>> The deals drove revenue up 26 percent year-on-year to $286.7 million and pre-tax profits up to about $150 million.
I do not think it is a lot of celebration that ARM is still in the range of $290M revenue range. I am not sure if it is the ambition or the business model but if this is to be in America, more will be looking for real growth. Sure, the model is low risk but it is not giving a lot of growth for this world-class organization. ARM needs to rethink if licensing can get them to where they need to be
ARM certainly has an example to follow in Qualcomm, though. It all depends on what they want to be when they grow up. It seems like there may be less risk in their model for the embedded market, where customers are far less tolerant of Intel - style profit margins. It is much less expensive for ARM to scale up by adding licensees than it is to add fab capacity.
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.
>> 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.
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"
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
>> 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.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.