ARM: The Non-Evil Monopolist 452
yootje writes "ZDNet is running an article about ARM, a chip-maker who controls more than 80% of the cell phone market and 40% of the digital camera market. ARM shipped 780,000,000 processors last year. ZDNet finds it strange that no one seems to have anything against this company. And maybe it is strange: according to the article many would say ARM is a monopolist, but you never hear anyone say 'ARM sucks!'. But then again, why would they?"
Shipped? (Score:5, Informative)
Not just a monopoly. (Score:5, Informative)
Using your monopoly position in illegal anticompetitive ways however, is.
I thought ARM (Score:5, Informative)
The article only talks about CPUs shipped, but not that ARM ships them.
AFAIK ARM cores are use by many chipmaker from Intel to TI, but arm don't sell CPUs.
Yes, but (Score:5, Informative)
Becuase they are unkown, mostly. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shipped? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yes, but (Score:5, Informative)
ARM has produced solid products for years and years. They're widely accepted in the "industry" as powerful processors for application-specific tasks that consume low amounts of power, on a relatively small budget.
What's more, they're a kind of standard. If you're hiring a microcontroller programmer, or an embedded programmer, I'd say there's a pretty good chance that they at least have some exposure to working with ARM hardware, as opposed to something more obscure.
All this combined decreases the cost of development for the companies, and results in more products coming to market.
Re:I thought ARM (Score:5, Informative)
It's well known that ARM is a Connected Community is a global network of companies aligned to provide a complete solution, from design to manufacture, for products based on the ARM architecture.
Look here: http://www.arm.com/community/
Intel, Hitachi would gave their right arms ... (Score:2, Informative)
because... (Score:2, Informative)
Intel is Arm's strongest compeditor in low-power embedded chips with its Xscale chips. Unfortunately, Intel has applied the Pentium 4's famous Netburst architecture to the poor Xscale, resulting in marvelous clock speeds of over 700mhz, but with much added heat and power consumption. You can probably imagine what this does to battery life. The last thing the world needs is Prescott in a PDA.
ARM on the other hand has been following a high computation per clock cycle approach, like AMD (or Pentium M) which makes sense for their applications because it results in lower heat and power consumption. A 1ghz PDA might sound impressive, but if battery life is half an hour, I won't be buying one.
Re:because... (Score:2, Informative)
So Intel isn't competing against ARM with the XScale as they pay ARM to use the design.
Rather than making it suck, Intel have produced a higher clock rate version of the architecture for use in applications that need more oomph.
See: Intel PXA255 Processor with Intel XScale Technology [intel.com]
Customer is always right (Score:5, Informative)
They ship exactly what the customer wants. In cell-phone markets it's common to "roll your own" processor. You basically order the ARM core and then tell them exactly what instructions you want to be in the chip. They will deliver that.
Re:Why nobody complains (Score:5, Informative)
ARM were floated off as a seperate entity by Acorn (a very wise move which enabled ARM to grow where Acorn failed) with investment by Acorn, VLSI and Apple (they used the ARM in their Newton). Being a member of Acorn's enthusiast group I was offered dirt cheap shares and only wish I'd had the money to buy some as they rapidly increased in value. Part of this increase came about as ARM partnered with Digital to work on the StrongARM, before becoming rather closer to Digital, and then in turn Intel (as part of some agreement following the two large companies throwing law-suits at each other over unrealted matters). Intel's involvment with ARM enabled them to produce the XScale and no-doubt helped increase penetration in the wider mobile market.
It's amazing to see a company that I knew from a young age grow into such a pervasive entity. I still have a couple of old Acorn machines, the most powerful of which has one of the first StrongARM chips availible in it, it wasn't until a decade later that I got my next StrongARM, in the form of a much smaller Zaurus. There's also ARM's lurking in games-consoles (GBA, Dreamcast), routers, PDA's, portable music players, mobile phones, infact just about every type of small device. A Lot of people use products with ARM tech in them without even realising it.
Re:Their Customers (Score:3, Informative)
Nowadays mostly Hitachi, and in elder days, MIPS.
Theres some overlap to Transmeta also in the market for handheld devices if I go by Transmeta's story, but I never encountered them as such in the marketplace.
Re:Because it was part invented by a lady (Score:5, Informative)
And before I get modded a troll for this, it's a well-known fact in the Acorn community. Acorn being the company that helped start ARM and produced a range of desktop machines using said chips. He/she also was involved with the design of the BBC microcomputer.
Bit if background (Score:5, Informative)
This is all from memory, however. Here's a more accurate history [atterer.net].
Re:because... (Score:3, Informative)
As you can see here [intel.com] and here [arm.com], Xscale is based on ARM designs, thus making Intel an ARM customer, not a competitor.
Re:Their Customers (Score:4, Informative)
MIPS [mips.com], for one, although their list of products using MIPS-architecture processors [mips.com] doesn't say anything about mobile phones other than a satellite phone.
