Slashdot Mirror
Apple To Buy ARM?
gyrogeerloose writes "An article in the London Evening Standard claims that Apple has made an $8 billion offer to acquire ARM Holdings. For those few Slashdotters who don't already know, ARM makes the processor chips that power Apple's iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch. However, ARM processors are also used by other manufacturers, including Palm and, perhaps most significantly, companies building Android phones. This explains why Apple might be willing to spend so much on the deal — almost 20% of its cash reserves. Being able to control who gets to use the processors (and, more importantly, who doesn't) would give Apple a huge advantage over its competitors."
A leg is about 20% of your body mass, so...
-mkb
In reaction to Apple's move to purchase ARM Google moves to acquire Chinese sweatshops.
Now this is scary. One small step for Apple towards their global technocratic dictatorship.
Well, it's a good job this just happened, then.
They are not having my shares. I have had them since Acorn put ARM Holdings public, and I have A LOT of these shares.
Maybe Google had the inside track on this one which is why they made their move on Agnilux?
For Apple to gain such a control over it is market would certainly be worth the expenditure of a fifth of it is resources. I look forward to seeing what it can do with it is acquisitions.
Hmmm... antitrust fun and hilarity will surely ensue.
ARM is one of the better generic processors for embedded and small systems. Apple purchasing them may (read: will) limit the usage of ARM or price them out of the market.
As much as I appreciate what Apple is doing with mobile computing, a move like this (assuming they change the current state of ARM) is going to affect the industry (even markets that do not directly compete with Apple) in a non-positive way.
I hope this doesn't happen, but if it does, I hope they leave the current ISA/availability/pricing scheme alone and just use ARM resources to improve their own products, but that is unlike Apple.
-Will P.
Cause of death: laughter.
That should be "its" competitors. And it's unlikely they'd flex their muscles much in the direction of stifling the companies that use the ARM design.
More likely: Apple wants to extend ARM in directions that the current ARM management is balking at.
There's nothing like a nice warm cup of unfounded speculation to start the day off right.
It's hard to believe that the regulatory bodies and the mobile industry is going to accept the apple takeover.
ARM Holdings is just the licensing part of the processor design. Many companies actually manufacture chips based on the ARM designs, (which is part of the reason they are so cheap)
Other than being able to steer the technology, I'm not sure what apple would be able to do? BTW submitter, there are many more ARM processors out there than just what are in Ipods and android phones. Think Embedded devices.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
http://angryflower.com/itsits.gif
IT'S = IT IS
I love this quote:
"A deal would make a lot of sense for Apple," said one trader. "That way, they could stop ARM's technology from ending up in everyone else's computers and gadgets."
And at the same time kill ARM's business! Hilarious.
Its. Come on. We all passed 2nd grade, didn't we?
(at the time of this posting, the last line in the summary was "would give Apple a huge advantage over it's competitors")
Apple wants to to make sure that all computing that consumers do is mindless and bland.
They want to send us back to the stone age where we run what they tell us to run.
Mail your competition related authorities and speak out against this action.
Buy it an antitrust lawsuit / give Intel a new market.
And it is for this very simple reason that it would be blocked on antitrust grounds. Even if the slightly more lax regulators in the US would permit it, you can bet the Europeans wouldn't (ARM Holdings is based in the UK).
These guys really have no shame.
Dear
Being able to control who gets to use the processors (and, more importantly, who doesn't) would give Apple a huge advantage over it's competitors.
I would imagine that various trade organizations would monitor that sort of thing very, very, very closely.
Slashdot recently posted about MS hiring ARM programmers. How would this impact MS and don't you think they heard some rumors about this?
Bill
Resulting in even less open access. yippee
..who thinks that is short-sighted from Apple ? Apple has, since its very beginnings, been about two things: computers, i.e. finished computers - and software. In the long run, buying Arm is a beginning of turning Apple into a conglomerate. And conglomerates are not only unwieldy and difficult to manage - they don't survive for very long.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Apple is far more controlling than Microsoft these days.
But we all let Apple get away with murder.
Apple is like the hot girl that gets pulled over for speeding. The cops let her go because she's pretty.
Ars has a couple of articles that may be of interest. Firstly concerning Google chrome
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/04/chromeos-kernel-source-code-hints-at-arm-tegra-2-hardware.ars
and later there was this
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/04/google-buys-secret-chip-startup.ars
...a arm and a leg!
Hit: http://jamals-massive.blogspot.com/
Last week there was a rumor that Qualcomm was going to buy ARM. Now there's speculation about Apple.
It's possible that Steve Jobs took the Qualcomm rumors seriously, and bid for ARM just to make sure that Qualcomm didn't end up buying the company.
http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/arm-holdings-apple-nokia-oem-semiconductors/3/8/2010/id/27176
And here I was just wondering if I could find an ARM-based mini-ITX board for a project. I didn't think I'd be seeing an Apple logo on it, though.
Constitutionally Correct
ARM don't make the chips, they license the basic core design to chip manufacturers, who customize it to their own needs, then sell the chips.
