I forgot about that history from thirty years ago. Thank you.
How ARM has already saved Apple - twice - Appleinsider
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nvidia Likely Pulling Out of Arm Acquisition After Failing to Win Regulatory Approval
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How ARM has already saved Apple - twice - Appleinsider
nvidia got sued, apple will definitely get sued for anti trust.
Best would be if the biggest ARM proponents buy small stakes in the company (say 1-5% each, depending on interest) and float the rest in the public markets.
Apple, Qualcomm, Amazon, Google, Samsung, plenty of people who could put some money down.
Apple, Qualcomm, Amazon, Google, Samsung, plenty of people who could put some money down.
No, it would be better if it was more than just he biggest. Only the biggest is setting up a oligopoly and still probably wouldn't pass regulatory muster in some places. What Arm would like to have happen is that those "small stakes" collectively add up to 60+% of the company. So the owners with the most votes would be primarily interested in Arm's long term best interest and not myopically concerned with short term results , velocity trading , and "make money fast" schemes. To do that would need more than just the "biggest" Arm customers to buy in; they would need a substantive number to buy in from different parts/targets of the business. Not just Architectural license holders but also IP buyers. And vice versa. Some balanced view of where the efforts should go.
Ideally if could just take Arm private then wouldn't have to worry about random Wall St stockholders , 'greenmailer' activist investors (out to make a quick buck) , and/or hostile takeovers. And instead of paying into some IPO the major stakeholders would just pay more over time so Arm didn't need to ask "make money fast" folks to use their money.
If public though a broader group of "stable , long term" investors would be better because companies have hiccups fro time to time and same may need to sell their stakes to make ends meet. ( Softbank needs to sell Arm as a whole to cover up a couple of bonehead investments they made ) . If spread things out the likelihood that they are all in trouble at the same time is lower. Just being "big" isn't really better. IBM was big in the 70-90's and not quite as much anymore. [ Research in Motion -- Blackberry was 'big' at one point too and not so much anymore. ]
The core problem though is really the large disconnect between what Softbank wishes what Arm were worth and what it probably should be priced at. Apple , qualcomm , Amazon ,etc probably don't want to hand Softbank a 'bail out'. It may take Softbank pushing it into an IPO for the market to reprice it more rationally. At that point don't really need Apple , Qualcomm ,etc. to do anything special as they could buy out of the public markets too. [ or get into the rich folks only special line for pre-IPOs investment banks run. )
Apple to buy ARM? It would be rejected on the same ground as Nvidia. Historical relationship between the 2 is irrelevant. Nvidia, Amazon etc.... would certainly raise their "concerns" and seek regulatory not to approve it.
Regulatory should not let Softbank to buy ARM to begin with.
Now Softbank don't want it and lost interest in it. Businesses interested in it are not allowed to buy it. Keep it under Softbank might not be good for ARM in long term, they might just milk ARM and ARM might not have enough support to develop and expand. What's the way out? Multiple tech-giants set up a consortia and then IPO part of it? Let private fund (that could be Chinese PLA at the far end) to buy it ?
Regulatory should not let Softbank to buy ARM to begin with.
Now Softbank don't want it and lost interest in it. Businesses interested in it are not allowed to buy it. Keep it under Softbank might not be good for ARM in long term, they might just milk ARM and ARM might not have enough support to develop and expand. What's the way out? Multiple tech-giants set up a consortia and then IPO part of it? Let private fund (that could be Chinese PLA at the far end) to buy it ?
Such huge takeovers are really really hard to get approvals nowdays. You either buy a company that has completly different business, or you target smaller companies/startups. For Apple it is really difficult to buy any big company even when it has the cash burning a hole in its pockets just because Apple's portfolio is currently quite extensive.
Except there is no path for ARM currently to be self-sustainable. Softbank will come collecting the money they lost, so I think an IPO will be forced, which will be bad for ARM.
I said from the start that it's not going to happen.
Also it woud be impossible for both Intel and Apple to buy ARM. I mean Nvidia failed and they only make GPUs, the chances a company that makes/designs CPUs will be able to buy ARM are 0.
Intel is not broke at all.
Also it woud be impossible for both Intel and Apple to buy ARM. I mean Nvidia failed and they only make GPUs, the chances a company that makes/designs CPUs will be able to buy ARM are 0.
I feel like Apple being an American company has gotten to skate by anti-trust law for far longer with more obvious violations….. but hey!
I swear, before Fortnite/Epic stood up (which when you think about it is is ridiculous) regulators have forgotten antitrust law existed since the internet explorer shake down (which seems SOO minor in comparison to the **** Apple has pulled).
I swear, before Fortnite/Epic stood up (which when you think about it is is ridiculous) regulators have forgotten antitrust law existed since the internet explorer shake down (which seems SOO minor in comparison to the **** Apple has pulled).
