Arm is the modern chip design instruction set, and Qualcomm , Apple , Samsung chips are all Arm chips. Arm licensed to these companies instruction set, and then these companies began to produce chips with various custom functions. This model has been a huge success.
Arm New CEO Renehas was interviewed by the verge and answered some questions: How does Arm make money? Who is its customers? Even if it doesn't actually make a chip, is it affected by a chip shortage?
Arm is a key puzzle in the entire technology ecosystem. We all rely on Arm. It affects all of us, but it can be very opaque. Consumers have no real direct relationship with Arm, it is mediated by many other companies. So the first question is, what exactly does Arm do?
Arm is not a well-known company and is not well understood by the public, but we think we are very important. You can basically find Arm technology in almost any type of semiconductor and/or OEM products. We are in smartphones, laptops, , and smart TVs. Looking around my desk, there may be dozens of Arm processors everywhere. We didn't actually build anything. We design various parts of the product, which is intellectual property. We build the design, not build the chip, and we license that design to the person who is going to build the final product. Our most famous main product is CPU, which is the brain of almost all types of electronic devices.
We do not make chips, but authorize our brains to others who are willing to make chips. Based on this, there are a lot of Arm brains out there. Looking back at the data from the previous quarter, 7.4 billion chips were manufactured and delivered between all semiconductor companies and OEMs around the world, including some type of CPU, GPU or technology of Arm. This is a huge number. Who is the customer of
Arm?
In the electronics industry, it is easier to say who is not Arm's customer. Almost any company you can think of is our customers. We have TSMC, Samsung, GPU - these are companies that actually make chips. Intel , AMD, Nvidia, Qualcomm, Amazon , Microsoft and Google are also customers. For customers in other parts of the world, we have Alibaba , Tencent and ByteDance.
Almost every technology company is our customer.
How do you make money from these customers? Are they just licensed designs? Are they buying ready-made reference chips? Do they pay the patent licensing fee? How does this work?
Our business model has two components. We have an upfront licensing fee that our partners pay to us to obtain the right to use the technology. This gives them the right to use our technology to design. If these designs end up in production and final products, we will charge royalties per unit under some rules related to the contract. Therefore, at a higher level, there are two sources of income. One is what we call licensing income. Another is what we call royalty income.
If I go to Qualcomm to buy a Snapdragon chip, do I need to pay you? Or does Qualcomm have to pay you? Or is someone else giving you money?
people don’t have it, but Qualcomm has it. In this example, Qualcomm reports to us the shipped quantity purchased by the customer. There is a pre-negotiated royalty usage rate and they will pay us to pay for these royalty .
Samsung makes and designs its own chips for its smartphones, and these departments of Samsung actually have to sign contracts with each other. If I buy Samsung phone with Exynos chips - instead of Qualcomm chips - how does that money flow back to you?
This is the beauty of Arm's business model. Qualcomm uses our technology, so does Samsung. When the Galaxy phone ships, we will most likely receive payment.If the product is partnered with Qualcomm, we will be paid by Qualcomm, and in the case of Samsung, we are still getting paid. It depends on our licensing arrangements with our partners, but usually they work with the semiconductor sectors of these companies. Take Samsung as an example, if we sign a contract with the chip department, the chip department will pay Arm.
Apple has obtained a very unique license called the Architecture License. They completely designed their own chips, and it seems that Apple does not use a lot of Arm's designs, but it is Arm's intellectual property. How does Arm get paid when consumers buy M2 MacBook Air? Anyone can get the kind of license that Apple has, they can use your IP, but can they completely design their own stuff?
commercially, it is very similar. We have contracts with companies like Apple and they pay us royalties like everyone else.
architecture license gives companies the right to manufacture Arm-compatible processors. Anyone with permission can make subtle modifications to the microarchitecture, which actually refers to how it is physically placed on the chip. But what they can't do is modify their CPU so that it can't run Arm instructions. This is very important because at the end of the day, we have to maintain software compatibility. If someone is running an Arm processor, whether it is something we build or something that partners with an architecture license, it must meet the requirements of running Arm software.
