>> IMO one of the reasons ARM has been so successful is that they haven't been greedy.
I think this firm has a solid and good IP. There are many free things which no one touches. I think ARM has shown resilence and ability to innovate. With good IP, they are doing well despite the small fees as at least people are interested in their products.
IMO one of the reasons ARM has been so successful is that they haven't been greedy. Sure, they could probably charge more for licenses and end up like MIPS, PowerPC, and Intel's attempt to license Atom. By keeping licensing fees low, adding an ARM core to a chip is an easy design decision. Those pennies add up to real money. JMO/YMMV
Your knowledge of ARM, its business model and the markets it is already active in is very poor.
"This quarter, we saw strong growth in the number of ARM-based chips sold into markets beyond mobile devices. The non-mobile markets now represent 52% of all ARM-based shipments. ARM-based microcontrollers and smartcards shipments increased 20% year-on-year"
>> Roughly 1+ billion $ / year in revenues and a 50% profit margin is from a purely profit point of view equal to 5 billion $/ year in revenue and a 10% profit margin (which is what we find in average industries).
That is not financially true though it could make a lot of mathematical sense. If you have revenue of $5B, it means you have a better market share which could be more important than the profit you are making.ARM is a great firm of course but I just think they can take up Intel and help provide alternatives in the overall computing space, not just mobile.
Roughly 1+ billion $ / year in revenues and a 50% profit margin is from a purely profit point of view equal to 5 billion $/ year in revenue and a 10% profit margin (which is what we find in average industries).
They aren't doing that bad from a capitalist point of view, when considering profits and their stability over time.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.