Slashdot Mirror
ARM: The Non-Evil Monopolist
yootje writes "ZDNet is running an article about ARM, a chip-maker who controls more than 80% of the cell phone market and 40% of the digital camera market. ARM shipped 780,000,000 processors last year. ZDNet finds it strange that no one seems to have anything against this company. And maybe it is strange: according to the article many would say ARM is a monopolist, but you never hear anyone say 'ARM sucks!'. But then again, why would they?"
Maybe it is cause ARM does not really shove itself down people's throats. Their business practices help set them apart. In addition, they embrace open source/standards and it's ideals. An example: ...the OpenMAX(TM) working group to define a royalty-free, cross-platform API (application programming interface) that standardizes access to multimedia processing primitives used extensively in video codecs such as MPEG-4, audio and image codecs, and 2D and 3D graphics. The OpenMAX API will enable library and codec implementers to rapidly and effectively make use of the full potential of new silicon - regardless of the underlying hardware architecture.
Lets see free, cross platform, standardized and hardware independent. That meets all my requirements of a good idea(tm). Also their support for embedded Linux probably does not hurt them either.
Push harder towards Open Media/Content
What ZDNet is implying is this: "People don't like Microsoft because it's a monopoly. But they don't dislike ARM, which is also a monopoly. That's inconsistent and illogical."
Firstly, it's highly questionable whether ARM can be called a monopoly in the sense that MSFT is, because ARM has only about 80% of its market, vs over 90% in the case of MSFT. ARM's competitors have more than twice as much market share as MSFT's competitors.
But, much more to the point, ARM has not engaged in illegal practices to bankrupt its competitors. Remember, for example, Microsoft's piracy of Stacker's technology. Remember how they broke Netscape, by reducing the price of their own browser to zero by cross-subsidizing its development. Today, MSFT is trying to strangle Linux by concluding agreements with PC vendors which prohibit sales of dual-boot systems. These agreements, forced on PC vendors by MSFT's enormous market power, are almost certainly illegal, but taking MSFT to court would cost many millions of dollars and the case would last for years. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
MSFT's attitude is, it's OK to break the law if you can get away with it or if the benefit exceeds the costs. That's why Microsoft is widely (and correctly) perceived as evil, not because it has a large market share.
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
It might also be the fact that it's not a name you hear all the time...if at all (this is the first I've heard of them. Like a lot of M$ hate exists because there are millions of people using products that advertise that they are made by M$ and couple that with a mostly undereducated userbase and you're bound to run into problems.
So yeah, I think it's because when people see a computer crash they also see Microsoft (even if it's a dodgy realtek driver that actually crashed), result: Microsoft cops shit.
If you get a dodgy phone with an ARM chip you're going to see Nokia/Erricson/etc result: Nokia/Erricson/ect cops shit.
Likewise Olympus/Kodak/Canon etc will be blamed for poor cameras, again ARM gets away even if it's there problem.
The strong arm tactics employed by
MS, SCO, etc., reflect an implicit lack of faith that their products can compete fairly in an open market. If these companies really believed that their products and services were superior they wouldn't need to force people to use them.
What does this say about the RIAA & MPAA?
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.