We don't have many architecture licenses because it's hard to do. We made very good CPUs. It is very difficult to build a CPU that is different or better than what we do while still meeting Arm standards. Not many people do this. There were many in the past, but now there are fewer numbers. These are teams that are difficult to build. Most companies look at it and say: If I'm building a SoC and I have only so many valuable engineers to differentiate my products, then differentiating an Arm CPU may not be the best choice to spend time. A better place is around areas where Arm doesn't do, such as cameras, modems, or IO.
When Apple or other architecture licensees deliver the product, does Arm have a team to verify that it is running the Arm instruction set and they are not violating the rules?
We have a set of requirements and a compliance suite that we test to essentially verify that the content they build complies with the Arm standards. We test it to see if it can run Arm directives and code, if the compiler is corrupted, or if you can't recognize the correct directive. The short answer is that we do provide a set of compliance tests for anyone building a design based on architecture licenses.
I want to ask these questions to close the loop of this company located in the center of almost all modern chips. I think the closed loop is really verified that this is where the Arm method enables the Arm architecture to realize its value.
Whether it is an Arm implementation or an architecture implementation, they all run software for the Arm Instruction Set Architecture (ISA) without interruption, which allows customers to add custom instructions. While this sounds innovative and cool, what really makes the CPU architecture relevant for a long time is letting developers know that it will run. If the developer is writing a piece of code for the OEM and embeds Arm, the developer doesn't want to know, doesn't need to know, or even knows that they are designing an thermostat with Bob chips inside, and Bob has some additional instructions. You need to take advantage of this because they may not know if other OEM devices have an Arm chip that contains these instructions. It is very important to play fairly and make sure that the software dataset looks the same. Our founders did a great job of sticking to this and making it quick. You can see that it really benefits us now.
Arm has many customers who compete with each other in various ways. Many executives in positions like you feel they do much more political work than engineering or research.How do you distinguish? Do you think you are a politician and just level everyone’s playing field? Or are you someone who is in-depth with processor design?
We must be deeply involved in processor design. I mean, that's what we do. Finally, we spend a lot of time and effort developing these CPU and software ecosystems, addressing partner issues, and truly ensuring that the product is at the forefront. One of the little things that are different about us is the fact that we deal with everyone. We have to keep the consistency of the way we manage our partnerships, which really revolves around access to technology, access to errors, and access to people. The world depends on Arm. As you said, we are a little opaque. I can say on the podcast that the world depends on Arm, and someone will respond: "I rely on you? I don't know you!" We manage our relationship with our partners very seriously.
Arm is not an industry standard organization, but a company that reports revenue. If you want to go public, you must increase revenue for shareholders. How did you deal with it?
Arm try to remain neutral. Arm is called the electronics industry's Swiss , which is not a bad balance. We won't try to pick the winner. Arm is involved in the ecosystem of the ecosystem. If you start from the bottom of the semiconductor chain - GF, Samsung, TSMC, Intel, and everyone who makes chips - you have to work with everyone. Arm must ensure that our technology can be built on every semiconductor process in the world, which requires the investment of all these partners. Then, all the way up, when you think of Android, Linux, Windows, and all the major operating systems we support, we have to make sure we are there too.
Arm really try not to have an advantage between one person and another. I'm not sure how we'll do this in the end, but it means we're on the shoulders of a rather large ecosystem. I call this an ecosystem of ecosystems because of design tools, manufacturing processes, software operating systems and middleware. We often work with interest groups and create them. We didn’t really work much with the standards body, but we did work a lot with all the industry players I mentioned. Arm makes sure to understand everything they are trying to do from a roadmap perspective to ensure we are as compliant as possible. Ultimately, we license the technology to the people who build chips. People who make chips want to have the widest range of opportunities where they make chips, how many people work in
? How are they structured? Are they all chip designs, or are there lawyers? Is the ratio of patent agents to chip designers 1 to 1? How does this work? The number of people in
Arm may be around 5,800, but the number of people in outsourcing may be more than 6,000.