So there's no threat of Android, or anyone else, being denied supply, there's a wide variety of suppliers to choose from.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
> Being able to control who gets to use the processors (and, more importantly, who doesn't) would give Apple a huge advantage over it's competitors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_nano
http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/nano/
Makes sense that Apple would make a play for ARM. Not only does Apple secure a critical resource, it ensures Apple will control the resource in the market. However, at some point ARM will become an Apple institution at which point it is likely that problems with the technology will occur, but this will depend largely on how Apple handles the ARM division after the purchase. Can't wait to see how it plays out, as I am always hoping Apple will fail and they finally get pushed out of their niche market selling over priced, crippled, goods to unsavvy consumers.
What are you talking about? People raise hell over Apple's recent excesses.
If Apple acquired ARM and effectively limited the acquisition of critical processors by competitors, would that constitute a breach of antitrust law? I won't pretend to know the law, but I know why it's there, and if competitors are forced to use inferior processing purely because Apple has the fiscal power to acquire the technology then that sounds like there could be an issue. Or, what if they just price everyone out by charging so much that non-Apple devices based on the chips are too cost-prohibitive? Anyone with insight into antitrust law want to weigh in on this?
anti-trust?
Google should be frantically trying to buy as many shares of ARM as they possibly can, right now.
Why would they want to block anyone from using their stuff?
Licence it and they'd get significantly more income then outright banning.
Well let me ask you all something. How does this differ from Microsoft and the Bill Gates empire? Does not Bill Gates extort money from companies for his "licensing"? Has he not withheld technology from other companies via products he as bought out and then licensed to them? Who remembers the browser wars of the 80's and 90's. Does not Microsoft own licensing for just about everything running Windows and can they not pull licensing at any time thereby potentially destroying a companies product just because they don't like it? Frankly This move doesn't worry me too much. Yes the ARM processor technology is in everything mobile but how is that so different from the Intel giant and the licensing of the Pentium chip?
Anyone remember this /. headline: "Hardware: Job Ad Hints At Microsoft Move To ARM Servers" from earlier in the week?
I do not think I'm the only one who sees the irony here...
--Stak
Holy happy hippy crap!
We do? There have been tons of complaints on Apple's strategy in terms of the App Store, and now lately the programming language limitations in the SDK, as well as every time they try to silence a blogger. There have been lots of voices of moving to Android Market, and so on.
Well, unless you just read the Apple fansites of course. But that gives an as objective view on things as just reading a Linux fansite, or Windows fansite (yeah, they exist).
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
What makes this even more interesting is that Apple was one of the three original co-foundering companies behind ARM Holdings. So it would be like buying back their own investment.
If these rumors are true, Apple is probably looking to combine their PA Semi acquisition with the talent and technology at ARM to create some sort of super low power, high performance, RISC chip design team.
Don't hijack the one fucking processor that has a chance of possibly dethroning the wintel empire with its vast quantities of low energy and epic win.
Disagree != mod troll.
I should have resisted. I'm sorry.
Yeah!
Don't worry, Apple is going out of business any day now, right? You dumb clucks, go play with your new copy of Office; now, there's innovation.
Commodore did somewhat the same thing to a much more aggressive degree when they bought MOS technology. It was part of a cost cutting, vertical integration strategy that served them well. They went on to sell eleventy-billion Commodore 64's at bargain basement prices. They got their chips so cheap they used 6502's in the floppy drives and printers, to huge profit margins and the largest market share by quite a bit during their hay-day. The Commodore 64 came to market at ~$600 about the same time an Apple II cost ~$1200.
Well then i'm winning over people because I constantly run into people who say Apple should be allowed to do things Microsoft cant.
First of all, who do you mean by "we" exactly. I don't let Apple "get away" with anything because, well, how the heck could I stop them. I don't buy their stuff anymore, but that's not exactly going to bother them that much.
Second of all - Microsoft was a big bad bogeyman mostly because they had the corporate desktop market and the home personal computer market under their thumbs. That made for a lot of people who were worried about Microsoft's actions and eventually led to an anti-trust suit. Apple, OTOH, is generally a consumer electronics company at this point and their control affects people the same way that Sony's control over the Playstation or Nintendo's control over the Wii affects them. Sure there are some companies affected - mostly software development companies and media conglomerates - but there aren't the large financial institutions, military, industrial and other companies who were concerned about Microsoft's monopoly practices. As long as Apple sticks to the consumer electronics market and doesn't make their products mission critical to companies with more money, clout and leverage than they have, they'll be fine. Apple's big misstep could come if they start looking like they could become a monopoly over media distribution - if they overstep in that direction the media companies will come down on them like a ton of bricks because they won't want Apple to have so much control over their business. As long as they don't go that far, they'll be fine.
I fully expect Google to get smacked down long before Apple does. Google is becoming far too important to far too many parts of the economy, and there's going to be a lot of corporate pressure to keep Google in check over the next decade.
ARM has a completely different business model from Intel, AMD and other CPU/GPU manufacturers.
It takes licencing to the max. ARM makes few [no] CPUs anymore and production (and some development) is _licenced_ to others. Including Marvell who was once part of Intel! So they had to work out anti-trust.
