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?"
ARM--- (Score:3, Insightful)
I kind of like ARM (Score:4, Insightful)
They just make a product that's good for its intended purpose and let the marketplace decide.
If only more companies would follow that lead, this would be a better world.
LK
they do it differently (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets see free, cross platform, standardized and hardware independent. That meets all my requirements of a good idea(tm). Also their support for embedded Linux probably does not hurt them either.
A good reason to learn ARM assembly (Score:2, Insightful)
Why nobody complains (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, we at
sometimes, monopolies are good (Score:5, Insightful)
it's simplistic to think monopoly=bad automatically
but it's also bad to not recognize where monopolies are a necessary evil due to the high cost and other barriers to competition (do you really want to wire all of california a number of times redundantly for electricity?)
where you recognize a monopoly as inescapable, you must regulate them, bind them with legislation, and watch them like a hawk... and then they are "good"
btw, here's another monopoly that just made the news, and no, they are neither good nor necessary:
us govt and de beers in an agreement to allow them to reenter the us market after a 50 year hiatus for monopolistic practices [bloomberg.com]
When did success become (Score:3, Insightful)
I see this kind of ting far too often on slashdot, a post about some great achievement followed by a snarky comment from an editor about its inefficiency or some other nit, to be followed up by hundreds of posts proclaiming how they would have done it better. I say applaud those innovating and succeeding, don't discourage them.
PS, I have 8 gmail invites to give away (I can't get rid of them fast enough lol), so if you want one please post your obfuscated email addresses below (logged in members only, preference given to subscribers).
Why do you pay attention to ZDNet? (Score:5, Insightful)
What ZDNet is implying is this: "People don't like Microsoft because it's a monopoly. But they don't dislike ARM, which is also a monopoly. That's inconsistent and illogical."
Firstly, it's highly questionable whether ARM can be called a monopoly in the sense that MSFT is, because ARM has only about 80% of its market, vs over 90% in the case of MSFT. ARM's competitors have more than twice as much market share as MSFT's competitors.
But, much more to the point, ARM has not engaged in illegal practices to bankrupt its competitors. Remember, for example, Microsoft's piracy of Stacker's technology. Remember how they broke Netscape, by reducing the price of their own browser to zero by cross-subsidizing its development. Today, MSFT is trying to strangle Linux by concluding agreements with PC vendors which prohibit sales of dual-boot systems. These agreements, forced on PC vendors by MSFT's enormous market power, are almost certainly illegal, but taking MSFT to court would cost many millions of dollars and the case would last for years. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
MSFT's attitude is, it's OK to break the law if you can get away with it or if the benefit exceeds the costs. That's why Microsoft is widely (and correctly) perceived as evil, not because it has a large market share.
Re:A good reason to learn ARM assembly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A good reason to learn ARM assembly (Score:2, Insightful)
All the DSP and layer 1 stuff took place on ASICS, obviously. That's reflected in other places where I've worked too - assembly just isn't required for 99% of tasks nowadays.
FP.
maybe this... (Score:5, Insightful)
not strange ... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not strange at all: consumers and end users know little nor care little about the embedded processor, and frankly, the choice of embedded processor has little if any impact on the end user.
There are many other monopolies in various parts of society that people don't get worked up about.
No choice (Score:2, Insightful)
If you could actually build a DIY phone as most builds their computer THEN we probably would complain about the monopoly.
Not to the consumer (Score:3, Insightful)
And what do you think would happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Sysco is just the chosen example, there are plenty of others. How about General Electric? They aren't the singular monopoly you are used to, but rather the verticle type, controlling a whole line of products. The make your light bulbs, your appliances, they sell you your insurance, make your medical equipment, your jet engines, you weapon systems, etc. They are a larger company than even Microsoft, the largest in the world last I checked.
Thing is, you really do care about what you hear about. Now if you have a special intrest in something that most peopel don't and thus hear about something that affects it, maybe you care about something most people don't but really, you limit your scope of care to that which you hear about and matters to you.
Don't pretend like there aren't other monopolies out there, and that they can't do things to fuck people over. If you haven't researched it and/or don't care, that's fine, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.
Also notice I never mentioned Microsoft. I am simply pointing out a general trend. I like using the Sysco example because most people haven't heard of them, and because most people dismiss them with a wave as you do. They never consider what a widespread interruption to the food supply would mean.
My real point is that companies can be monopolies, so long as they stay off the public radar. My dad works for one such company, but no one knows they are a monopoly so no one cares.
Re:And what do you think would happen (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they can't. They have contracts to serve. If they leased the grain silos to someone, then they have to keep the silos in good condition, repair any damages and make sure, they are fully functional. If they fail to provide the services they leased out, they have to pay hefty contractual fines. They don't have the "This silo comes without any warranty whatsoever" EULAs.
Re:I kind of like ARM (Score:5, Insightful)
So yeah, I think it's because when people see a computer crash they also see Microsoft (even if it's a dodgy realtek driver that actually crashed), result: Microsoft cops shit.
If you get a dodgy phone with an ARM chip you're going to see Nokia/Erricson/etc result: Nokia/Erricson/ect cops shit.