We are mainly engineers, most of them in the UK. Arm is headquartered in Cambridge. There are several different engineering sites in different regions of the UK, France and Nordic. There are several design centers in the United States – in Arizona and in Texas. There are also considerable number of design engineers in India: Bangalore and Noida. Most of Arm's employees are engineers. legal department is very small.
Arm does a great job of understanding how our licensing model works and how it protects its intellectual property rights. Arm doesn’t have a huge legal department, but we do have a lot of engineers because these products are really hard to make.
As we all know, Arm is involved in the storm of SoftBank’s Vision Fund, which raised billions of dollars for the Vision Fund. They invested in many companies and directly acquired Arm. SoftBank then tried to sell it to Nvidia when Vision Fund was unstable. The industry basically lobbies against the deal as much as it can, saying: "We don't want Nvidia to have this core CPU technology processor, this design technology." The government said they will block the deal, and SoftBank gave up.
You are here as the new CEO.You said, "We want to get the company listed." This is a big turning point. Your ex is firmly opposed to getting the company to go public because the pressure to increase revenue after it goes public puts the model of becoming a neutral and equitable supplier to everyone, as companies can increase revenue through special transactions. These pressures will come, but you still decide to go public. How did you make this decision?
We announced this change at the end of last year when the Nvidia transaction was basically bankrupt. After I finished my fiscal year, we were finally able to talk about our financial results. During Nvidia, we remained silent. When we announced revenue this year, we set a record of over $2 billion. Arm has a turnover of $2.6 billion and an operating margin of nearly 40%, but because we remain silent, the outside world believes that Arm is losing money. In fact, business was higher this quarter than we ended last year: more than 50% and $700 million in revenue, of which $450 million is royalties.
Shortly after SoftBank acquired Arm, Arm reorganized and created two business units. Arm began to turn to other markets. This fulcrum is not only a business model, but also a product. Arm knows something is happening in the data center. Arm has made good progress in software workloads. If we push our investments to specific instructions, such as SME and SVE—those are vector extensions of specific workloads on hyperscale computers—we can gain something in the hyperscale computer market (i.e., cloud computing market).
AWS is our important partner. They announced Graviton2 and some rather eye-catching numbers, up 40% from price performance compared to other architectures. Therefore, we diversify our business by not only developing different products, but also solving this problem through different parts of our business model strategy. We know our business will get better. All the financial results you see now are great, the team is doing a great job in this, really from the work a few years ago. You won't see royalty results for your unit overnight. We develop IP, and IP must be handed over to the customer. They have to make a chip, and that chip has to go into the product. The product must then be qualified. All of this can take three to four years. We felt good about where we were going. We also feel very good in areas that Arm has been investing in, such as cloud, automobiles and the Internet of Things. These are the large long-term growth areas that I think we are very suitable for.
Do you think the investor pressure during the quarter will change the way you run your company? Because this seems to be a risk to go public.
I think Arm is a listed company at any time, and that's just part of how the world works. However, I can’t talk too much about what life would look like as a listed company. I can say that we are very confident in the long-term growth of the market involved.
You just expressed your confidence in cars, the Internet of Things and the cloud. The cloud market exists and is growing. Arm has taken this move and it seems certainly will happen. As CEO of Arm, can you push this? Or is it more like, “We just have to prepare the design and product for the car to really become a network computer on the wheel”?
When people think of electronic devices in cars, they will automatically turn to autonomous driving, etc. That's just a dimension. Think about what is inside a car and the number of processes in a car. The dashboard is all digital and fully computerized, and almost everything runs on Arm. The drivetrain, anything related to the mirrors and brakes, all of which are quickly moving to the Arm. Many things that are happening in the car are moving towards the Arm, not about the dashboard or autonomous aspect.
