Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SoftBank To Buy British Chip Designer ARM For $32 Billion (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the big-money dept.

SoftBank has agreed to acquire British chip designer ARM Holdings for $32 billion in cash. The purchase will give Japan's multinational telecommunications and Internet corporation a slice of virtually every mobile computing gadget on the planet and future connected devices in the home. ARM, unlike Intel, doesn't manufacture chips, but licenses the design for it. ARM customers shipped roughly 15 billion products with ARM chips inside in 2015. This also marks the first large-scale, cross-border transaction in Britain since it voted to exit the European Union last month. "I have admired this company for over ten years," SoftBank Chief Executive Officer Masayoshi Son told reporters at a press conference in London on Monday. "This is an endorsement into the view of the future of the U.K."

ARM assumes the tentpole position in chips for mobile devices. It was one of the first companies to aggressively focus on mobile devices while other semiconductor companies were ramping up their efforts on desktops. SoftBank, which is based in Tokyo has become one of the most acquisitive companies in the recent years. It heavily invests in technology, media, and telecommunications companies. ARM could provide an additional boost to SoftBank's mobile strategy. SoftBank, for instance, also owns about 83 percent of the American wireless operator Sprint.
Hermann Hauser, one of ARM's founders, said, "ARM is the proudest achievement of my life. The proposed sale to SoftBank is a sad day for me and for technology in Britain." BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones asked, "Question -- if ARM goes, what's left as a worldbeating UK-owned tech player?"

108 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Company I've never heard of buys most important processor company in the world. Wow.

    First, btw.

    1. Re:Who? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 4, Funny

      So long Acorn and thanks for all the chips

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    2. Re:Who? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Informative

      ARM Holdings doesnt make processors, they license designs - other people make the processors and improve the designs.

    3. Re:Who? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      I get the impression that it's kind of like the Verizon of Japan, except maybe with an even larger market share. I believe they own Sprint in the U.S., too.

      In terms of size and coverage, definitely. I haven't heard anything negative about them the way Verizon has a reputation for in the U.S., at least.

      And yes, Softbank bought Sprint several years ago.

    4. Re:Who? by RogueyWon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Could be worse, they could have been bought out by a Chinese chicken-supplier.

      Softbank may not be well known to the Western public, but it is at least an institution with a genuine track-record and a long-standing interest in the tech sector. Some of these Chinese acquisitions recently feel like attempts to manipulate China's tax or criminal codes and I worry for the future of the companies which have been acquired.

    5. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which doesn't make them any less the most important processor company in the world.

    6. Re:Who? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      Could be worse, they could have been bought out by a Chinese chicken-supplier.

      Fun Fact: WiPro, the famous Indian software outsourcer, gets its name from its origins: The West India Produce Company.

    7. Re: Who? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      They are a large player on the Internet for a long time. They have a huge stake in Yahoo Japan for example. Unlike the American "let's re invent wheel every 6 months and fail everything" one, Japanese Yahoo is a very successful business.

    8. Re:Who? by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      SoftBank are the owners of Sprint and Supercell (developers of Clash of Clans, an absurdly successful mobile game), among other things. They're a very big Japanese corporation with tentacles in various areas, primarily telecommunications.

    9. Re:Who? by DarthVain · · Score: 2

      I was thinking about the same thing. Also with the valuation of 32 Billion, not chump change for any type of company. Apparently they own 83% of sprint (and who knows what else), so who knows what companies own what now a days...

      Though a quick wikipedia shows they are basically a cell phone provider in Japan who brought Apple there, so go figure they have lots of cash. With revenue of almost a trillion US dollars (9.15 Trillion Yen)...

      Kinda make you wonder why Apple didn't do this first really.

    10. Re:Who? by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      Kinda make you wonder why Apple didn't do this first really.

      $32 Billion is a lot, even for a company the size of Apple.

    11. Re:Who? by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      9.15 trillion yen is only 86.3 billion USD

      --
      -SaNo
    12. Re:Who? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Company I've never heard of...

      Says more about you than Softbank.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    13. Re:Who? by fnj · · Score: 1

      $32 Billion is a lot, even for a company the size of Apple.

      Apple dwarfs SoftBank. In the Forbes Global 2000 list, SoftBank is #69, with total assets of $179 billion, a market value of $67 billion, and an annual profit of $4.3 billion. ARM holdings will cost SoftBank 7.4 years of profits.

      Apple is #8, with total assets of $293 billion, a market value of $586 billion, and an annual profit of $54 billion. I don't see any other company on that list coming anywhere near Apple's annual profits. #1, ICBC, is only $44 billion. Acquiring ARM Holdings would only cost Apple 0.6 years of profits.

      It would have made a lot of sense for Apple to make the acquisition. By far the greatest part of Apple's profits come from products built around ARM chips: iPhones and iPads, plus, of lesser value, iPods, Apple Watches, and Apple TVs. Macs don't even come close. Apple makes its own ARM chips and is phasing out those bought from Samsung. What would make more sense than eliminating licensing fees for those chips?

    14. Re: Who? by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Apple is to ARM as AMD is to Intel: they license the instruction set rather than the chip designs. Apple then designs their own chips from scratch that implement the ARM instruction set.

    15. Re:Who? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Owning ARM would do nothing for Apple. The licensing deals ARM has with other companies would go bye-bye so ARM would lose its revenue stream. Apple would be left designing its chips as it currently does, just not needing a license. The license itself is pocket change for Apple, so very little savings there.

    16. Re:Who? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Kinda make you wonder why Apple didn't do this first really.

      Because if Apple bought ARM, then everyone else would start looking very closely at other CPU vendors. A lot of the value of ARM comes from their size: they're not big enough to be a threat to any of their partners, but they're big enough that they can act as independent mediators between their partners. The ARM ecosystem is valuable because a lot of people contribute to it but no one really controls it (ARM Holdings controls the ISA).

      If Apple bought them, then they'd suddenly stop being independent. At that point, MIPS (owned by another UK company) would suddenly look very attractive to companies like Qualcomm, Broadcom, Samsung, and so on.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:Who? by slew · · Score: 3, Informative

      I get the impression that it's kind of like the Verizon of Japan, except maybe with an even larger market share. I believe they own Sprint in the U.S., too.

      Like Yahoo, Softbank appears to be valued most by it's Alibaba holdings. The market value of the shares of it's top 5 holdings is worth $22B more than the market value of the company. Interesting, they recently purchased Sprint for about $22B... But unlike Yahoo, Softbank's own telecom business is actually profitable...

      Apparently, they recently sold off some of their Alibaba holdings (~5% of 32% for +$9B) and all of SuperCell (70% +$8B) to help finance this ARM acquisition, but most observers believe it will almost certainly require taking on more debt given the amount of cash on hand...

      As a result, the shares of Sprint have been impacted as it looks like they won't get all the cash infusion they need to turn around their business...

    18. Re:Who? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Other than the architecture license that Apple which already paid ARM, Apple gets little benefit from buying ARM other than maybe directing development; however, Apple is smart enough to know that what they need out of ARM chips is not what everyone needs. That's why they bought an architecture license. So instead of a few hundred million dollars, Apple would have to spend $30+ B and not see any real benefit.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    19. Re:Who? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Apple makes its own ARM chips and is phasing out those bought from Samsung.

      Technically, Samsung and TSMC make the chips that Apple designs. As of the A4 Apple hasn't bought any Samsung-designed chips for about 5 years now. As for licensing fees, I think they range in the hundreds of millions per year maybe for Apple. ARM cost Softbank $32B so the recoup cost would take about 300 years. It's not economically a good deal.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    20. Re:Who? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      A lot of the value of ARM comes from their size: they're not big enough to be a threat to any of their partners, but they're big enough that they can act as independent mediators between their partners. The ARM ecosystem is valuable because a lot of people contribute to it but no one really controls it (ARM Holdings controls the ISA).

      I would have to disagree. ARM's value is not their size as ARM does not actually manufacture any chips themselves. Their licensing and flexibility allows their customers wide latitude and array of designs that can be adapted for different purposes from smart phones to embedded devices like routers. Their customers could use Atom instead of ARM but Atom has less flexibility.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    21. Re:Who? by epine · · Score: 1

      Says more about you than Softbank.

      ChemChina to buy Syngenta in $43 billion deal, from February 2016.

      Haven't heard of ChemChina?

      Says more about you than ChemChina.

      Haven't heard of Syngenta?

      Says more about you than Syngenta.

      Bet you have heard of Monsanto, which tried to buy Syngenta twice in 2015.

      Says more about your paranoid, eco-aunt than it says about you.

    22. Re:Who? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      WiPro, the famous Indian software outsourcer, gets its name from its origins: The West India Produce Company.

      So its non-tech origins are a bit like Southern Pacific Rail Internet Network (Sprint) then?

    23. Re:Who? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      I think your spell-checker got you. It was Southern Pacific Rail Internal Network Telecommunications. I'm fairly sure that they were running as a long-distance carrier before the Internet became a big thing, and even today they're known as a phone service, not as an Internet service (they left that part to Clear, mostly).

      WiPro still has its before-tech name, though. Sprint started out as the Brown Telephone company, and telephony is still a core business for them.

    24. Re:Who? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Damn autocorrect. Yeah, obviously it was Internal, not Internet, before Android decided to fix it.

  2. Result of brexit? by NotInHere · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Did they use the cheap pound to shop a british company?

    1. Re:Result of brexit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, TFA says that because most of ARM's revenue is in US$, its stock went up after the vote and it got more expensive for Softbank.

    2. Re:Result of brexit? by JDeane · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Maybe, but more importantly in my opinion what they plan to do with this, if they handle it correctly it's a great investment ARM CPU's are in a LOT of devices and if they can keep innovating they will be in many more and upgrades. If they just sit on it trying to collect money, Intel will eventually figure out how to make it's portable CPU's even better and eventually take the market. (Not that Intel's SoC's are bad now)

      Either way the next few years should prove interesting and we can use hindsight to see what they had in mind.

    3. Re:Result of brexit? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the negotiation and due dilligence for 32 billion dollar deals happen in a few weeks. +4 Insightful what kind of crap is that?!?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Result of brexit? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Did they use the cheap pound to shop a british company?

      Just days ago May made a stirring speech where she said No. 10 should be anle to step in if foreigners tried to buy companies important to British communities and workers. Now, apparently, No. 10 approved the sale to demonstrate conclusively that: "...the UK can make a success of leaving the EU". If making a success of Brexit means selling the UK high tech sector off to Asia in bits and pieces we are all going to have to re-examine our definition of 'success'.

    5. Re:Result of brexit? by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      Well, you're getting some hate but this article from the BBC seems to agree with you.

      http://www.bbc.com/news/busine...

      "That allure has been boosted by the fall in the value of the pound since Brexit - making UK targets cheaper and many industry watchers are predicting a new wave of foreign takeovers."

    6. Re:Result of brexit? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Expect more of this now though. When the Tories talk about "investment in the UK", they mean sale of assets and companies overseas.

      ARM is probably the last major tech company we have... I can't really think of any British ones left.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Result of brexit? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh, no.

      The stock went up because of what Softbank offered, not the other way around.

      Actually, uh, yes, the stock went up exactly for the reason AC said, as well as for the reason you said. From the article:

      In fact, [SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son] said because ARM’s sales are mostly to customers in the U.S. and Asia, and are largely dollar-denominated, its stock has risen about 15 percent since the EU referendum vote. That means the deal actually became more expensive for SoftBank because of Brexit, not cheaper, he said.

      ARM's valuation went up 15% after Brexit according to the article (just as AC said), and went up an additional 43% after news of the acquisition broke (just as you said), taking them to the price reported in the summary. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    8. Re:Result of brexit? by JDeane · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that article, the plans to double the workforce is a good thing in my opinion. That should enable them to get fresh designs out faster.

    9. Re:Result of brexit? by johnhennessy · · Score: 1

      ARM and Intel do not compete directly. At least not financially.

      Intel's competitors (for example, in the mobile or embedded businesses) are the likes of Qualcomm, Broadcom, ST and NXP.

      Intel sells discrete CPUs, while everyone else licenses a CPU core from ARM, adds in their own stuff, and then sells that. As long as someone needs to add some extra stuff in there, ARM is still the industry's preference.

      Things may get interesting with the recent acquisition of Altera (by Intel), but there is still a big gap between the more "generic" processors that Intel makes and the application specific chips that ARM licensees are using.

      --
      [ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
    10. Re:Result of brexit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe they think the ARM licenses are too cheap.

    11. Re:Result of brexit? by Kohath · · Score: 2

      Intel has been trying this for many years. They never succeed because Intel is trying to make chips so Intel can sell chips for phones and tablets. Intel is Intel-focused. If they focused on making chips to solve problems for customers, they might be more successful.

      Microsoft has the same problem. Windows 8 and Xbox One were very obviously Microsoft-focused products -- customers didn't want tiles or Kinect or HDMI input.

      Memo to Intel and Microsoft: don't make stuff you want to sell, make stuff people want to buy.

    12. Re:Result of brexit? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      ARM and Intel do not compete directly. At least not financially.

      In what way do they not compete financially? Each part sold by an ARM licensee is royalty income for ARM and a lost sales prospect for Intel. And ARM clearly competes directly with Intel in engineering.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    13. Re:Result of brexit? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Each part sold by an ARM licensee is royalty income for ARM and a lost sales prospect for Intel

      Except for the 99% of ARM sales that are in markets where Intel doesn't sell a competing product. And, on the flip side, a lot of Intel chips contain ARM cores, so when Intel sells a chip ARM gets some money.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:Result of brexit? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Each part sold by an ARM licensee is royalty income for ARM and a lost sales prospect for Intel

      Except for the 99% of ARM sales that are in markets where Intel doesn't sell a competing product.

      Intel doesn't sell a competitive product, you mean. Intel certainly tried to break into the mobile market with Atom but was largely defeated by ARM. Looks like competing from where I sit.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    15. Re:Result of brexit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Arm wins in the mobile space not because of technology but because of business model.

      With ARM you can get ready made off the shelf chips or semi-customized chips base off off the shelf models. You can lisence processor blocks from ARM and other 3rd party vendors and have your own custom chip fabricated or you can license the low level tech and make your own entirely from scratch - You can then fabricate it yourself or have one or multiple third parties fabricate it.(Like apple does) - You can get arm chips however you like, for as cheap or as expensive as you like. - Do it yourself or pick from dozens of vendors.

      With Intel? Well, Intel makes a crazy powerful chip that sips power.. But you only get the small handful of models Intel makes, and you can only get them from Intel. (And thus you are at Intel's mercy)

      Turns out that for the mobile market ARM's business model works better.

    16. Re:Result of brexit? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ARM and Intel do not compete directly.

      Intel very much has been trying to get into the phone market, where it does compete with ARM directly. If ARM slips up, then Intel will overtake them.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re:Result of brexit? by allquixotic · · Score: 1

      Redgate.

    18. Re:Result of brexit? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Intel certainly tried to break into the mobile market with Atom but was largely defeated by ARM. Looks like competing from where I sit.

      ARM sells chips now does it? Wow, that's news.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    19. Re:Result of brexit? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      If they just sit on it trying to collect money, Intel will eventually figure out how to make it's portable CPU's even better and eventually take the market. (Not that Intel's SoC's are bad now)

      Intel has tried to take the market from ARM. Their problem is their offerings are much less varied than ARM. Intel's low power SoCs were primarily designed for computers and not smartphones and embedded devices. As such they may require an order of magnitude more power. For a netbook using 2W instead of 0.2 W isn't as big difference as it matters for portables electronic devices.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    20. Re:Result of brexit? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      They have been trying, sure, but aren't they not in the same league at all regarding CPU power/watt?

    21. Re:Result of brexit? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      customers didn't want tiles or Kinect or HDMI input.

      I don't have an Xbox, but I thought the HDMI input was clever -- allows passthrough rather than switching inputs on the TV/receiver.

    22. Re:Result of brexit? by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      Is there a competitor to ARM that can cope with them?

    23. Re:Result of brexit? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Softbank invests a lot in cell network tech. Sensor networks are a big growth area now and efforts are being made to add things like a low power, low speed mode to 4G. I imagine they are planning to combine that with low power ARM CPUs.

      At the moment many cellular modems run Java on custom SoCs, many of them running Intel cores. They are not very efficient really. There is a big opportunity here and ARM have good tech.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:Result of brexit? by TheSync · · Score: 2

      ARM is probably the last major tech company we have... I can't really think of any British ones left.

      BAE Systems has 107,000 employees, and Rolls-Royce Holdings has 55,500 employees. Not fully tech but highly tech oriented.

      Sky employs 22,800 folks, and keep in mind it is not just a satellite TV platform but also an ISP and OTT provider.

    25. Re:Result of brexit? by davros74 · · Score: 1

      Except that with modern TVs you would almost always want different display settings and profiles for watching movie content vs game content. Having it combined into a single input to the TV makes it impossible to tweak the TV for best picture modes for both. Most TVs have the best picture quality with more complicated calibration settings and PQ algorithms, all of which add enough video lag to be detrimental to playing a video game.

