage of cash it needs to deploy
- making new investments in areas NVidia wants to shape
- making new customers that continue to buy Nvidia GPUs, especially if they're successful
Some of these ventures may fail, but it's better than distributing dividends or issuing stock buybacks if you believe this technology will be useful in the future.
Companies doing this purely off of equity, stock valuation, and product/services agreements are even smarter as they're using pure hype to fund strategy.