In the powertrain, there are many old electronic control units (ECUs), which are independent units. They may have an old proprietary microcontroller , and they do not communicate with other parts of the car. All of these ECUs are being redesigned.Inside the car, there may be 50-70 ECUs. There are a lot of them, and each one may have an old proprietary microcontroller, no connection, no memory management units, and no communication with the rest of the car. Therefore, cars become highly connected devices. Then add automatic and advanced driving assistance system (ADAS), an area of development in Arm.
Cars are a bit like sandboxes of multiple technologies: dashboards, powertrains, powertrains/ECUs and autonomous vehicles. Back in the data center realm, when it comes to computing, what really matters in a car is performance and efficiency. You can't have a server in your trunk running electric car and succeed. Some cars today are like this. They are a bit like servers in the trunk. Things will get better over time, so we are very optimistic about the automotive market. We are growing very fast there.
So, would you ask some of your engineers to say, "Go to find out the ECU, engine controller or body control module that can work across cars so that people from Nvidia can come and get licenses and sell it to Ford"?
This is already happening. What does these CPUs for cars have to do with them? Efficiency, power and functional safety are all important. You have to have all the redundancy to make sure it can run in a safe way. Some people do this in software through compute libraries, but most people prefer to do this in hardware because it is safer and more efficient. We have developed automotive processors and graphics processors that are embedded with functional safety. We haven't done this in the past. We will basically launch a universal thing for use anywhere. This is one of the things we have made a big change in the past few years. Automobile will be a very large market for us.
Back to now, we have been in a chip shortage for a long time, which may or may not end. Intel and Nvidia had very bad quarterly results. We don't make anything, but we're very relevant to it because our royalties are about how many components people ship.
Back to the previous discussion, we are very diverse in the terminal market. Another thing that is happening is that there are increasing CPU usage in these SoCs. The application processor of a mobile phone may use one CPU, while the cluster used for computing is now 9 or 10 different CPUs. You have 10 CPUs, and this is just an application processor. Then think about touching the sensor or anything from the display or camera. We see that while sales in certain markets such as smartphones have been weakening, we have been protected by it from the perspective of product direction.
I do think this is a little different. It is not all technology, nor all field. The Internet of Things is strong, the industry is strong, the cloud is strong, and the different nodes are strong. Sometimes older techniques—14, 28, 40 nm—are a little hard to get. All devices in these complex systems require mixing and matching. You only need one thing and there will be no problem. Since COVID-19 is not like the world like it was three or four years ago, a supply chain won't take too much time to mess up. Next you know, we are missing products like toilet paper. Some people will say, "Why are we still lacking toilet paper?" These toilet paper mills have a very fixed set of equipment to make commercial toilet paper for industries and enterprises or residential toilet paper. When we all go home and stop going to offices, malls and cinemas, the demand for commercial toilet paper is unbalanced with that of consumers. This is why the toilet paper thing happened.
So now, think of a car that requires various diode , capacitor , resistor and thermal sensors. This is not only because it is difficult to obtain 3 nm, but also it is difficult to build an wafer factory. In the past downward business cycle, people stopped research and development and slowed down projects. They don't do new things, they stop innovating. I didn't see this time. I think it's because everything is digital and there's a lot of innovation going on.What are our indicators? Licensing and new designs have never been so good for us. It is all over the market.
As the prospect of globalization is widely reconsidered globally, the world of semiconductor is less peaceful. The United States has just passed the CHIPS Act to truly inspire chip manufacturing and various design investments. TSMC is building in the United States. Intel just broke ground at a new factory in , Ohio, . Do you see that, “we need to transfer these key dependencies to our country.” Or are you just watching something?
We will definitely participate in the conversation. We will help as long as we can expand demand for this by talking to political officials in any country. It's not just an Arm problem. This is an industry problem. Nothing you are doing with single point failure is a good thing. From now on, every continent should have world-class fabs.