      I would have found the second HDMI port to be much more useful as a second output, actually.

    26. Re:Result of brexit? by erapert · · Score: 1

      If making a success of Brexit means selling the UK high tech sector off to Asia in bits and pieces we are all going to have to re-examine our definition of 'success'.

      It's not up to the whole UK whether or not to sell ARM to Asia so there's no need to re-examine the definition of "success". But if you would prefer that corporations not sell themselves to foreign companies then I suggest that the UK reduce taxes on those corporations and focus their educational system on STEM-- both of which are strategies that the UK is now free to pursue thanks to its independence from the EU.

    27. Re:Result of brexit? by breeze95 · · Score: 1

      Intel has been trying this for many years. They never succeed because Intel is trying to make chips so Intel can sell chips for phones and tablets. Intel is Intel-focused. If they focused on making chips to solve problems for customers, they might be more successful.

      Microsoft has the same problem. Windows 8 and Xbox One were very obviously Microsoft-focused products -- customers didn't want tiles or Kinect or HDMI input.

      Memo to Intel and Microsoft: don't make stuff you want to sell, make stuff people want to buy.

      No, the problem Intel has in the mobile computing market is that they are trying to develop chips for the mobile market that are based on their X86 design. Square pegs in a round hole as it is. Intel is x86 centric not "Intel is Intel-focused" as you stated.

    28. Re:Result of brexit? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Making x86 chips for mobile instead of what customers want is exactly Intel being Intel-focused rather than customer-focused.

    29. Re:Result of brexit? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Both strategies are 100% available to the UK within the EU... which it still is, until invoking article 50 and concluding its subsequent talks.

    30. Re:Result of brexit? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Not yet. Give it time.

    31. Re:Result of brexit? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Intel doesn't sell SoCs that anyone else puts accelerators on. They tried, but no one wanted to join in. Intel doesn't sell anything comparable to an M or R-profile ARM core, which is well over half of all ARM cores sold. Actually, that's not true - they sell a load of M-profile ARM cores, but only inside other products.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    32. Re:Result of brexit? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      In your wildest imagining, do you honestly think that Intel does not view ARM Holdings as a competitor?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    33. Re:Result of brexit? by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      If making a success of Brexit means selling the UK high tech sector off to Asia in bits and pieces we are all going to have to re-examine our definition of 'success'.

      It's not up to the whole UK whether or not to sell ARM to Asia so there's no need to re-examine the definition of "success". But if you would prefer that corporations not sell themselves to foreign companies then I suggest that the UK reduce taxes on those corporations and focus their educational system on STEM-- both of which are strategies that the UK is now free to pursue thanks to its independence from the EU.

      UK companies can 'sell themselves' to any foreign corporation they want. I just find it amusing how May and the Conservative party went from being willing to veto the sale of companies important to British communities and workers to telling us that the way to a succesful Brexit is to flog the UK high tech industry (i.e. Companies important to British communities and workers) off to the highest bidder.

    34. Re:Result of brexit? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      In my working closely with ARM, I honestly think that ARM Holdings does not view Intel as a competitor in most of their markets (though they were very happy when Intel's CEO announced that they were a serious competitor, as it made people start to take them seriously in the server space).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    35. Re:Result of brexit? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Intel already made one back in 2008 while ARM's competing products ran at fractions of a 1W. The problem was their current product line is increasing in power not decreasing (max 20W). Again, ARM chips offer much wider flexibility of TDP and computing power. They run about an order of a magnitude lower in TDP than Intel. As chip people known for decades, x86 and x86-64 are not as power efficient as ARM which is RISC based.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    36. Re:Result of brexit? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      In my working closely with ARM, I honestly think that ARM Holdings does not view Intel as a competitor in most of their markets...

      If that is true then they are naive, and it is a good thing for all of us that they will now be managed by an organization with more business sense.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  3. what about Intel and M$ by known_coward_69 · · Score: 2

    any chance of $100 CPU's and 20GB OS images making it in the IoT world?

    1. Re:what about Intel and M$ by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Informative

      Microsoft already has Windows 10 IoT Edition, which runs on the Raspberry Pi 2 & 3, and other small systems.

    2. Re:what about Intel and M$ by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Maybe in refrigerators.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    3. Re:what about Intel and M$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep. But people doesn't run Windows because it is a great OS, people run Windows to be able to run x86 programs.
      An operating system is just something that should help you run the programs you like without getting in the way.
      Unfortunately Microsoft have another vision that involves the OS to get in the way.

