
Prediction: This AI Stock Will Be Worth More Than Nvidia 5 Years From Now
Every investor wants to find the next Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA). Since 1995, Nvidia shares have risen by more than 135,000%. A few dollars could have turned into nearly $1 million over that time frame. While the gains won't be as large, there's one stock in particular right now that should be on the watch list of every investor. There's a good chance that this company, not Nvidia, will be the biggest AI stock of 2030.
AWS might be the next Nvidia
While Nvidia has taken the AI market by storm, there's a chance that Amazon 's (NASDAQ: AMZN) AWS division will be the true winner over the next five years.
Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue »
There's an old saying in the investing world: When a gold rush occurs, sell shovels. The takeaway is clear. Don't just rush toward the shiny, gleaming object that is attracting hoards of attention. Instead, supply that deluge of demand with the tools they need. That way, you'll make money regardless of whether the gold rush pans out.
Applying this framework to the current AI craze can help identify profitable investing opportunities. Right now, there are scores of AI companies seeking to create the next big thing -- the AI market globally is expected to rise from under $200 billion in 2023 to nearly $5 billion in 2033. There's big money to be made, and start-ups around the world are racing to capitalize.
What are the "shovels" in this scenario? There are two candidates. The first is GPUs, or graphics processing units. Estimates put the Nvidia's market share of data center GPUs near 90%. GPUs are what make training and running complex AI models possible. It's not cost effective for every AI developer to own their own infrastructure. Instead, they essentially rent this compute power from data center companies like Amazon's AWS division. Nvidia's products have a clear performance edge on the competition, and nearly every AI business wants to use these chips. So regardless of whether any specific AI application makes it big, Nvidia will still profit by supplying the industry with in-demand GPUs.
But Nvidia's performance superiority won't last forever. Eventually, competition will emerge, eating into Nvidia's market share and impressive gross profit margins. That means that AI companies will have more chip options to choose from at a lower price. But it won't be AI companies that buy these new chips -- it will be cloud providers like AWS. Nvidia's long-term competitive pressures would then turn into a benefit for AWS, which has access to more chip options at a lower price to serve its customers.
In the cloud infrastructure world, scale matters. With a 30% global market share -- nearly as much as the next two competitors combined -- AWS has the ability to sit at the center of the AI revolution perhaps even longer than Nvidia.
One problem with buying Amazon stock right now
Of course, Amazon is much more than just AWS. Its e-commerce division still contributes a plurality of its revenue, with more than 80% of sales tied either directly or indirectly to this segment. AWS, meanwhile, still contributes less than 20% of sales.
Importantly, however, AWS is growing faster than the e-commerce division. AWS also contributes more than half of the company's operating income right now. So yes, you'll need to feel comfortable also buying into the rest of Amazon's business lines. But over the next five to 10 years, AWS should become the tail that wags the dog. Some analysts believe that the AWS division alone could be worth several trillion dollars by 2030, potentially warranting a spinoff. That would make the combined company more valuable than Nvidia's current valuation.
Of course, Nvidia will have plenty of chances to grow over the next five years as well. But AWS is the secret driver to Amazon's long-term success. And depending on what happens with GPU competition long term, AWS could catapult Amazon's valuation above Nvidia's by 2030. You'll just need to be patient, understanding that most of Amazon's sales right now stem from a completely different business line.
Should you invest $1,000 in Amazon right now?
Before you buy stock in Amazon, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Amazon wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $657,385!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $842,015!*
Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is987% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to171%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor.
See the 10 stocks »
*Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
Where Will Archer Aviation Stock Be in 3 Years?
Makers of electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (eVTOLs) aim to revolutionize the transportation industry by allowing people to literally fly above urban traffic on short-haul routes. Archer Aviation (NYSE: ACHR) is an early mover in the air taxi space, and with its market cap at just $5.83 billion now, new investors can still get in early on what could be an exciting long-term growth opportunity. That said, potential rewards often correlate with potential risk in the stock market. And in late May, a report from short-seller Culper Research cast doubts about the quality of Archer Aviation's communications with investors and the public. Remember that short-sellers make money when a stock falls. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue » Culper Research is short Archer Aviation On May 20, Culper Research published a report titled "Archer Aviation (ACHR): When You Can't Earn Airtime in the Sky, Buy it on Late Night Television" and featuring an image of Archer Aviation CEO Adam Goldstein alongside Jimmy Fallon, host of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. Culper Research claims the company "systematically misled" investors about its progress toward developing and testing its flagship Midnight aircraft. The report cites examples from employee emails, photos, and public statements that the short-seller believes contradict Archer Aviation's claims about the progress of its eVTOL program. The stock didn't immediately drop after the report, but was down about 18% from the close of trading May 19 to the close on June 5. Archer's management fired back in a statement, dismissing the claims as "baseless" and questioning Culper's credibility. Short-sellers profit when the price of a stock that they have shorted goes down, which gives them an incentive to present such a company's situation as negatively as possible. That gives me pause about the Culper report. Furthermore, even if Archer Aviation is overselling the progress of its eVTOL program, that's par for the course for speculative tech companies. For example, Tesla CEO Elon Musk has frequently made projections about timelines and projects (such as self-driving) that have rarely played out the way he said they would. Expectations of some exaggerations and delays are likely already priced into Archer Aviation's stock. Focus on the fundamentals Instead of getting caught up in news stories and short-seller allegations, investors should focus on Archer Aviation's financial reports. This data should give investors the best indications of how long the company can sustain its operations while it waits for factors outside its control, such as regulatory approvals. So far, the situation is complicated. In the first quarter, its operating losses stood at $144 million, compared to $142 million in the prior-year period. This was mainly due to research and development outflows, as it spent more to bring the Midnight aircraft closer to commercialization. However, with around $1 billion in cash and equivalents on its balance sheet, Archer Aviation could sustain that rate of cash burn for about seven more quarters before it would need to seek outside sources of capital. The company is also working on expanding its manufacturing capabilities through a partnership with multinational automaker Stellantis. The companies are teaming up to build a manufacturing facility in Covington, Georgia, that will eventually be capable of producing up to 650 aircraft annually, with Stellantis contributing expertise and capital to the project. Archer Aviation expects to be able to produce two Midnight aircraft per month by the end of 2025. What will the next three years have in store? Like many speculative companies, Archer Aviation presents a hugely optimistic vision for its future. While the company is still awaiting final approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the U.S., in international markets, it seems to be moving much faster. Early "launch edition" customers for its eVTOLs include Ethiopian Airlines and Abu Dhabi Aviation, which plans to take delivery of Midnight aircraft later this year. Over the next three years, Archer's revenue growth could accelerate dramatically as it secures more clients and ramps up production. But while this is exciting news for investors, it is unclear if these customers plan to merely test and experiment with eVTOLS or incorporate them into large-scale revenue-generating operations. Furthermore, investors shouldn't be surprised if there are delays and disappointments associated with the aircraft's commercialization, especially considering the allegations made in Culper Research's report. Archer Aviation remains a high-risk, high-potential-reward bet and it's not clear where it will be in three years. Should you invest $1,000 in Archer Aviation right now? Before you buy stock in Archer Aviation, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Archer Aviation wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $669,517!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $868,615!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is792% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to173%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025


Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
Apple, Amazon and Spotify challenging CRTC's Canadian content rules in court this week
Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association-Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .


National Post
2 hours ago
- National Post
Apple, Amazon and Spotify challenging CRTC's Canadian content rules in court this week
Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. Article content The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. Article content Article content Article content The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Article content Article content In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. Article content In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Article content Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Article content Article content Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' Article content Article content It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Article content Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. Article content The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming.