anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on February 27, 2019 4:02 pm wrote:
> Magagop (xxx.delete@this.xxx.com) on February 27, 2019 2:31 pm wrote:
> > 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.
>
> An analysis of competition and competitive markets that requires equivalence of a final end product
> before it can be called competition, or overlap of market of end product, is just wrong.
>
> Company X takes an architecture license, designs a core and has it produced into a CPU.
>
> Company A designs a core, company Z licenses it, and has it produced into a CPU.
>
> If the CPUs compete in the same markets, then their competitive positioning
> (price, performance) depends on company X, company A, and company Z.
>
> Arm Holdings with its implementations competes with many of its architecture licensees. That's just a fact,
> it's not negotiable. It's not complicated, there is no need to clarify anything further, no reason to call something
> internal or external, and no difference if there are other areas where competitors also co-operate.
>
> Of course it is a simple fact that does not tell much about dynamic between companies. But it is all
> you need to counter an equally simple and wrong assertion that Arm does not compete with customers.

If X and Z are engineers and A is a university that trains engineers, are we to say that the university is in competition with X and Z? By your reasoning even if A is the alma mater of both X and Z it is in competition with them. That is just pushing the idea of competition so everyone and everything is in competition. That extreme use would make the word useless.