The real point will be listening for screaming from the licencees. Otherwise, this looks pretty benign. In fact, the technology flow may be the opposite direction -- instead of Apple restricting ARM, AppleTech might flow to ARM. Licences are often written that way -- the licensor cannot withhold development arbitrarily.
http://www.simtec.co.uk/products/boards.html
What if I have 9 beelioons, then can I buy it instead? Do I hear 20, 25, 50?
The A4 chip powering Apple's iPad is Apple-engineereed. See this article.
Sounds like Google has already begun its defense: Google buys Chip startup
I dislike them as much as MS now, a few years ago I was neutral compared to them.
I know many geeks who love Apple (products) though. I don't understand why.
This would be like Microsoft buying Intel so they could control who gets to buy Pentium and Xeon processors.
The value in buying ARM wouldn't be in stopping competitors from using the technology, it would be in licensing the ARM technology to competitors. ARM is pretty much the standard for embedded computing. Apple would be stupid to forgo the longterm licensing potential by closing the technology off to competitors rather than raking in the licensing fees.
"That's a place we don't want to go - so we're not going to go there."
http://www.intomobile.com/2010/04/20/steve-jobs-if-you-want-porn-buy-android.html
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Why would Apple buy ARM and then kill off a great deal of its business? Doesn't make sense. Why would Apple buy ARM and get revenue from many competitors' successful sales as well? Ah hah! Apple wins if consumers buy iPhones, etc. And by owning ARM, Apple also wins when consumers buy Andriod, etc. MS and Palm can't get a piece of the Apple pie, but Apple can get a piece of theirs.
The Fine Article states "The City's gossips were pushing two tales: that Apple is considering a bid for ARM Holdings and that Vale could make an offer for Xstrata." (emphasis mine) not "An article in the London Evening Standard claims that Apple has made an $8 billion offer to acquire ARM Holdings." as the summery puts it.
Yeah yeah, I must be new here. Still, it is the first sentence of the article. As many have pointed out, given ARM's core strength is how just about anyone could license their IP and modify it to suit their needs, for Apple to buy the company as a whole makes very little sense. On the other hand, I can see Apple making a substantial investment (but not a controlling stake) in ARM, not unlike the investment in Imagination Technologies.
Just build another platform. In the smartphone-tablet-ebook, there are no standards or monopolies. Anyone can build a decent platform, adopt some OS and publish an API and it just works, no backward compatibility needed. People will buy it with just a few apps, you don't need compatibility with thousands of apps. It might actually start helping to break the Windows monopoly and create some more multiplatform interconnection standards, such as file formats, api's, protocols, etc.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
They want their commercial back.
Ugh. If Apple buys them, they will probably price gouge (if they share at all), and there goes all the ARM based netbooks and tablets in the works. Sounds like anti-trust.
Firstly, to clarify, ARM doesn't manufacture chips. It manufactures and licenses the IP for a family of CPUs with which other manufacturers make chips - most notably Samsung, which manufactures most of the CPUs that Apple uses.
To start with, if they started restricting who Arm could sell the IP to, they would destroy the market from which ARM makes most of its money, which would be like burning up the money they are spending. It would also, I think, put them into serious risk or anti-trust problems,
However, ARM is extending its processors by adding on features for, for example, video processing. I think Apple would very much like to steer the way this is developing, and then get early releases of it. Without keeping other people off it, they could have their drivers in place when the chip comes out, rather than waiting until Arm gets ready enough to announce it to all manufacturers.
However, I cannot see it bringing that much extra value to Apple, for a colossal investment. I think that, whatever it does, buying Arm would harm Arm's primary market: it independence is seen as an asset by those who buy its IP, precisely because there is no Big Brother distorting Arm's priorities. And this is another newspaper rumour. I would guess Apple have thought of the idea, but decided not to.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Ack. DId you just invent that phrase or are you misremembering it from a PowerPoint presentation you saw last month?
Either way you need to learn a bit more math.
No sig today...
First, Apple is nowhere near ARM's biggest customer. Of ARM's many customers TI, Samsung, or Intel probably are bigger customers than Apple. Second while ARM Holdings does some design work, they mostly license the core. Their licensees like Samsung do a lot more design work. Any prospective buyer of ARM will buy it for the IP not for their design work. Third, Apple bought a chip design company called PA Semi two years ago.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
As a strategic move I can understand why they would want to force their competitors to stop using their ARM processor, but with the atom not far behind, why would they worry, intel can set up deals for the android phones in case Apple says no to google buying their processors for the android phones.
Windows fansites exist? I can't find any beyond microsoft.com and msnbc.
This was the real reason Google bought Agnilux! </wild speculation>
Really, now! You didn't even jump on the chance to claim that Google was tipped off by the special data-mining results from the searches done from Apple IP addresses (that way, you're only missing a way to show how evil Microsoft is also and you could kill all three birds with one post!)
This whole idea starts to remind me of the part of Flight 714 where the villains are arguing who is more evil.
Reality check: I have no evidence whatsoever that Google was "evil" in this way (and personally think it more likely that they wouldn't do this). This is more a conceptual joke than anything else.
The iPad is NOT powered by an ARM processor.
