D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Good read. Dispels some myths regarding the proposed merger and gives a good sense of the competitive environment faced by ARM.
Nvidia abandons deal to buy ARM *spawn*
- Thread starter DegustatoR
- Start date
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It's astonishing that the business unit of ARM's (being a proponent for the sale) is because of flat revenue and poor outlook despite ARM being the most prolifically used instruction set architecture on the planet. Thisis literally why they dismissed the IPO option.
Maybe it was considered it and dismissed it for some reason (but what?), but adopting a new licensing model could bring in more revenue. ARM don't need to super greedy (like Qualcomm) but when all of your customers are making massive profits (which the summary highlights) based on technology you own when your own bottom line is flat, then you're fucking up.
I can't fathom how ARM's fortunes haven't similarly grown with the increasing use of ARM's technology. If they increased licensing based on volume of product just a little bit, they could increase revenue without killing their customers. What am I missing?
Last edited by a moderator:
You do realize that active party in proposed merger won't give the most neutral view of the situation, right? Might not be the best source for dispelling myths - even when they can't outright lie, they will present things as much as possible in favor of getting regulators to approve the deal.
DegustatoR
Legend
Which party in all of this is capable of providing "the most neutral view"? Certainly not the likes of Apple, Intel or Qualcomm?
No, their job is to present it in a way the regulators wouldn't approve the deal. It would need to be some impartial observer to get actual neutral view and dispel myths.
DegustatoR
Legend
I find the idea that some "impartial observer" would be able to provide a solid neutral view very naive since such observer is highly unlikely to know all the details of the situation in the first place.
Naive? No. Highly unlikely scenario? Yes.
That however has nothing to do with the fact that parties directly involved are not a source to "dispel myths", nor are those directly affected by it. If something is naive, it's believing otherwise.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I don't agree with this. The role of the regulator is to make an assessment about the impact and consequences (good and bad) of any particular merger or acquisition. They'll look at the immediate companies, the wider market and further down the food chain - which fro something like ARM is enormous and why this is taking so long.
It is not the role of Apple, Qualcomm and Intel to argue against the acquisition. Big ARM customers and competitors like Intel will feed in what they genuinely think about the acquisition. If they are apathetic their feedback will be neutral, if ARM users feel Nvidia may bring a bunch of positives, their feedback may be positive.
Just look at the publicly available documents for Microsoft's acquisition of Zenimax. Fanboys would expect this to be hugely controversial but it actually wasn't. Very few parties cared - Nintendo and Sony, certainly didn't object.
My post was written with the assumption said companies are against the deal, I know some Arm licensees are supporting it and they would obviously present their views in a positive manner.
As public companies it's their duty to argue against it, disingenuously if it benefits them, if the projected gain exceeds the costs. There are some diplomatic costs as well as the direct monetary ones, but still, it's their fiduciary duty to the shareholders.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Maybe I misunderstand you, but if you saying Apple, Intel and Qualcomm's have a duty to object to the merger even if the merger would be good for these companies then I disagree and this makes no sense at all.
Each company will do what is best for them. If they feel the Nvidia acquisition would be good, they'll be positive.
By continued investment in ARM designed cores. The better mediatek&co are the more margin pressure Apple faces.How does Apple get increased competition from Nvidia buying ARM? Apple don't sell to any market that Nvidia or ARM currently supply.
NVIDIA has a competetive advantage making tensor&cuda standards across multiple markets, they have greater commercial interest in ARM SOC investments than other potential buyers.
If you'd replace in the above "mediatek&co" with "Samsung & Qualcomm" I'd fully agree. Despite a few attempts MTK never managed so far to have any success with higher end SoCs. It's rather Samsung and QCOM that are designing and successfully selling high end mobile SoCs for Android, which Apple's devices compete against. Going one step further I can see QCOM by acquiring NUVIA to want to compete soon in the lower end notebook markets (where Samsung might have similar plans), which would be direct competitors to anything Mx Apple might be developing; while we can't exclude anything for the future I'd have to see MTK moving into those markets before I believe it.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I'm not seeing the competition, or why Apple should care? Currently, Apple buy the same fundamental microarchitecture available to everybody else, and tweak it. Under Nvidia Apple would continue to buy the same fundamental microarchitecture everybody else, and tweak it. It's no different. Apple aren't selling their CPU designs, nor the CPUs themselves.
If Nvidia buying ARM makes ARM better, Apple's products are better. They how a commoditised component market works.
Apple licenses the ARM ISA and possibly some IP, they and Qualcomm have their own microarchitecture teams, the core designs are pretty much useless to them. Samsung ditched their team, but their cooperation with AMD is a bit of a sunk cost so they aren't going to be entirely happy with NVIDIA becoming a defacto mobile standard.
Greater competetiveness of competing microarchitecture creates margin pressure for Apple by more competition on the mobile market. Their hold on customers is very strong but not absolute and there's always this small chance that an openly available competetive microarchitecture would let a third competitor on the integrated consumer electronics ecosystem market to arise. Better to cut it off at the knees by crippling a competing microarchitecture.
Greater competetiveness of competing microarchitecture creates margin pressure for Apple by more competition on the mobile market. Their hold on customers is very strong but not absolute and there's always this small chance that an openly available competetive microarchitecture would let a third competitor on the integrated consumer electronics ecosystem market to arise. Better to cut it off at the knees by crippling a competing microarchitecture.
Apple and any Apple cares because it obviously doesn't have any sort of monopoly in the smartphone market amongst others. If you hypothetically place a high end Samsung smartphone against a high end Apple smartphone, then it is a form of competition. The better the underlying hw for Android powered smartphones gets, the harder it will get for Apple to compete.
Assuming NVIDIA acquires ARM after all and heavily invests in the latter both for CPU as well as GPU IP, it doesn't sound like Apple will have it easy against that, even more so regarding anything that could go into a low end notebook windows device.
Assuming NVIDIA acquires ARM after all and heavily invests in the latter both for CPU as well as GPU IP, it doesn't sound like Apple will have it easy against that, even more so regarding anything that could go into a low end notebook windows device.
Similar threads