One of the reality of how the world today is that cutting-edge process nodes are mainly controlled by TSMC. That's 5nm, 3nm. They are far ahead of it and control it. That's what they are now. Few people can compete at this level. Older process nodes (40 nm, 14 nm) used in cars are severely restricted and no one is building these fabs anymore. This is not a good investment situation. What do you think of the results?
What I can tell you is that we see a lot of work on how to convert certain fabs into new jobs is being done. Just like you said. People are usually a little reluctant to put a lot of money into the end minus three fabs. You start thinking, "Can I convert the fab we are building into some kind of process technology and turn it into a logic fab? Is there a memory factory that can be converted into a logic factory?" But that's a very complex question because there are only so many factories in the world, and so many people know how to build these things. These companies are listed companies. They have to make money. This is a very complex matrix.
Thirty years ago, Japan was world-class, with logic factories all over the country. This has basically dropped to almost zero. Japan is looking for ways to revamp it to get more fabs back online. I think you will see more work done in the United States in the type of CHIPS Act done in other countries. South Korea is mainly a fab, but I think it has huge capabilities, too. However, this is a complex and terrible question. How
Arm is dependent on TSMC? It feels like a lot of companies realize they really rely on one company. There is a reason it is an industry leader. Have you considered this dependency when designing new processor types or architectures?
We work closely with TSMC. I would answer that all fabs are important to us, back to my comments in Switzerland. In an ideal world, there are many people who can build all the cutting-edge technologies. Generally speaking, in smartphones, in data centers, this is usually the cutting-edge process, because people are really trying to get the most performance possible – not in automotive and industrial fields. Any fab that uses cutting-edge processes is very important to us.
As we all know, Intel has long been an integration designer and wafer fab company. They are basically surpassed by TSMC in the world. They now have a new CEO and they are breaking that. They said, "Okay, we're going to open our factories to other people." You just said that Intel is a customer. Is this something you are working with?
We hope TSMC can make a large number of Arm products, and they do. We hope Intel will do the same. I think Pat Gelsinger does a lot of the right things. His work is hard, but at the same time, I think he did some really good work and we are very willing to do more with him.
In terms of the chip bill, the bill was passed and signed, and everyone was very excited.Intel immediately received a lot of criticism for announcing it to cut capital expenditures and increase dividends rather than putting it into fabs. Broadly speaking, do you think this is the right move? What kind of timetable should we look for for fabs in the United States?
I wouldn't doubt Pat Gelsinger's decision on how he spends money. I think we need to act quickly and start these facilities as soon as possible. We need to get them online as soon as possible to reduce the risk of single point failure. I think we need more fabs.
What timetable do you make your decision based on? It looks like if a bill is passed today, or if someone announces a new fab today, we won't see it for five years. How do you view your decision timeline?
After six months as CEO, I am still learning about CEO responsibilities. One of my biggest responsibilities is to think about the problems in five years. In the way our business model operates, it takes a considerable time for us to design products until we see revenue. We are considering where opportunities are, where investments are needed, where threats are, and the direction relative to systems and software design. We keep thinking about these things, we keep talking about them. Most of my energy is spent thinking about what the world will look like in 2025 and 2026, not next quarter.
has some long-term bets that focus more on consumers than changing servers in the trunk of the car. The hottest trend currently related to Arm takeover is that Apple's shift from Intel to Arm-based processors, the M-series processors in their own Macs, is a huge win for them. Is this something Arm can help other industries do? Or, "This is the design. Hopefully Qualcomm can make chips that can make Microsoft and Dell do this too"? From your perspective, how do you view your relationship with the industry?
I think we can do more things and probably need to do more things. It's not because we need to help the industry, but because the construction of these products is really complicated. Let's talk about architecture licensing first. At some point in time, it was believed that architectural permissions were needed to build better CPUs to compete with Arm. The IPCh instruction for each clock of the microprocessor is just a micro-fragment that can really tilt the design. You consider the memory subsystem, interconnect, cache size, how you interface with the rest of the SoC, and make sure the SoC is in a multi-chip package with a die-to-die interconnect.
