6 ms·
I wonder why they don't just do a direct listing and sell it to retail investors.
by thekyle 6y ago
I wonder why they don't just do a direct listing and sell it to retail investors.
- throwaway4good 6y agoThat is a good question; I assume the answer is that they cannot get a 40B valuation if they IPO.
- martinald 6y agoI mean it was valued pretty close to that on the public markets before SoftBank bought it, and tech shares in general have appreciated massively since then, so I think they could get a decent price at IPO.
- throwaway4good 6y agoThat is my intuition too; ARM is a wellknown name and semiconductors is a hot sector at the moment, in particular with a shift away from X86 for personal computing. However they probably cannot sell all the shares at an IPO and get the full 40B in cash which maybe is what SoftBank wants at present.
- Wronnay 6y agoI think they would easily get a 40B valuation on an IPO. People know that ARM is used in all smartphones and after Apples M1 and the growing usage in Servers many believe that ARM is the future. Also - with an IPO, customers of ARM like Apple could easily buy shares of ARM... Probably the reason why Apple didn't bought ARM is because they know they wouldn't get through the competition authorities. But with an IPO, Apple and other customers could buy something like 9 percent of ARM...
- amelius 6y agoThey could also simply hire the ARM employees for a lot less than $40B over the near future.
- kelnos 6y agoThat doesn't really help them all that much, at least not for the reasons why owning ARM could be useful: the IP.
- amelius 6y agoMy understanding was that Apple already reimplemented large parts of the IP and that they are now mostly a licensee of the ISA.
- vinay_ys 6y agoApple's ISA can become more and more divergent from Arm and it wouldn't matter. Apple controls the entire software stack that runs on their hardware.
- amelius 6y agoI think Apple is bound by contract to respect the original ISA (except perhaps the parts they use internally and don't expose external developers to). Forcing external parties to use a translator instead of machine language directly could be one approach to circumvent this.
- thewindowmovie5 6y agoAlso, is not the whole value in using Arm ISA, the ecosystem behind it? If Apple starts diverging from the standard, then it cannot benefit from the existing ecosystem and neither can a software dev say develop on Mac and deploy to graviton. I think it is big lose lose if Apple diverges from standard.
- floatboth 6y agoApple never used any 64-bit cores from Arm. Their own Cyclone was developed in parallel with Arm's Cortex-A57.
- gigatexal 6y agoM1 is arm instructions apple design.
- runawaybottle 6y agoYou must have not seen the trajectory equities are on now days. 40b would be an absolute joke to achieve by end of year.
- andy_ppp 6y agoBecause it’s worth more to nvidia would be my guess?
- Ericson2314 6y agoA good indication of an anti-trust violation, if there ever was one!
- macleginn 6y agoBy this logic, every acquisition involving a premium is a an anti-trust violation.
- Ericson2314 6y agoI mean every consolidation is bad for competition in the first order. There are just sometimes higher order ameliorating effects.
- thethimble 6y agoEvery consolidation isn’t necessarily fundamentally bad. Sometimes consolidations result in cost reduction synergies that partially get passed back to consumers. Elimination of inefficiency is good for everyone including the consumer. Of course there’s downsides of consolidation but I think there are upsides too. An example that comes to mind is Tesla’s acquisition of SolarCity. Another is Amazon’s acquisition of Twitch or Google’s acquisition of YouTube (it seems prohibitive to run video streaming services sustainably/profitably without the infrastructure efficiencies of Amazon/Google).
- satellite2 6y agoI think that's exactly what the author meant > consolidation > cost reduction > synergies > passed back to the consumer => second order fucking up your competitors => first order That's generally why you have to guess at the long term effect of any merger. "Will the consumer benefit only in the short term and the diminution of competition will end up hurting them in the long term?" is the question regulators should answer.