3 ms·

That is good for Samsung/Qualcomm/Mediatek/Apple, but let's be honest, it is a failure as a business. Despite of being used on pretty much 100% of all smartphon

That is good for Samsung/Qualcomm/Mediatek/Apple, but let's be honest, it is a failure as a business. Despite of being used on pretty much 100% of all smartphones' SoC, they barely make any money. Also, their designs are lagging behind, M1 and probably Nuvia are example of that.

dijit 5y ago
I think their designs are meant to be lagging, M1 isn't "just better" it's a lot more about media encoding and packing more types of cores together, which while innovative is not what ARM should be doing. ARM makes prototype designs that you can extend, M1 is an absolute success of that model. Regardless: you say they've failed as a business, your metric is how much they earn from being nearly everywhere. I would pointedly disagree: they're everywhere, that's success, they're everywhere and profitable. There's absolutely no need to rent seek... this is unsustainable capitalist thinking. They're able to innovate and turn a profit with their "modest" income, why do you need them to do more than that? How do you know they would do better with more money? Intel (yes, apple to oranges) has many orders of magnitude more money, but most of it goes into bureaucracies. See also: Microsoft, Oracle
- zinekeller 5y ago
  In support of this accurate comment, I'll repeat this assertion: Not all people are wealth maniacs.
- arwineap 5y ago
  I agree with your comment Do you think that once they IPO pressure from their stockholders will cause rent seeking behavior? Even if they sold to nvidia frankly.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
A: "we grew to billions of dollars without ripping off our customers" B: "it is a failure as a business. If you employed underhand tactics you could be even bigger!" This is the phylosophy that gives us DRM on cars, 100 page lisence agreement with TVs, and fraud on wallstreet.
klelatti 5y ago
> but let's be honest, it is a failure as a business. Obviously not true, but I can see how some might think this if their main comparators are companies that get to $1trn valuations in 30 years. Not every company can or should be a FAANG.

dijit 5y ago

I think their designs are meant to be lagging, M1 isn't "just better" it's a lot more about media encoding and packing more types of cores together, which while innovative is not what ARM should be doing. ARM makes prototype designs that you can extend, M1 is an absolute success of that model. Regardless: you say they've failed as a business, your metric is how much they earn from being nearly everywhere. I would pointedly disagree: they're everywhere, that's success, they're everywhere and profitable. There's absolutely no need to rent seek... this is unsustainable capitalist thinking. They're able to innovate and turn a profit with their "modest" income, why do you need them to do more than that? How do you know they would do better with more money? Intel (yes, apple to oranges) has many orders of magnitude more money, but most of it goes into bureaucracies. See also: Microsoft, Oracle

zinekeller 5y ago
In support of this accurate comment, I'll repeat this assertion: Not all people are wealth maniacs.
arwineap 5y ago
I agree with your comment Do you think that once they IPO pressure from their stockholders will cause rent seeking behavior? Even if they sold to nvidia frankly.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

A: "we grew to billions of dollars without ripping off our customers" B: "it is a failure as a business. If you employed underhand tactics you could be even bigger!" This is the phylosophy that gives us DRM on cars, 100 page lisence agreement with TVs, and fraud on wallstreet.

klelatti 5y ago

> but let's be honest, it is a failure as a business. Obviously not true, but I can see how some might think this if their main comparators are companies that get to $1trn valuations in 30 years. Not every company can or should be a FAANG.