Some customers are very good at these things and can figure them out so they don't need a lot of help from us. But over time, more and more industries will benefit from Arm helping them do more. This is an area we are paying close attention to.
has opportunities in the future. It is obvious that the demand for systems on chips will only become increasingly difficult.
From your point of view, as long as they are all Arm customers, it doesn’t matter who wins, right? If Apple takes up 100% of the laptop market, that's great for you. If Microsoft, HP and Qualcomm can find competitive Windows on Arm laptops and they account for 50% of the share, you can still get paid. Do you feel that no matter who wins, you won too?
The way to consider it is that if the product is shipped with Arm ISA, then this is a good thing for us. If an alternative device is used, it means it is not using ARM ISA, so this is not very good for us. When I took my previous position, I named a little nickname on the website after me, and we worked with the PR team and basically said “Where does the calculation happen, Arm will appear.” You can step back and say, “Oh, this is my thermostat or microwave, Polycom, smart TV, laptop” – whatever it is.
For most people, the calculation happens on their laptops and desktops. Windows on Arm has been 13 years, but it has never happened.Are you just satisfied with letting Apple occupy this industry? Are you saying “we have to push this” because there are still other people’s instruction sets—i.e. Intel’s instruction sets—dominate?
I worked at Nvidia before joining Arm, and that was my product line. We have made tremendous progress in this regard. We don't have a port, and Apple didn't help us. Fast forward to 10 years later, streaming audio has appeared. No one really cares about these apps. If you consider all the apps running on your PC or phone, it's hard to say "Well, which native apps aren't really running on Arm?" They're almost all there. Please keep an eye on PC. We are making a lot of progress. You can see what the features are through laptops in other ecosystems. I think it sounds a wake-up call for the industry in terms of the potential of these features. We will stick with it. How will
Arm win in GPU?
When you calculate by unit, we are actually the number one supplier of GPU on the planet. Nvidia CEO has put forward a key point. We will be faithful to our creed--every watts performance is important. We won't risk doing a hundred-watt TDP GPU and try to make a difference in that area. We will be in the 1 watt range and try to optimize within that range. Then in some areas, you can start doing more on multiple GPUs. We are starting to see people thinking about doing machine learning scaling and possibly doing these things within the GPU. This is interesting because GPUs can benefit from some level of AI and machine learning to do shader drawing in a more efficient way. At the same time, you can start working or transfer ML workloads to the GPU. There are a lot of interesting innovations that will be able to be done on our GPUs and we are making a lot of investments in this area. It should be clear that we will stay in an area where performance and efficiency are important.
You have delivered a lot of GPUs. It is part of the SoC package for many customers. Customers with their own GPU or their own GPU expansion lead per watt performance. Is the same transaction not important at the end of the day because they are shipping the Arm instruction set architecture and you can still get paid? Or "we have to stay competitive here or they will leave completely"?
GPU is slightly different from CPU because the API is decimated. Performance per watt is indeed important. We have done a lot of work to level the game and I think we are leading the way in many areas. Another thing that is very critical to these GPUs is the efficiency of the interface between the CPU and the GPU. This is also an area where we invest heavily, but we must be vigilant in the GPU market. There is no doubt. As you said, this is very competitive. You let people do it themselves, you let other third parties make the product. At the same time, this is an area we are very concerned about, so we will invest. I think the future of machine learning AI vectors that are used with GPUs is a huge opportunity for us.
GPU is a huge investment. You have to spend a lot of money to compete and win the design. Are you making this investment because over time, can you win back these products and get more from other custom GPUs? Or do you need a competitive GPU just to be competitive?
