anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on February 27, 2019 5:42 am wrote:
> Not the parent (not3par.delete@this.gmail.com) on February 27, 2019 3:59 am wrote:
> > anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on February 26, 2019 10:22 pm wrote:
> > > Not the parent (not3par.delete@this.gmail.com) on February 26, 2019 9:08 am wrote:
> > > > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on February 25, 2019 11:03 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Competing with ARM architecture licensees, i.e. customers, most of them customers in
> > > > > more than one role, is an integral and very important part of Arm's business model.
> > > > > I'm surprised you aren't aware of this.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're extremely confused about what Arm actually does. Arm doesn't sell products, their licensees
> > > > sell products. Arm licensees don't sell licenses, Arm sells licenses. You will never see Arm selling
> > > > products because that's the instant their customers stop being happy about funding Arm.
> > > >
> > > > Arm does not and will never compete with their customers because their whole business
> > > > model depends on it. Give Apple *one* reason to switch to RISCV and they're gone.
> > >
> > > No, it's actually you who are extremely confused, either with comprehension
> > > of OP's post or with what ARM actually does, I'm not sure.
> > >
> >
> > FYI, this was the original point of discussion:
> >
> > "Arm is NOT Intel or IBM, it cannot and will not sell chips or laptops or servers directly..."
> >
> > Then somebody asked "Why not?"
>
> I'm obviously talking about your reply where you stupidly said "Arm does not and will
> never compete with their customers because their whole business model depends on it."
>
> >
> > > Because the post did nowhere imply that ARM sells chips or
> > > any physical device (if that's what you mean by product).
> > >
> >
> > Now we know who didn't understand what was being discussed.
>
> True, and you are not among the we.
>
> >
> > > Do you know what an ARM architecture license is? A implementation license?
> > > If yes, then you would know how ARM competes with (some of) its customers.
> >
> > An Arm ISA license allows a company to build their own implementations of the Arm ISA. An
> > IP core license allows a company to build SoCs that include that IP core. Arm doesn't build
> > their own chips, at all, so they're not competing with companies who live off of selling
> > chips, systems or any other kind of physical product. Arm's whole business model is based
> > on their customers succeeding at selling physical products that include Arm's IP.
>
> Okay so you're confused about everything. Glad we got that all cleared up.


Let me clarify this, the real market is complicated:
1. arm may compete with its customer's internal CPU core design team, like Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 (custom Kryo) vs Snapdragon 835 (Cortex A73) vs Snapdragon 845 (Cortex A75), BUT arm will not compete with its customer as a whole company.
2. even arm "seems" like competing with a whole company (Intel), actually Intel's Altera division is an important customer for arm.
3. arm firmly controls ISA, even Apple cannot add any new instructions without the permission from arm.
4. most arm customers want arm to control ISA, otherwise there will be no standards or compatibilities at all.
5. arm tries hard to keep its organization lean, only < 5k engineers worldwide, compare to 100k of intel