Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on February 27, 2019 2:53 am wrote:
> dmcq (dmcq.delete@this.fano.co.uk) on February 25, 2019 10:35 am wrote:
> > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on February 25, 2019 9:43 am wrote:
> > > Not the parent (not3par.delete@this.gmail.com) on February 25, 2019 9:36 am wrote:
> > > > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on February 25, 2019 1:03 am wrote:
> > > > > why not?
> > > >
> > > > Arm doesn't build nor sells hardware. That would mean competing
> > > > against their own customers so it will never happen.
> > >
> > > Competing against your own customers is pretty common in this industry.
> >
> > Arm was built on cooperation and the idea of an ecosystem. Competing with people
> > you talk with at an early stage of development would be very destructive of such
> > trust and with it their business model. I'm surprised you aren't aware of this.
> >
>
> Come on. I don't know who is "Not the parent" and how old and knowledgeable he is.
> But you are certainly sufficiently old and knowledgeable to at least hear about true history of microcomputer
> company named Acorn and about their chip-making joint venture with Apple and VLSI called ARM and about
> shift toward IP licensing as increasingly important part of their business that happened only *after*
> Apple Newton didn't sell, despite that first ARM licensing deals were signed years earlier.
>

I do remember the 8-bit computer era, and the market looks nothing like it used to. Acorn collapsed and Arm's *only* business model is IP licensing.

> If Arm returns to chip-making business and then to boards-making and computer-making business
> then most of their customers either wouldn't object (Apple, Samsung, STMicro, NXP, probably
> Hisilicon) or object silently with no visible effects (Qualcomm, Mediatek).
> On the other hand, Arm's software partners would LOVE it.
>
>
>

So, what you're saying is that Arm shouldn't worry about upsetting the partners that bring in money directly because due to "reasons" they won't mind, and all in order to make happy some partners whose contribution to Arm's income is indirect (at best) and 100% dependant on the first group of partners using Arm IP.