...from a previous semiconductor acquisition.
As the engadget article in this slashdot summary says: http://slashdot.org/story/10/01/27/1849207/Apples-iPad-Out-In-the-Open
iPad powered by custom 1GHz Apple A4 chip!
i think that was the parent's point :
an Apple-owned ARM won't have direct contact with Android phone-makers. Instead, they'll licence the architecture to actual chip-makers like Texas-Instruments, who in turn will be selling the actual chips to hardware manufacturers.
there are intermediates between Apple and its concurrents. Thus it will be hard for Apple to cut concurrents' supplies short. Unless it's part of the licencing terms with TI, in which case Apple is in for big legal troubles.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
ARM is the most successful and widely used architecture, not just in mobile devices but in all kinds of embedded systems, especially the ones geeks know and love, such as Arduino, hackable appliances and embedded Linux platforms. Although there are zillions of ARM implementations, including open cores than you can burn onto FPGAs in the privacy of your own home, they are all, for commercial purposes, licensed from ARM.
Having a technology that is do deeply embedded in ubiquitous cheap and geek friendly hardware fall under the hand of a company like Apple is not going to bode well. Apple can already have all the ARM chips they want at any price they can negotiate from a FAB. The only reasons to buy ARM are for their revenue stream, or to control _who else_ can get ARM chips. I doubt Apple is interested in the revenue stream from ARM licensing. My bet is they're out to torpedo competing products that are dependent on ARM architecture.
What, squash your competition by preventing them from getting raw materials?
If I sell raw materials to my competition, and my competition outsells me 2:1 on finished product, I'm still winning...
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Was Google already aware of this? They bought a small processor company Tuesday. Would make sense if they wanted to make sure manufacturers of their phones didn't suddenly end up without access to processors.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
Huh? Slashdot in particular is very anti-Apple these days compared to the public at large. The public likes them because they make great products that are very useful. Some developers like them because they allow clear monetization of all sorts of previously murky business areas. Other developers hate them because they're controlling bastards and hate freedom.
But I'm not sure what Apple is doing that Microsoft isn't. Windows Phone 7 is almost exactly like iPhone OS 2.x from a couple years ago, and Microsoft seems perfectly willing to lock things down just as much whenever they can get away with it.
E pluribus unum
I think because they are attractive products... They run well, but you pay a high price for that... not only in dollars but in freedom.
It's all PC hardware. Windows 7 is pretty good but if Microsoft was allowed to get away with what Apple does... Windows would be far better. Of course we'd pay the price of freedom.
Perhaps theres a happy middle ground somewhere. But I think Microsoft should be allowed to play the same game as Apple, minus the controlling dictatorship.
We dont have any rights to have acess to ARM products. That is a private company that created a great company by theire own efforts. If they think it will be a good deal for them, it is theire problem. They will get the right compensation for their work.
As an ex ARC employee this would have been good news a few years ago. ARM are the dominant embedded CPU core vendor but that will only last as long as their IP is freely and cheaply licensed. If that changes expect Tensilica, TI, MIPS et al to start looking a lot more attractive.
As has been stated before, Apple has had a relationship with ARM holdings since it was founded (as Apple had equity in the company when it was founded out of the ashes of the Acorn computer company). Apple didn't abuse its position then. Of course, Apple wasn't so big and successful at the time, whereas now it dominates in mobile media players and holds a great deal of market share with the iPhone.
Here is an interesting thing though...history seems to be repeating itself, just with different players. In the 1970s MOS technologies created the 6500 series of microprocessors--the 6502 being the famous, very long lived design. They had a fab and produced their own designs but also ended up licensing the design out to others (the two biggest being Rockwell International and Western Design Center, the latter was founded by a former MOS employee who held a patent on part of the 6502 design that entitled him to a license). Just as the 6502 started taking off in the desktop calculator market Texas Instruments went and started making calculators too--using their own chips that suddenly became much more expensive for third parties.
Jack Tramiel at Commodore was facing possible extinction of his entire electronics line because of the TI-induced shakeout (Older folks, especially from Canada, might remember Commodore as a maker of typewriters and filing cabinets and calulators). Pretty much all calculator makers who used TI chips suddenly found it impossible to compete with TI and those who couldn't re-engineer their designs quickly or rely on other products quickly died (MITS probably wouldn't have been pushed to do the Altair if it hadn't been pushed out of the calculator market by TI). Jack didn't want to fall victim to a bullying chip maker and figured to compete Commodore had to make its own chips like TI, so Commodore bought MOS technology.
Here is an interesting fact: Commodore continued licensing to Rockwell and WDC, and continued to make and sell chips openly on the market, including to direct competitors in the personal computer market. Every single Apple I and Apple II and 8-bit Atari (from the 2600 game up to the 130XE computer) and 8-bit Acorn/BBC Micro was built around a chip design controlled ny Commodore (and maybe even manufactured in their fab). Though Commodore made for a very tough competitor, there is no evidence they overtly abused their position as a chip supplier to dominate the market and in fact Apple and Atari both outlived Commodore. So, it is possible that with Apple owning ARM this scenario could happen again.