Back to machine learning and artificial intelligence. If you have a heterogeneous computing system that includes CPU, GPU, and NPU, I think at some point in time the compiler will be smart enough that they might point to some of the code that can run better on the GPU and CPU. If you think of the entire cluster as a complete subsystem, I think this brings long-term benefits. For us, especially when designing systems on chip, we are trying to make all kinds of major trade-offs. Sometimes I don't want that workload to run on the CPU because it consumes unnecessary power, and I may have transistors in the GPU, and I may be able to use them if I don't draw. We believe that GPU is a very critical strategic component.
CPU competitors are more difficult to identify. Who are your competitors?
I think there are probably only two options. Although it is biased, I don't even think there is really a choice. From an ISA perspective, you have x86. If you want to build a SoC on x86, there are only two companies in the world that can do this for you: AMD or Intel. Then there is RISC-V, which is a completely different part of the stratosphere because it is open source and has many different versions. RISC-V is a scalable processor, which means its strengths are its weaknesses. In my opinion, scalability leads to fragmentation. I think it hurts them to get any kind of software ecosystem. It's really hard for you to look around and say, "What is the main software ecosystem that keeps running on the RISC-V processor?"
has nothing. So, where did we see RISC-V today in the system on chip? It is located in a deep embedded part of the chip, and external programmers do not know its existence. This is an analogy I can give. If you put something in the microwave and press the start key on the 30-second timer, the monitor might be Arm because there might be a small piece of open source application code running on it. The timer that actually turns on the oven and turns off after 30 seconds is probably RISC-V. These are indeed the only two options. I mean, all of these are small companies, but these companies really don't have much appeal in market share.
Do you see a world of x86 where Arm and RISC-V are completely outdated?
x86 has been around for a long time and has a very large installation foundation. I certainly don't want to do anything to belittle what they are doing. I think the challenge with x86 is that it comes from only two companies. This is a limiting factor in itself as far as it can go. In fact, Intel and AMD are already very good at Arm. Are there any other competitors like RISC-V? RISC-V is another thing like Windows on Arm. It seems to appear in some of the apps you are talking about.
It's all about the software. Ultimately, it's about having a rich ecosystem of developers that can leverage writing software. For us, we think there are 150-25 million developers writing on Arm. Some people know they write on Arm because they take advantage of the instruction set, but some people don't know because it's abstracted. The compiler and open source libraries are both there, which makes it easy to run.
For example: smart TV. If you try to write a new menu for your smart TV and try to connect to the internet. Essentially the Android version of the underlying kernel, that is Arm. All of this is optimized for Arm. This is a big advantage in terms of self-report. These libraries exist and have been optimized. Suppose you tried it on RISC-V. If Company A added 17 new instructions to make their RISC-V look a little different, then developers wouldn't know that. How will developers take advantage of this? RISC-V may eventually be reduced to the lowest common denominator.
Several months ago, Qualcomm CEO Cristiano Amon blamed the software developers. "Microsoft, Adobe and other large independent software vendors have to join in. They have to make these things quickly," he said. "You just said it's all about software. Do you want to say to those companies, “Turn your attention to the future, that’s Arm”?
Yes. He is not wrong, and ultimately, this is where he wants to change. It's closer than ever since not only do more work on native applications, but more of these native applications have been written for Arm.
Check out two different operating systems in the world. Other operating systems use their names in their code. View all Microsoft applications running on their systems only. They are all ported this way, so all these Microsoft applications can run on your phone.I think the tipping point comes when there are a lot of pretty good CPU products on the market that can compete with others. As far as your point of view is concerned, this product proves that you don't have to sacrifice performance and game-changing battery life in form factor. What's next for
Arm?
We will continue to invest in the areas I mentioned. We think there is indeed a strong growth in some of the topics we talked about before: those complex packaging systems and complex designs. We are working hard to find the ability to serve the industry more because I think there are huge opportunities out there.
* Statement: This article was created by the original author. The content of the article is his personal opinion. Our reprint is for sharing and discussion only and does not mean that we agree or agree. If you have any objections, please contact the backend.