    4. Re:what about Intel and M$ by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      Yes, and you can get it here...

      https://developer.microsoft.co...

      Although why you would want to is another question :)
      *ducks*

    5. Re:what about Intel and M$ by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      " people run Windows to be able to run x86 programs" Not on a Raspberry Pi they don't

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    6. Re:what about Intel and M$ by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      $100 CPU? Try closer to $40 in quantities of one. Intel has released IoT dedicated devices at a different price point that more closely reflects their market.

  4. Re:Hugh by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    Japanese are buying the world. Welcome our new overlords

    They're just trying to keep up with the Chinese.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  5. This is not an endorsement! by aglider · · Score: 1

    This is a purchase!
    And it means the United Kingdom has lost another piece!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re: This is not an endorsement! by aglider · · Score: 1

      http://www.cringely.com/2016/0... Cyingely about it!

      --
      Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  6. Re:Hugh by Kohath · · Score: 1

    The AIs took it. They're going to kill us all the day automation takes away 90% of the jobs.

  7. Who wants to buy Acorn RISC Machines? by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2

    It's a little bit RISCy...

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    1. Re:Who wants to buy Acorn RISC Machines? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      MOV PC,R14

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  8. Re:Hugh by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    Does this mean we have to go back to learning Prolog?

  9. Who owned ARM before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who owned ARM before?

    1. Re:Who owned ARM before? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2

      Acorn computers.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  10. Re: r.i.p. mobile... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Actually ARM is just starting to grow to its real potential as super computer type designs are coming out. In a field where the only showstopper is heat and energy usage...

    I am sure some new crazy inventions are on their way on mobile too. You know only Atom is out, Intel didn't say anything about Pentium M for example. They just admitted they can't do cheap stuff.

  11. Brainless politicians by Wowsers · · Score: 2

    As I type, the new British Prime Minister has applauded the deal of ARM being bought by foreigners. She doesn't have a maths degree, so it must be really difficult for her to understand all profits now will no longer boost UK GDP, but instead boost Japan's GDP. In UK, the man who setup ARM, some of the press / political commentators and economists attacking the deal, but the politicians know best. At least the bosses of ARM get very rich from the deal.

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:Brainless politicians by gtall · · Score: 2

      How do you figure? All of ARM shareholders were Brits? Most are big institutional investors. Britain will see squat from this except a shallow husk of a company in a few years time when Softbank screws the pooch.

    2. Re:Brainless politicians by Blue+Stone · · Score: 2

      The Tories are more than happy to sell out everything in the UK to foreign businesses and countries. They're little more than 'lucrative business opportunity arrangers'. (To be fair this applied the the Blairite neoliberals as well).

      They portray themselves to the general public as the most patriotic, but they're really only loyal to the rich and the corporations that have the cash to give them nice consultancy fees and board memberships. Even our public services are owned and exploited by foreign corportions as well as the nationalised industries of other countries who take the profits abroad to subsidise their own country's services.

      These jokers allowed Cadbury's to be sold off to Kraft (well, their parent company) with "promises" of jobs remaining once the sale went through. Nothing written down; sale went through; it was 'merely an aspiration to keep the uk factory open'.

      They don't give a shit. Someone will scratch their back later on. They're happy for the UK to be little more than a client state for foreign businesses.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    3. Re:Brainless politicians by TheSync · · Score: 2

      She doesn't have a maths degree, so it must be really difficult for her to understand all profits now will no longer boost UK GDP, but instead boost Japan's GDP

      I don't think you have an economics degree.

      If a multinational produces income in the UK, it is counted in UK GDP statistics regardless of country of ownership. If profits from that production is exported back to another country, those profits are subtracted from GNP, not GDP.

      I don't know where ARM licenses are billed to, but they have operations all over the world, and "Management periodically evaluates individual positions taken in tax returns with respect to situations in which applicable tax regulation is subject to interpretation and establishes provisions where appropriate on the basis of amounts expected to be paid to the tax authorities" (i.e. they shop for the jurisdiction with the lowest corporate tax rate to recognize income where they can get away with it).

      Moreover, "The benefit of UK research and development is recognized under the UK's Research and Development Expenditure Credit (RDEC) scheme" and "In 2013, a decision to elect into the UK patent box regime was made. The UK patent box regime seeks to tax all profits attributable to patented technology at a reduced rate of 10%." (source).