Likewise Olympus/Kodak/Canon etc will be blamed for poor cameras, again ARM gets away even if it's there problem.
Re:A good reason to learn ARM assembly (Score:1, Insightful)
lol, very amusing. But back here in the real world it doesn't work like that. It would be nice to find an advert that says:
Experience required in ARM assembler: none. We require someone with a fine mind, and despite our short deadlines we will pay for prospective employee to spend months learning ARM assembler without being productive. After this, you will be free to go to a new company and use your new 'tool' at our expense.
Can't see it happening though.
Phillip.
like MS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, the real point is not that MS has a "more real" monopoly or something. The big issue is that MS abuses their monopoly. Gratuitously and incessantly. When you have a monopoly, free market rules no longer apply (by definition), so the market has to trust in your good behavior. Which is why abuse of monopoly is called "anti-trust".
Re:ARM--- (Score:5, Insightful)
MS, SCO, etc., reflect an implicit lack of faith that their products can compete fairly in an open market. If these companies really believed that their products and services were superior they wouldn't need to force people to use them.
What does this say about the RIAA & MPAA?
Re:A good reason to learn ARM assembly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I kind of like ARM (Score:3, Insightful)
If only more companies would follow that lead, this would be a better world.
Don't you think this would be unfair to the people who are unable to make a product that's good for its intended purpose? What would all the PHB's do?
How do you expect the Darl McBride's of the world to get rich?
In fact, this points to a basic premise. It's a dog eat dog world. Everyone wants to compete. ARM is an example that competes by building a good product. Others have different strategies to compete. Submarine patents. Litigation business models. Remarket someone else's product to the idiot who doesn't know they can get the same thing down the street for cheaper. (i.e. someone who will pay $50 for a relabeled OpenOffice.org CD.)
Even if you put the laws in place to fix the current problems, then some people's competition strategy would be to relentlessly assult those laws until they get back to the present day situation where they can rake in the bucks for contributing nothing.
So, while I agree completely that the world would be better if more would follow ARM's lead, it ain't gonna happen. There are too many people who can't compete by making a better product. They still want have more money than you. So they will devise ways to game the system in order to get it. That is how they compete. They find some BS they are good at, and which geeks are bad at.
ARM University Course (Score:2, Insightful)
it's not illegal... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ARM--- (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I kind of like ARM (Score:4, Insightful)
who know their products from the inside out.
The people who approve most of ARM are those
who know their products from the inside out.
ARM didn't set back human progress 30 years
with segmented memory. Andy Grove *still*
hasn't burned at the stake for that crime,
believe it or not.
Re:A good reason to learn ARM assembly (Score:2, Insightful)
no credible, large-scale embedded project depends on assembly language nowadays. It will help to know the ins and outs of a processor, but just dumb knowledge of its instruction set brings you nowhere.
It does not make sense to "learn" an assembly language, not at all, and if it takes you months to learn something as simple as assembly language, you're a beginner anyway.
So, if a company requires a potential employee to be an ace in assembly language, what does that tell you about the company?
Re:I kind of like ARM (Score:3, Insightful)
Intel did not combine segmentation with paging in the right way when they added paged memory.
Besides, seg. has hardly been used on the PC for a decade anyway
Re:ARM--- (Score:3, Insightful)
They are still supporting windows 2000. Whether it's 1,000,000 w2k users or 1,000,004 it doesn't really matter.
It's not like cars where they have to stock replacement parts. Making another copy of a patch or hotfix costs MS very little.
Once they stop supporting W2K then sure that's different.
This is why I don't think software and similar stuff should be treated like property at all. Artificial scarcity. Copyrights should last a lot shorter than decades, maybe 7 years or even 5 years.
If software makers had to compete against themselves (older versions), then we might see more genuine innovation, instead of paper clips riding bicycles and other stupid stuff.
Re:ARM--- (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's proprietary api's and other business practices, forbid them, open the api's to everyone. If it's a patent, void the patent and render the technology public domain. If it's an application, open the source and render it into the public domain.
Quite simply, crush their monopoly or disband them altogether, yielding all proprietary technology public and all funds to the shareholders (minus any and all profits determined to have come from the monopoly practices, ever, which should be dispersed among those exploited).
To use Microsoft as an example case, windows, IE, and office would be rendered into the public domain, along with any further development done to them. All proprietary formats, api's, and internal documentation on the monopoly software would also be rendered into the public domain. And all past and future profits from their monopoly areas would be divided among those who have purchased a copy back to dos 6.22.
This would be what is needed to break their monopoly. Whether or not Microsoft can continue to exist after these changes really doesn't matter. The point is NOT to avoid damaging their business or to handhold them into still existing. The point is break the monopoly at all costs.
The monopolistic company isn't fair, there is no need to be fair to monopoly. If the monopoly IS destroyed, then the employees will be able to find jobs easily among the competitors which spring up as a result. Monopolies HURT the economy with their hordes, and they hurt employment in their industry.. don't ever be fooled by the large number of employees and cash they turn, it pales in comparison with the number of jobs and cash that would turn around if they didn't exist.