3 ms·

I think it is different. The reason ARM is doing well now, is because of massive economies of scale due to being the dominant architecture in phones. Same wit

I think it is different. The reason ARM is doing well now, is because of massive economies of scale due to being the dominant architecture in phones. Same with x86 Intel during that time. Because it was the dominant desktop architecture, Intel had a massive advantage in economies of scale and eventually gained such an advantage in fabs, that it made x86 chips the price/performance champs, despite any disadvantages of the actual architecture. In retrospect, it was a huge mistake for Intel to ignore the mobile sector with x86. Even if it did not have the margins, the mobile sector allowed ARM to gain the economy of scale that it needed to compete with Intel on the desktop/laptop and server

spicymaki 4y ago
As you mentioned ARM processors sell at lower margin than Intel processors. ARM as a company is not a highly profitable business itself. The company had always struggled as a public company (low valuation) and was finally privatized. The IP is great, but the actual business was not very good. Look at the BOM cost of a typical Android phone. https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-Samsung-Galaxy-Note-20-Ultra-5G-has-a-Bill-of-Materials-cost-of-US-548-90-or-42-of-the-US-1-299-99-price-tag.492874.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-Samsung-Galaxy-Note-20-Ult... The CPU (AP) is even cheaper than the storage, baseband, and display components. An Intel i5 sells at ~$200 at midrange while a high end ARM chip sells at $57. If Intel diverted fab production to ARM chips, they would have made less money per chip. This is why Intel sold it’s ARM business in the 2000s. Apple does not care if ARM components are profitable, because they are a vertical and the sum of components is worth more than the individual component costs. Intel is a component maker so they are sensitive to component margin. Intel attempted an x86 based mobile phone processor in the 2010s, but ultimately failed due to selling the chips at a loss. Making components for the mobile market is cut throat and the margins are too low. Semiconductors business is extremely tough.

spicymaki 4y ago

As you mentioned ARM processors sell at lower margin than Intel processors. ARM as a company is not a highly profitable business itself. The company had always struggled as a public company (low valuation) and was finally privatized. The IP is great, but the actual business was not very good. Look at the BOM cost of a typical Android phone. https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-Samsung-Galaxy-Note-20-Ultra-5G-has-a-Bill-of-Materials-cost-of-US-548-90-or-42-of-the-US-1-299-99-price-tag.492874.0.html https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-Samsung-Galaxy-Note-20-Ult... The CPU (AP) is even cheaper than the storage, baseband, and display components. An Intel i5 sells at ~$200 at midrange while a high end ARM chip sells at $57. If Intel diverted fab production to ARM chips, they would have made less money per chip. This is why Intel sold it’s ARM business in the 2000s. Apple does not care if ARM components are profitable, because they are a vertical and the sum of components is worth more than the individual component costs. Intel is a component maker so they are sensitive to component margin. Intel attempted an x86 based mobile phone processor in the 2010s, but ultimately failed due to selling the chips at a loss. Making components for the mobile market is cut throat and the margins are too low. Semiconductors business is extremely tough.