So how will history repeat itself? Apple cannot ever revoke current licensees rights to use their current designs, but they could "pull a TI" (even against TI ironically) and either make it very expensive to continue licensing or could refuce to renew, meaning competitors/third-parties could not make NEW ARM-based chips. Alternatively, they could go the "Commodore way" and maintain ARM as a separate (though wholly owned) company that keeps operating as normal, and all our Android phones would be safe.
Of course, Jobs runs the show and being the techno-Nazi that he is might be tempted to go for world domination/industry control by cutting android hardware sales off at the knees. However he is still pretty smart and knows that would be a very bad idea. Consider:
* ARM designs are used EVERYWHERE. Industrial processors, embedded computer systems and so on where Apple doesn't compete--in fact the majority of ARMs revenue relies on non-mobile/wireless business. They'd lose more than they'd gain by shutting out those licensees.
* If they were overtly selective in suppliying chips or licensing their IP to others then they'd face the wrath of antitrust regulators that are much more aware and active in high-tech now.
* They could cut out Android or WinMo hardware makers but both those platforms can be ported quite easily to other hardware. In fact those platforms already run on non-ARM platofrms. Apple could run roughshod over HTC but it
ARM is currently the most popular mid-range microcontroller architecture, not the most powerful and not the most energy efficient.
If apple buys ARM and start to do evil stuff it will only mean that we will see more mobile devices with coldfire, avr32, renesans or some other architecture.
for de gods of geeks, man this can't happen! It's ARM! My god, they don't have respect anymore.
With Microsoft Bing servers running on Apple processors? (Note: Microsoft job ads recently run asked for ARM processor aware Admins). This will be interesting.
-- anti-trust? I knew you could.
Well they all have an interest in locking the user down. We must fight against that for our own interest as users.
Unfortunately that locking down, also has a positive side which is a "complete experience" or "Toaster effect"...
But we also know it locks out freedom of choice, progressive technology ideas etc.
I've been argueing with people on /. and other sites who defend Apple's practices while also saying Microsoft would be wrong to do what Apple does. Its a double standard that i've been hammering on when I can.
I usually run into defenders of Apple who say "Microsoft is a monopoly" and I challenge them on that because OSX and Windows runs on the very same hardware, however Apple strictly controls the hardware OSX can run on. Imagine if Microsoft suddenly did that :)
There are many other examples.. itunes, safari, searchlight, sneaky safari installs via itunes updates on windows... Imail, Ichat... Where windows cant even ship an email program with their os now in fear of being raped by the EU and US courts.
Anyways...
I just want to see the double standard erased and I'm for allowing Microsoft to be more Apple like... but with a more open freedom approach. If thats possible...
I think Apple benefits heavily from its strict closed dictatorship. Its what makes their products appealing to many from ui, to function...
Could be just the boost they need for that uC to give it a legitimate competitive edge over ARM.
" For those few Slashdotters who don't already know, ARM makes the processor chips that power Apple's iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch. "
ARM Holdings doesn't MAKE any processor chips. They develop the design and license it out to Motorola, TI, etc, etc, etc. Those OTHER companies make the chips. Shesh
You have to remember a large part of what has driven the power rush is competition between hardware vendors. A good example quite some time ago was IBM and Compaq. Intel rolled out their brand new toy, the 386, and IBM wasn't that thrilled. Reason was a loaded 386 desktop could compete with their low end mini computers, costing many times more. Not only performance wise but the 386 brought things like real hardware enforced memory protection. Well Compaq saw that as a golden opportunity and rolled out 386 systems as quick as they could. It cost IBM a good deal of credibility.
Now more recently of course there's the shooting match between Intel and AMD. Both companies are trying to produce the fastest, the coolest, the smallest, the most powerful and the whatever-else-you-like CPUs they can. Even though AMD is generally losing the battle, given that most OEMs are Intel, they force Intel to keep producing better stuff and charging a reasonable price at a high pace. Vendors will use AMD when the price is right, and enthusiasts do all the time. It keeps Intel on their toes.
If one computer company ruled the desktop, that wouldn't happen. There'd be no AMD. The only way for a company to get in to the market would be to come in with a product that could totally unseat the current supplier and that is almost impossible. We'd have only Intel (or more likely only Motorola) supplying all the desktop CPUs. Since they only had one company to supply to and no competition, there wouldn't be nearly the urgency to try and make their new stuff better.
I really believe this because of the massive pickup in CPU speeds I saw when the Athlon launched. Suddenly Intel had high end competition and they had to take the brakes off. The P3s jumped in clock speed and dropped in price. Even more recently Intel announced a 6 core CPU, but only an extreme version, which is $1000. Then suddenly AMD announces a 6 core CPU and Intel now has a lesser cost 6 core coming out soon. This is not a concidence.
However, that kind of competition can only happen when you have a multi-vendor market and in particular one with vendors that are ok with changing things and using different suppliers. When you have an Apple "Our limited choice of hardware is the ONLY way," that can't survive.
For the average consumer (or even small/medium business), Apple is a *choice*. There are many alternatives to the iPod or the iPad or iMac or iWhatever. I'm not saying that justifies some of their more dubious business practices, but if you don't like it, vote with your wallet and buy the alternative.