  12. Re:Globalism strikes again by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2

    What major companies are left in the UK?

    Some of them include Ineos, Greenergy, John Lewis Partnership, Stemcor, Swire, Palmer and Harvey, McLaren Technology Group, Laing O'Rourke, Brakes Group, JCB, Arcadia Group, Virgin Atlantic, Premium Technologies, Firstsource, European Metal Recycling, Iceland Ltd, Bestway Group, Arnold Clark Automobiles, Shop Direct Group, TI Automotive, Acromas Holdings, SSP, Thames Water, Dixons Carphone, MRH, Wilkinson, Pentland Group, Specsavers, New Look, Anglian Water, Clarks, 2 Sisters Food Group, Iglo, United Biscuits, Bibby Line, AMC, 20:20 Mobile, Enterprise, Findus, Matalan, Gala Coral Group, Balli Holdings, Mott MacDonald, Linpac, Unipart, Willmott Dixon, River Island, Wates, Marshall Group, Vita, Healthcare at Home, Arup, William Grant, Kelda Group, Westcoast, KCA Deutag, Merlin Entertainments, Mace, AF Blakemore & Son, Just Retirement, Partnership, Dyson, Moto, Biffa, Watson Petroleum, Arqiva, Northgate Information Solutions, Bourne Leisure, Martin McColl, Virgin Trains, Sir Robert McAlpine, Greenhous Group, Monarch Holdings, UK Fuels, Doncasters, Samworth Brothers, Formula One, Odeon & UCI, TJ Morris, John Laing, B&M Retail, Bowmer & Kirkland, Dunbia, Telereal Trillium, OCS Group, Northern & Shell Media Group, Travelex, House of Fraser, Keepmoat, Spire Healthcare, Bloor Holdings, Monsoon, Southern Water, Listers, Poundland, DFS, Welcome Break, Asco, Harrods Group, JCT600 and Hannover Acceptances.

    Why do you ask?

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  13. Re: Hugh by chill · · Score: 1

    You mean like this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/social-security

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  14. Strange Move by johnhennessy · · Score: 1

    This makes no sense for SoftBank.

    They are paying a lot of money ($32 billion) for gross income of around $1.2billion, and profits of about 1/2 of that. Based on that, it will take 30-40 years for the investment to pay SoftBank off, based on ARMs revenue alone.

    Something doesn't add up. On one hand, they're saying that they don't plan to change their business model, or even how their R&D is done in the next years, but on the other hand - they will need to come up with something really amazing if they want to recover this investment.

    You can buy a lot of other things for $32 billion that would be a far safer bet.

    --
    [ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
    1. Re:Strange Move by JDeane · · Score: 1

      They do plan on doubling the workforce so they have something in mind for sure.

    2. Re:Strange Move by gtall · · Score: 2

      They are hoping to hit another homerun like they did with Ali Baba in China. Softbank figures they will own the IoT world. I expect what will happen is they will get greedy, hike licensing fees, treat the intellectual capital as labor that can be done anywhere and destroy their investment. Their noise about doubling the British workforce is just that, noise. They make that noise to get idiot Brit lawmakers thinking they should not throw up roadblocks to selling out one of Britain's best tech companies. I am not optimistic this will end well for ARM.

    3. Re:Strange Move by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Based on that, it will take 30-40 years for the investment to pay

      Read up on something called time value of money. They are foregoing all the income they could have earned by investing the $32B somewhere else. Based on that, the investment will never pay off unless they can somehow make it a lot more profitable..

  15. Softbank by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Company I've never heard of buys most important processor company in the world. Wow.

    Softbank is one of the 100 largest companies in the world. You not knowing them speaks more to your ignorance of Japan than anything else. They've been a big player in the tech world for decades.

    And Intel might disagree about who is the most important processor company in the world though ARM certainly has an argument for the title. ARM is king of the hill in mobile devices but changes are you typed your posting on a device with an Intel microprocessor. Which is more important? Guess that depends on your point of view.

    1. Re:Softbank by Aereus · · Score: 1

      Speaking to cell companies in Japan though, it was my understanding they were 2nd or maybe even only 3rd in subscriber base behind NTT Docomo and au. Although that was several years ago, so maybe things have changed.