Not a monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
Economically, ARM is engaged what is called "monopolistic competition". They have a product which is interchangeable with that of competitiors, but is differentiated from the alternative offerings. Same as Nike shoes, BMW cars, Apple computers.
Re:sometimes, monopolies are good (Score:5, Informative)
Except applying the word to "deregulation" to CA's power is about as incorrect of a use of a word as is humanly possible.
Only in California does "deregulation" mean "forced sell-offs, forced price setting, prohibition of long-term supplier contracts, and more external price controls". Only in California can you "deregulate" something and actually come out the other end with more regulation.
Never, ever should the word "deregulation" be used to refer to what happened in California. There are precious few more gross misuses of a term than that.
These people may have something against ARM (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe the reason people like ARM is that at the moment, most of their competition is from big companies and not open source. If projects like OpenCores catch on and FPGAs become cheaper then maybe open source can perform as well in that region as it does in software. Then I think people would not be happy with ARM taking down compatible products, just as people would not be happy if Microsoft went after WINE.
Instruction set (Score:3, Informative)
Comparing to it, x86 architecture evolves for 30 years like a deseased mutant infected with cancer. Backward compatibility on instruction set is a total nonsense from engineering point of you. You do not feed hay or put a saddle on your today's car either.
Re:Shipped? (Score:1, Informative)
So Intel are both a customer (they pay a royalty to ARM) and a competitor (I'm sure they would indeed love to take market share from ARM's own designs). In fact there are several companies in this peculiar position, which is why ARM have to be so good at politics...
Re:Shipped? (Score:2, Informative)
One possible reason... (Score:3, Informative)
If you remember ARM got its start by producing a mobile chip that was similar to the PowerPC and fast enough for Apple's Newton line.
It was very ironic that Palm decided to use Apple's desktop chip (the 68030) - which devloped into the Dragonball processor. And to me, this is one reason that only recent Palm offerings even come close to the Newton.
ARM holdings MAY not have been in any hot seat because of Apple.
While I don't think Apple owns any more shares in the company, at one point, they owned a majority stake. Sales of ARM stock ended up being a saviour to Apple's bottom line. This is one of the MAIN reasons Apple discontinued the Newton (or Jobs chose to axe the Newton) Myths place it on revenge against Sculley and on product consolidation. When, in fact, Jobs saw it as opportunity to fudge a bottom line and to gain research and development dollar for the iMac line.
THIS - is one reason I think ARM isn't considered a monpolist - after all - Apple owns 100% of the Apple market and they aren't considered a monoplist - ARM is still benefiting from this relationship.
Re:Why nobody complains (Score:3, Informative)
The Dreamcast uses a Super H 4 as its primary processor, as it needs the SH4's ability to manipulate floating-point vectors natively at reasonable speed.
There may be an ARM core tucked in there for other purposes (sound?), but SH4 is the heart of the machine.
Re:Shipped? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I kind of like ARM (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Because it was part invented by a lady (Score:4, Informative)
Sophie Wilson, formerly Roger Wilson, is a British computer scientist. In 1978 she designed the Acorn Microcomputer, which was the first of a long line of computers sold by Acorn, Ltd. In 1981 she developed BBC BASIC for the BBC Microcomputer, a microcomputer that enabled Acorn to win a contract with the British Broadcasting Corporation. In 1983 she developed one of the first RISC processors, the Acorn RISC Machine (ARM).
More on Sophie at her homepage [sophie.org.uk]
ARM sucks! (Score:2, Informative)
Second, ARM sucks because their compilers suck. Their compilers suck because the old ones generate buggy code and the new ones aren't backward-compatible with the old ones, so that their customers are stuck with old versions that aren't maintained any more. Worse, their compilers suck enough that some chip vendors decided to write their own compilers, which suck at least as much. Getting code that compiles and runs correctly on all ARM compilers is a challenge. And we're talking about C90 code here, not even C++ of C99. Even the newest compilers are very poor at optimizing code.
Third, ARM isn't the only company designing ARM CPUs. Digital did one, and now Intel does. Those chip families (StrongARM and XScale) were/are faster than anything that ARM designed themselves.
If you want a non-ARM cell-phone (as someone asked), look for a Siemens phone. Except for the latest S65, they pretty much all use a non-ARM CPU. The S55 is actually a good phone.
Re:Why nobody complains (Score:3, Informative)
-John
Re:I kind of like ARM (Score:1, Informative)
Two Types of Monopolies (Score:2, Informative)
Intel/ARM relationship [was "Re:Shipped?"] (Score:2, Informative)
Here's how we described the relationship in the PricewaterhouseCoopers publication Technology Forecast: 2002-2004 [pwcglobal.com]:
Re:Instruction set (Score:3, Informative)