Nvidia is still run by a founder, while the other two aren’t. I’d always bet on a founder over a McKinsey consultant or a Harvard MBA.
It’s not that founders are more skilled, it’s that successful ones who stick around have different priorities. The long term performance of their existing stock is worth more than hitting targets. Not a guarantee of success, but something to consider.
We're still talking about the current first derivative of their stock price. Let's not go overboard reading those tea leaves.
Somewhat ironically, I think Google's brightest days had Eric Schmidt (MBA, "adult in the room") as CEO.
This isn't to say MBAs are always a good thing either, and certainly Google isn't a typical example.
>Early in his career, Schmidt held a series of technical positions with IT companies including Byzromotti Design, Bell Labs (in research and development),[19] Zilog, and Palo Alto Research Center (PARC).
During his summers at Bell Labs, he and Mike Lesk wrote Lex,[23][7] a program used in compiler construction that generates lexical-analyzers from regular-expression descriptions.
Sun Microsystems In 1983, Schmidt joined Sun Microsystems as its first software manager.[19]
> There's no guaranteed recipe for success.
Yes, which is why he said bet on, not know it will win.
Any other company would have had an annual review of progress or a review any time mid-level leadership changed hands. Assuming a 50/50 chance of survival each time, the odds of the project lasting 10 years would be 1 in 1024.
Nobody builds a company the size of NVIDIA alone.
they just tasted this level of success. i would be cautious and wait a few quarters before handing out judgements.