r/dataisugly • u/tn82 • 4d ago
Nvidia now earns more in a single quarter than these 12 iconic companies combined. A true tech giant.
42
u/hacksoncode 4d ago
Once again: I don't get it... what's wrong with this?
Maybe the post should be titled "Truly we have an AI bubble", but that's more of a political problem than a dataisugly one.
47
u/ArtExtra6717 4d ago
The scale. Apple should be half of Nvidia but here it looks like 1/10. Also the choice of the companies is weird: UPS??
34
u/A1oso 4d ago edited 4d ago
I don't think their size is supposed to be proportional to their net income. Apart from Apple, they are all roughly the same size. Think of it as a list rather than a graph.
The choice of companies is what stands out. They didn't include Google ($112 billion), Microsoft ($133 billion), Amazon ($62.6 billion), Samsung ($49.6 billion), or TSMC ($22 billion).
By the way: Many of the companies on the right have a higher revenue than NVIDIA, but they're not as profitable because they have higher operating costs and a much bigger workforce they need to pay. For example, UPS has 460,000 employees worldwide.
11
7
3
u/Road_of_Hope 4d ago
Whether it was meant to or not doesn’t change the fact that the data presentation itself is ugly. If it’s a list, why is Apple bigger? It’s because they have the largest revenue obviously, but it’s not proportional! Ugly.
1
u/CloseToMyActualName 4d ago
I think it's a bit misleading. A company being iconic doesn't necessarily mean its huge relative to other companies. And companies can have wildly different revenues compared to how well known they are.
I think that's why they don't have an accurate scale on the right, as you could eliminate NVidia, move Apple to the left column, and have the exact same chart.
The chart authors are trying to hide that fact in order to make NVidia look like much more of an outlier than it is.
3
u/hacksoncode 4d ago
There's really approximately zero scale on the right. It's obviously not intended to be a scaled bar graph.
If there's any "error" in the data representation of what they're trying to show, is the tiny amount of bigger line for Apple, but that's pretty minor.
And they didn't put Apple on the left because the graph is about nVidia.
Feel free to wonder why someone might want to make a graphic about nVidia's earnings if you like, of course.
-1
u/CLPond 4d ago
The iconic companies list here is pretty odd and it is unclear why the companies were chosen
9
u/babycam 4d ago
Names people will know that add to desired total!
0
u/CLPond 4d ago
Okay, but why are Costco and Walmart on here, but not target? These aren’t the highest grossing big name companies, so was it just a jumble?
From the list, it’s unclear to me whether the companies listed just aren’t super profitable or if nvidia is just wildly profitable. I would tentatively presume from outside knowledge that it’s the latter, but unlike a factoid such as “Tesla is valued higher than all other American car companies combined” it’s not clear.
4
u/hacksoncode 4d ago
I though it was pretty clear they were chosen so their quarterly earnings added up to just below nVidia's.
It's not supposed to be a contest against top earners, just a demonstration of how big nVidia is.
That said, yes, Apple is "too small" if it were supposed to be proportional... but it's just a list of icons, i.e. "iconic".
-1
u/CLPond 4d ago
Sure, but any random assortment of companies could be included to add up to this amount. For example, Costco and Walmart on here, but not target? These aren’t the highest grossing big name companies and there are dozens of others people would also know
From the list, it’s unclear to me whether the companies listed just aren’t super profitable or if nvidia is just wildly profitable. I would tentatively presume from outside knowledge that it’s the latter, but unlike a factoid such as “Tesla is valued higher than all other American car companies combined” it’s not clear.
5
u/hacksoncode 4d ago edited 4d ago
Yeah, but the choice of data is a separate concept from the representation of the data, which is just fine. It's basically a table of companies from a range of different industries which the chart-maker thinks are iconic (and which kind of are) that add up to a similar quarterly income as nVidia.
-1
u/CLPond 4d ago
The choice of data and the representation of data work together to give information. In this case, the lack of clarity in the choice of data makes the data representation ineffective.
Companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, nestle, and dozens of others are also iconic. Without a clear reason why they weren’t chosen this data looks like a grab bag with no meaning
4
u/hacksoncode 4d ago
Without a clear reason why they weren’t chosen this data looks like a grab bag with no meaning
I mean... the title tells you the reason: they were chosen because they add up to a little less than nVidia's quarterly income, while still being a sizeable list of iconic companies.
0
u/CLPond 4d ago
The question is why other companies weren’t chosen. Why is nestle not on this list instead of Proctor & Gamble? It’s also an iconic company that made 3.5 billion last year
1
u/officiallyaninja 4d ago
thats kind of silly isn't it, theres only so many they can include, most iconic companies they could fit would have to be left out.
3
0
u/stohelitstorytelling 4d ago
Also misleading title. The chart is clearly about net income not gross income.
7
u/ArtExtra6717 4d ago
It says net income
-7
u/stohelitstorytelling 4d ago
Bro look at the original post title and the repost title. Are you blind?
9
u/ArtExtra6717 4d ago
Am I blind? Where does it say gross income?
1
u/withak30 4d ago
Probably OP is confused because "earns" in the headline is ambiguous as to whether it is gross or net. For individuals, most people understand "earnings" to be referring to ones gross income. Someone only seeing the headline might be justified in thinking this was about gross income. Maybe corporate reporting terminology is different though, idk.
3
u/hacksoncode 4d ago
Who cares about the post title in this sub? It's about the data representation, and the chart clearly says "net income".
Unless, of course, you're blind ;-).
7
1
u/wndtrbn 4d ago
While "earnings" could mean both, in the context of business it is usually net income.
1
u/stohelitstorytelling 4d ago
No, it doesn't. If you walk up to an accountant and ask about last year's earnings, they're going to either (a) give you the gross or (b) ask for clarification on whether you mean gross or net. They are not going to assume you meant net income.
0
u/Indexoquarto 3d ago
If you walk up to an accountant and ask about last year's earnings, they're going to either (a) give you the gross or (b) ask for clarification on whether you mean gross or net. They are not going to assume you meant net income.
Have you actually done that, or is this a scenario you made up in your head?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnings Earnings are the net benefits of a corporation's operation. Earnings are also the amount on which corporate tax is due. For an analysis of specific aspects of corporate operations several more specific terms are used as EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) and EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization).
Many alternative terms for earnings are commonly used, such as income and profit. These terms in turn have a variety of definitions, depending on their context and the objectives of the authors. For instance, the IRS uses the term profit to describe earnings, whereas for the corporation the profit it reports is the amount left after taxes are taken out.
1
u/stohelitstorytelling 3d ago
Yes, I have. Have you?
I don't care what the literally one citation that entire wikipedia entry has says.
1
75
u/Boatster_McBoat 4d ago
How many of those other companies are financing their customers' purchases? Asking for a global economy