On the other hand, Microsoft's monopolistic position in the OS world forces most people to pay the "M$ Tax" whether they like it or not. Macs or Linux-based solutions just aren't viable (yet) in the majority of real-world situations for the average consumer or small business person and in reality, it's hard for the average Joe to even find a computer without Windows.
As a result of this, I think "we" hold Microsoft to a higher standard of "openness" (haha). They are allowed to maintain their dominant position so long as they present even a modicum of choice to the end-user for things like installing 3-party applications or for even which platform you choose to run the OS.
In short, Apple is the evil many people choose. Microsoft is the evil with which most people are stuck. So yeah... Most people will have a tendency to let Apple "get away" with things for which they would bash Microsoft.
If you do something where you give yourself a preferred rate, well that can lead to anti-trust complaints. The phone companies got in to trouble with that over DSL. They wanted to charge people like Covad outrageous amounts for rack space for their DSLAMs. That went to court and it was decided that the phone company had to charge Covad what they charged themselves.
So similar kind of deal here. If Apple controls the dominant mobile processor and they license it to themselves for much less than everyone else, they could get hit with anti-trust action over it.
Apple's lock-in with regards to things like their desktops is only fine because they are not dominant. When you aren't a monopoly, you can do pretty much whatever you like. So if they want to lock their platform down, fine, one can simply purchase a Dell. However if they did the same thing with the chip that is used in pretty much every embedded device, well that very well could be a monopoly situations. Remember you don't need 100% to be a monopoly. MS has never had 100% of the desktop market, as Apple (and Linux) demonstrate none the less they got hit for anti-trust. Also their case was somewhat unclear, as it was just a case of bundling features. It would be much mroe cut and dried if it were a case of charging more and/or refusing to license.
Apple is far more controlling than Microsoft these days.
But we all let Apple get away with murder.
Apple is like the hot girl that gets pulled over for speeding. The cops let her go because she's pretty.
I used to hate Microsoft, but then there was the iPhone.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Apple's market share is still substantially lower than Microsofts. They're sitting at about 6% of the personal computer market now...
Not that I disagree with you though. Apple's time will come. This crap is getting uglier by the moment.
It is not illegal to have a monopoly, it is illegal to abuse that monopoly. Whether Apple gets a monopoly or not in the handset market is not relevant until it looks like the position is being abused.
It seems like slashdot is getting fewer and fewer user posts and more and more M$ related astroturf.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
http://www.cellphonetrek.com/index.php/intel-challenges-arms-dominance-with-atom-based-android-phones
Steve Jobs is going to make Bill Gates look like Linus Torvalds....
"Remember when I said I would never lie? Well, that was the first time."
In any case, why the fuck would apple want to buy ARM?
Er, because Apple have got a metric shitload of cash in their current account, Wells Fargo are only paying them 0.5% APR and ARM looks like a bloody good investment?
Plus they'd get a better deal on the ARM licenses for their iProduct chipsets.
Perhaps Steve takes an occasional day off from plotting to take over the world (mwahahahaha!!!) to put his finances in order.
Not that I'm in favour of it (and it would certainly attract the attention of the competition authorities - and if it was announced on a slow news day here in the UK they could have problems: the yanks just bought our favorite chocolate factory, now they want to buy one of our biggest tech success stories...?)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
I doubt Apple would want to buy ARM and then kill the sales to ARM's other customers. If they're going to spend $8 billion just to piss it away by killing ARM's revenue they'd be better served by spending the money to subsidize iPhone sales by cutting the price.
Name me one company who has used a monopoly to lower their prices.
> ARM makes the processor chips...
ARM does NOT make chips, they make IP used to make chips.
In other words, ARM makes software; somebody else makes the chips.
Cool!
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The Slashdot article and TFA are both shameless rumor-mongering and wild speculation. What a waste of perfectly good bits.
No sig? Sigh...
"Apple has long been more evil than Microsoft, just less successful at it."
Um, Apple owns its share of the market. OWNS. No one does what Apple does, not do they do something else as well, or as profitably.
Microsoft is faced with competitors on every side. They are in a constant fight for preservation. And then there is their struggle with themselves, to maintain what quality they can in the face of such product diversity, demands of the market, and the other pressures including being an antitrust target every single day.
Apple is very, very successful. Microsoft also. But in different ways. If I had to buy stock in either, it would be in Apple. If I had to predict who will be around in 50 years, it is almost a toss-up to me. That is only because Apple is actually Steve Jobs. His successor will have to have the same depth of vision, same drive, same demands and standards.
And in that light, actually, Microsoft is a toss-up because so far it has transitioned from Gates as CEO. A big step.
