Jukka Larja (roskakori2006.delete@this.gmail.com) on February 28, 2019 6:02 am wrote:
> Wilco (Wilco.dijkstra.delete@this.ntlworld.com) on February 28, 2019 4:49 am wrote:
> > anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on February 27, 2019 5:46 pm wrote:
> > > dmcq (dmcq.delete@this.fano.co.uk) on February 27, 2019 5:19 pm wrote:
> > > > anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on February 27, 2019 4:56 pm wrote:
> > > > > dmcq (dmcq.delete@this.fano.co.uk) on February 27, 2019 4:25 pm wrote:
> > > > > > 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?
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the significance of having two engineers in your example?
> > > >
> > > > Two engineers will be in competition as they may both apply to do the same job. Engineer X may
> > > > have done some thinking about how to build a bridge a new way for instance and engineer Z may
> > > > plan to build it according to all the design and safety rules they were taught. As far as I can
> > > > see this is completely equivalent to what you are saying about companies X, A and Z above.
> > >
> > > Ah I see. No it's not equivalent at all, and you seem to be intent on arguing
> > > stupid semantics of words that nobody would use. I don't know why the hell you
> > > are trying to do this, but it kind of just shows you have no real argument.
> > >
> > > Arm competes with some of its customers. End of debate.
> >
> > Wrong - if you take that moronic argument to its logical conclusion, Arm competes with itself!
> >
> > Arm simply doesn't compete with its customers. If you want to build an Arm Soc, you can (a) license
> > one from Arm or (b) design your own. Either way, you pay Arm a licensing fee and royalties on
> > any units you sell. If you sell more units, Arm earns more. That means Arm wants you to be successful,
> > whether you use custom or licensed cores. More units = more money. Got it?
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I buy a SoC from Samsung, with Samsung developed core, Arm
> will get less than they would get if that core was some standard A75 or whatever? So it seems
> that Samsung is competing with Arm. Can that be if Arm isn't competing with Samsung?
>
> Or does the architectural license mean that Samsung pays less regardless of where their core comes from?

Paying a royalty is not competing. Samsung uses a large amount of Arm IP in Exynos, so Arm should get a decent royalty either way. It's worth rereading an old but still relevant AnandTech article on Arm's business model.

In order to compete with Samsung, Arm would need to sell hundreds of millions of mobile phones since that's the market where Samsung makes ~$80B yearly revenue. Which particular cores their phones use don't affect the results much, if at all.

Wilco