      An interesting thing to note is, most people living abroad in Japan get a phone through Softbank, because the rules through the other providers are a lot more strict. Also heard some say that was because Softbank was started by a "foreigner" as well, but dunno for sure.

  16. Re: Globalism strikes again by GregoryOakley-steven · · Score: 1

    Poundland is getting purchased by steinhoff group, thats south african i belive.

  17. Meanwhile in ARM's Cambridge HQ by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Softbank CEO walk in and asks "So where are your factories?"

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Meanwhile in ARM's Cambridge HQ by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Why not try an all meat diet? Smarter people than you do: http://www.jbc.org/content/87/...

      That's an old study, and the evidence from the China study directly contradicts it....

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Meanwhile in ARM's Cambridge HQ by Junta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The sad things is that businesses by and large *hate* any hardware portion of a business. So they're perfectly happy to have a pure IP company that licenses out to companies that in turn are generally *also* fabless. The more they 'saddle' some other sap with the capital intensive business of building and moving real physical goods, the happier they are.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:Meanwhile in ARM's Cambridge HQ by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Why not try an all meat diet? Smarter people than you do: http://www.jbc.org/content/87/...

      That's an old study, and the evidence from the China study directly contradicts it....

      The conclusions drawn from the China Study data were in fact contradicted by the data. E.G. The highest univariate association was between wheat and cancer. But the author ignored that. The author chained together confounded univariate associations in a statistically incorrect way. Try looking here for an analysis by someone who actually understands statistics.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    4. Re:Meanwhile in ARM's Cambridge HQ by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The highest univariate association was between wheat and cancer. But the author ignored that.

      ok, I'll look at it again.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Meanwhile in ARM's Cambridge HQ by Junta · · Score: 1

      I'm fully aware of the value, but investors gravitate toward the do-nothing companies that sell licenses to people who do real stuff.

      Hell, I've even seen a sentiment of 'oh, that's just a hardware company, all the hard work was done by their software partner' in discussions among customers.

      Capital expense is considered horrible, everything must be leased/rented. Don't own your buildings, lease them. Don't own servers, rent cloud capacity. Don't make processors, design them.

      All the hard work in actually bringing these things to reality is considered by the market to be boring, and attention gravitates toward the 'idea' companies.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  18. Re: Globalism strikes again by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    Why did (s)he ask again?

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  19. Apple used to own part of ARM by Kenshin · · Score: 1

    It's funny. Apple had a hand in ARM's founding. They were collaborating on RISC chips with Acorn, and that was spun-off into ARM. Apple owned a decent chunk of it for a while, but I don't know when they sold that share off.

    --

    Does it make you happy you're so strange?

  20. What's left by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 2

    ...if ARM goes, what's left as a worldbeating UK-owned tech player?

    At least you've got TopGear.
    Um, nevermind.

  21. Re: r.i.p. mobile... by sl3xd · · Score: 1

    It'd be nice to see ARM being able to play in the HPC field.

    The battlefield is littered with the bodies of those that have tried before... I know I worked with Calxeda when they were trying to crack into supercomputers with their 40-core systems.

    At the end of the day, the flops/watt was considerably better with Intel's Xeon (and much better with Xeon Phi). But that was 2012...

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  22. Re:Globalism strikes again by Teun · · Score: 1

    And what is their cumulative value vs. ARM or better, Softbank?
    Who own the car factories in the UK?

    Now I try to remember who won WW2...

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  23. Re:Globalism strikes again by jrumney · · Score: 1

    MIPS is also UK owned.

  24. Re:Globalism strikes again by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    And what is their cumulative value vs. ARM

    The companies I mentioned are considered major companies, something which ARM holdings was never originally considered. Ineos alone does 19,570 million pounds of sales a year. ARM holdings are fairly insignificant in comparison, which are about 967 million pounds of sales a year.

    Who own the car factories in the UK?

    Don't quote me on this, but I think all the car factories here are mostly owned by General Motors. Land rover and Jaguar however are UK owned I believe.

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  25. Re:Globalism strikes again by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    MIPS is also UK owned.

    MIPS, much like ARM holdings aren't considered a major company in the UK. They aren't really earning enough in millions to be considered as such.

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  26. Re:Globalism strikes again by q4Fry · · Score: 1

    I may have to eat my unverified assertion, but I thought that a Chinese firm bought Land Rover.

  27. Re:Globalism strikes again by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    To my knowledge, Land Rover is owned by Jaguar. But honestly, don't quote me on that.

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.