But Apple is better at what it does than Microsoft is at what IT does.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
"So what are all these rumours? It seems likely to us that rumours of an Apple takeover of ARM, amid all the Ipad hype, might be a good way to jack up ARM Holdings' share price. A well placed rumour that is believed by some people is one of the best ways to do this. After the stock speculator has made a killing he dumps the shares and the price drops again. The best way to make that happen is to find a reporter who believes the rumour and writes about it." (the inquirer)
Or could this be a move to destabilize ARM? let's say *cough* Intel *cough* passes a rumor that Apple is going to buy ARM, this raises the stock price, a few investers make a killing, once the rumor is know to be false said stock prices drop massively then vultures come in and pick up the pieces.
anyhow, either someone is looking to cash in on his shares, destabilize the company through loss of investor confidence or ARM itself want to sell off and start a bidding war (... if any of it holds to be true, I'm pretty sure Google won't let this one slide by so easily)
then again, maybe its all Google doing a diversion to lower the prices of shares and swoop in to buy ARM (wouldn't that be nice and if any company as a current interest in buying ARM its them [rip Apple a new one and start controlling some hardware] !). ... and yes my tin foil hat is perfectly adjusted to my head
Not really, Apple is like a dominatrix who crushes your nuts with six inch stilettos and then you *pay* her for the privilege. But there is just something about the way she looks and feels that presses your buttons. Maybe its the aluminium heels and glass fronted bra. Or perhaps its because without her wig she looks just like Steve Jobs.
Or that other than gasoline, nobody had to buy anything from Standard Oil.
But you can still run any web application. So it's more like (to torture the analogy even more, which is OK since you were the one that murdered it) you could buy somewhat inferior gas elsewhere, but got better gas from Standard Oil. Or with a five minute tinkering with your car, you could buy even better gas at the Cydia station (jailbreak).
No, they can't, because the developer kit has conditions on what apps you are allowed to develop and install in the license, which you must explicitly agree to before you can download it.
FOR THE STORE. I can (and do) install applications on my own device using the SDK that would never be allowed in the store. Furthermore if you jailbreak, you can in fact distribute anything you like, and never sign any agreement about what you can or cannot do with the SDK.
And the chip manufacturers license the intellectual property from ARM holdings. If Apple owns ARM holdings and refuses to extend the IP contracts. And if Apple adds clauses to the contract saying they can only sell to Apple-approved customers...
I smell a lot of if coming off that plan.
You are hypothesizing what Apple might do, which none of us know. What we do know is that the very action you speak of would very likely be disallowed under anti-trust law, either in the U.S. or the EU. It could well be Apple would buy Arm just to have control over direction of chip development, but still continue to license the technology under similar terms to those used today.
I agree the actions you describe would be terrible indeed, I just don't think Apple would do that - again, for no other reason than it would legally be a bad move.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I highly doubt that this would happen. ARM is currently one of the most important tech player on the market. If apple is interested it is straightforward that many other wealthy companies would try to outbid apple. From what I can see, apple is using some nasty tactics and even microsoft looks like a good puppy right now in comparison. This acquisition would make the tech industry and its consumers suffer big time. For now I am completely discarding this rumour - especially when I look at ARMH's stock price - I sense manipulation.
But we all let Apple get away with murder. Apple is like the hot girl that gets pulled over for speeding. The cops let her go because she's pretty.
Wait, I'm confused. Is Apple getting away with murder or speeding?
Own ARM and you own Nokia and Motorola and Google and Sony and Sharp and Blackberry and HP and HTC and and and ...
8 billion, is a joke. It is a steal if they get them.
You don't kill sales to other customers. You just get the new chip, better products 18 months before the other guys, and charge the competition more.
The alternative is what? Intel?
Deleted
It's like Microsoft trying to buy Intel...
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Apple is far more controlling than Microsoft these days.
But we all let Apple get away with murder.
Apple is like the hot girl that gets pulled over for speeding. The cops let her go because she's pretty.
Apple is no more control on iPhone OS than Microsoft is with Xbox development. Apple is just as open with Mac OS X apps as Microsoft is with Windows apps.
The iPhone is designed and sold as an appliance, like a NetApp or a Juniper (or Cisco). If you want a general purpose computer buy one (Mac, Dell, whitebox, whatever). People don't expect to be able to run a LAMP stack on their Samsung LCDs (which have a Linux kernel), and they shouldn't expect the same thing for the iPad or iPhone. That is not their purpose.
By now ARM is worth a whole lot more than $8 billion and they are smarter than Apple may think. Even with the iPhone market share shrinking, ARM can just sit back and watch the Android and MeeGo markets grow and make their own billions in revenue. The only thing I can foresee is a smaller investment by Apple in ARM, trying to control the general direction of the company to their advantage. As if Intel developing MeeGo not just for Atom but for ARM CPUs was not ironic (yet advantageous) enough, that would mean Apple investing and making profits on the hardware that powers Android and MeeGo...
Apple is like the "hot girl" that gets pulled over for speeding near the beginning of T3, complete with a BDF (boob distortion field).
If this is allowed that will cause great harm to the mobile market unless Apple does the decent think and doesn't use their advantage to screw the competition but what are the odds of that?
Apple buying a chip manufacturer simply to stop supplying competitors is an idiotic concept. A) Apple would lose money immediately via decreased revenue B) Competitors would simply start using a different chip
The only reason why Apple might buy a chip manufacturer is to lower retail prices. And that's not going to happen because that is not the industry Apple is in. Apple makes consumer electronics and B2B parts supply doesn't fit into that business model.
