It continues to surprise me that given the ubiquitous presence of ARM cores in all things mobile that their business model does not generate more revenue. Given their out sized importance to many companies you would think that they could charge more.
I think ARM's policy has always been not to take too much out of their partners, so as to be the much lower cost option and to be non-threatening.
Of course after 20 years of following that policy they are now in a good position to start cranking up license fees and royalty rates.
I think initial license fees have gone from about $1 million per core to $5 million but ARM would, I am sure, argue that they are providing much greater performance on ARM15 than on ARM7 so paying more is appropriate. And it is very hard to compare like with like as license varieties have increased.
With regard to royalty rates even if ARM does push them up, their customers go to higher and higher volumes thereby earning discounts so that the average ARM royalty per shipped unit is actually going down.
According to ARM supplied data it was 6.1 cents per unit in 2007, 5.7 cents in 2008, 5.4 cents in 2009 and 4.8 cents in 2010. But over the same period units shipped per year had gone from 2.9 billion to 6.1 billion.
The Nomura list, if correct, suggests that ARM gets more of its royalties from companies MAKING chips with its cores as opposed to DESIGNING OR SELLING those chips.
That would explain TSMC and Samsung being ahead of say Qualcomm and Apple. And it would imply Intel may be acting as foundry to some ARM-based chips.
But this is all guesswork on my part.
Intel as ARM's biggest customer is 2010 is odd - but foundry manufacture is good call Rick.
Intel maybe making stuff for Apple that includes ARM cores. I wonder who AMD was making stuff for..they were almost (but not quite?) out of manufacturing by 2010 with the creation of Globalfoundries.
I think people forget that ARM has a physical libraries, IO cells libraries and memory compilers and other assorted physical IP as part of the Virage acquisition. Given Intels scale of revenues I am sure thats where the money is coming from. Not ARM CPU licences.
Since Nvidia is mostly fabless, its Tegra family would probably account for much of the TSMC number. With the resolve of the legal dispute between Intel and Nvidia, it is possible that Nvidia has also used Intel for some manufacturing.
It is not appropriate for me to discuss the specific top 15 ranking listed by Nomura. But I thought I could add a couple of clarifications using public data that might be of interest
1) The per-device royalty is typically a % of the device's ASP. One of the main drivers we discussed that caused this to drop in that time period was the rapid growth in MCU shipments where the ASPs are substantially lower (NXP as one example has devices priced at less than $1) than devices in smartphones
2) Of the $631.3M in FY10, ARM reported that the contribution of Physical IP (ARM aquired Artisan as opposed to Virage, the latter being purchased by Synopsys) royalty was $43.8M. Processor royalty for that year was $291.5M. So the majority of our revenue in that year came from processors
Intel biggest customer of ARM?!
Ah a conspiracy theory.
Some of the new low power Intel chips are really ARM cores emulating the X86 instruction set.
This way AMD can be kept in the dark of how Intel has achieved such a low power in their devices.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.