So far they haven’t violated any antitrust law (*) - hence everyone clammering for new laws.
(*) The iBooks thing being the apparent exception. But if that’s the way you want antitrust laws enforced - to eliminate small competitors so that prices can rise and the entrenched entity with all the market share doesn’t have to worry about competition - then you are arguing from a different planet than I am.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
It appears that someone doesn't fully appreciate how subscription models work. If one sells tons of anything that pretty much require an ongoing subscription to use in the way that subscribers want to use it, they could STOP making new anythings completely for up to a very long time and yet continue to be paid recurring subscription fees for upwards of many years. See prior models of iPhones no longer being made by Apple but still generating cellular "subscription" revenue from those providing cell service, app sale cuts to Apple and developers, etc.
Yes, having to pause new production of all hardware (which is a rumor that has since been disputed) to sell to new buyers seems concerning but even Apple sometimes dials down production or their newest generations of "best stuff ever" to fit demand fluctuations. Various car companies had to pause building new vehicles for a while because of the chip shortage but that doesn't mean they're dead- just adapting to supply vs demand imbalances.
When demand vs. supply is rebalanced, Peloton will start making new hardware again to align with their new demand level. Should demand spike back up, Peloton can step up production to rise with faster demand.
In the meantime, Peloton subscription revenue keeps rolling in for all of the existing hardware already in subscriber homes. If Peloton has so much supply that it takes many months to get back to a point of needing to make new hardware, that subscription revenue will keep rolling in for those months and upwards of years afterwards. Else, Pelotons without subscriptions are not so different than iPhones without cellular plans: you can do some stuff with them but it's a much reduced experience.
If Apple would buy Peloton (which I agree with many that it seems unlikely), they would likely be attracted to what seems the #1 driver of Apple interest in everything these days: big fat profits. Peloton has a multi-year history of making fat profit on their kind of hardware sales and on their "services" (subscription) recurring revenue stream. I would assume that would be pretty attractive to Apple and other potential buyers. Whether Apple wants to take their fitness business in that direction or not, who knows?
If they can make $20 handkerchiefs that can sell out for months, perhaps they would like another line of multi-thousand dollar hardware to sell with high margins and lucrative new "services" revenue from a large, installed base. IMO- it certainly doesn't seem to be as big of a stretch as motivating people to wear some kind of ski goggles all the time and/or pay up- I can't even imagine the Apple price- for some kind of car with an Apple logo on it. Apple is ALREADY very much in the fitness business with some hardware and software already in place as part of that. I wouldn't see this as a massive stretch for a company looking for high-profit stuff to sell to get on to another Trillion dollar valuation tier... and then another after that, etc.
Lastly, Peloton doesn't "need anyone to buy them." This idea of Apple or others being buyers only pops up because of "harder times" for Pelton vs. historical rapid growth. Let any company have a disappointing quarter and lower-than-expected outlook and someone will spin their potential sale to big fish with cash/credit to gobble them up. That's a very old, very common story. Apple was on that side of the story in the mid-90s too.
Last edited:
I assume the patents will remain in British ownership then? Or does the company fold now? Just curious.
Hopefully it'll remain in business and the British government will wake up and block it from being allowed to be sold, like they should have done in the first place! Although knowing the government we have they'll let a Chinese corporation buy it instead.
Hopefully it'll remain in business and the British government will wake up and block it from being allowed to be sold, like they should have done in the first place! Although knowing the government we have they'll let a Chinese corporation buy it instead.
If Nvidia couldn't gain approval. Arm definitely won't. Apple could buy the library of intellectual property and use them for the foreseeable future, however.
ARM is British registered company still with its global headquarters in the U.K.
It's parent company is SoftBank.
ARM LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK
ARM LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk
Nothing you said disputes what I said.ARM is British registered company still with its global headquarters in the U.K.
It's parent company is SoftBank.
ARM LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK
ARM LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
Yes it does, you falsely claimed it wasn't a British company when it is. Seems to me I disputed your claim?
heh... Microsoft can buy them, or Google. Both do not have a CPU business so no one can claim anti-competition or whatever. Its because Nvidia actually builds CPUs.
EDIT: Why is Nvidia market cap more than Intel+AMD combined? I mean every computer out there nearly runs intel or amd cpu, then you have the AMD gpu sooo how is Nvidia GPU only is so more valued.
EDIT: Why is Nvidia market cap more than Intel+AMD combined? I mean every computer out there nearly runs intel or amd cpu, then you have the AMD gpu sooo how is Nvidia GPU only is so more valued.
this acquisition in NO WAY would've affected ARM's reach to be widely used. They still are not fully independent however they are planning to be traded as a public company on stock markets. stay tuned.