The ridiculousness of the internet quarter backing has reach a new peak of WTF?
There is no way in hell the EU is ever going to let that happen. Tables are open, place your bets!
Okay, I sort of opened myself up on that one. However, I would argue that underpricing in order to destroy competitors is only a short-term scheme; the long-term goal is to raise prices once those competitors have been eliminated.
Why would they want to do that if we all know that Apple's iPad is based on a Dual-core Power chip?
Being able to control who gets to use the processors (and, more importantly, who doesn't) would give Apple a huge advantage over its competitors.
Wouldn't that be considered anti-competitive behaviour, punishable with a massive lawsuit and eight-digit fines ? I mean, I don't want to start any rumours, but I get the funny feeling Google's legal team could kick Apple in the teeth.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
First off, there is no way this will fly. Giving Apple sole control over a resource that entire industries that Apple competes within will not survive the SEC's sniff test, much less the DOJ's. Of course that's just MHO, and there is one thing that could turn the whole thing around.
A new series of viable ARM clones.
Don't be surprised if Apple's move indicates that those at the top of Apple are aware of development going on at a competitor to ARM and a possible pending announcement that will signal that the low-power, high-performance RISC chip market is about to heat up.
*** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
They Sell the IP for the Core to Chip makers. They do not make the chips. The Big chip companies do.
Sound more like Apple wants to make there own chip again.
Other than commercial iPhone Apps, you don't have to buy anything from their store.
That's like saying that other than mainframe software and spares, nobody had to buy anything from IBM. Or that other than gasoline, nobody had to buy anything from Standard Oil.
Standard Oil? Wow. I've marveled at the stretch of some of the Apple-MS comparisons before, but this takes things to a whole new level. Whatever else you're doing on this topic, you should stop, because you're not actually thinking about it.
When you buy Apple, yes, you're limited in your distribution channels for software. The thing is, there's no reason you have to buy Apple. As neat a product as the iPhone may be, they're so far from the only smartphone on the market that it's laughable to suggest they have any kind of monopoly. They have their platform, they control it tightly, I don't like that, you probably don't like that, but it's not the same as controlling an entire market. Nobody has to buy into Apple's ecosystem if they want a phone or even a smartphone.
Concerns about Apple buying ARM are probably well-founded enough, since they're a major player in the mobile device processor market, major enough that for the first time, it's possible that Slashdotters could make reasonable Apple-as-monopolist comments instead of facile ones. Probably not great for the industry in the short-to-mid term, but a fantastic bright new future for Apple-hate hobbyists!
Tweet, tweet.
There are three ways to license ARM IP:
Perpetual (Implementation) License
The perpetual license offers an ARM Partner the necessary rights to perpetually design and manufacture ARM technology-based products.
Term License
This license is suitable for a Partner who wishes to design a number of ARM technology-based products within a specified time-frame (usually three years). The manufacturing rights are perpetual.
Per Use License
The Per Use license is available on selected ARM IP and gives an ARM Partner the right to design a single ARM technology-based product within a specified time-frame (usually three years). The manufacturing rights are perpetual.
Notice that all three allow perpetual manufacture. Further, there are plenty of companies with the perpetual (implementation) license. So there is no way in the short or medium term an Apple takeover could seriously threaten current device-makers. In the long term, maybe the ARM available to people other than Apple would stagnate, but the long term is plenty of time to switch to, say, a new mobile device-optimized version of the current embedded PowerPC chips.
I did mean DVI-D not DVD-D of course. Or HDMI or any other high res output to a display.
Really, I've heard none of this on /. yet there's been at least one Apple praise story per day for the last three days. Every fanboy and their dog stood up to vocally bash Gizmodo despite this being an obvious marketing ploy and the Google bashing continues unabated (I'll grant that this one is countered by more level headed arguments). Go look at the "porn store comment" thread, every fanboy is viciously defending Apple's censorship policy.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
The A4 processor is an ARM chip. Please read this, the A4 uses technology license from ARM and uses the ARM instruction set. The Processor simply has a few proprietary Apple extensions.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
When everyone is talking about Apple and Google "fighting" for the smartphone market, what you're not realizing is that both Apple and Google are using vaseline to f*** Microsoft. The big loser is not Google nor Apple when either Apple or Google "attacks the other". The big loser is Microsoft because it isn't relevant anymore in these new markets...
I, for one, welcome all the Apple/Google "fights", because I know who already lost :)
There may indeed be a price at which Apple would be interested in having a controlling interest in ARM, but simply placing a bid is also be a good way to: Insure that the value of ARM goes high enough to eliminate a number of competitors from the bidding, B) Make sure that whoever does take over ends up paying more than they would otherwise, and C) Warm up the collective anti-trust spotlights so that they can be effectively focused on ANY company that assumes controlling interest in ARM.
Maybe it's the push Nintendo might need, to finally jump onto the "more powerful" handheld console market... The DS/DSi/DSLL are kind of "slow" and "old" in power terms... They only get "screen size" (not resolution) updates...
(Get 250 extra MB Dropbox space using this invitation http://bit.ly/agkF3r )