Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ARM: The Non-Evil Monopolist

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the there's-a-slogan-for-you dept.

Hardware 452

yootje writes "ZDNet is running an article about ARM, a chip-maker who controls more than 80% of the cell phone market and 40% of the digital camera market. ARM shipped 780,000,000 processors last year. ZDNet finds it strange that no one seems to have anything against this company. And maybe it is strange: according to the article many would say ARM is a monopolist, but you never hear anyone say 'ARM sucks!'. But then again, why would they?"

cancel ×

452 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GNAA Annoucement, LOL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9659840)

GNAA Leaks Info about Apple's Next Major OS
GNAA Leaks Info about Apple's Next Major OS

Los Angeles, Ca - With only 3 days left before Steve Jobs announces the new features in Apple's next major version of OS X, version 10.4, codenamed "Tiger", GNAA members Gary Niger (known as JesuitX on the Internet), and pending member Ron Delsner leaked screenshots of the upcoming Operating System to the popular mac rumor's site MacRumors.com [macrumors.com] . See the discussion thread for this at The MacRumors forums [macrumors.com] .

Gary said at the press conference, "We know the gay niggers couldn't wait until Monday to see these new features, so Ron and I took the initiative and gave them to MacRumors.com ourselves."

Ron Delsner was quoted as saying "I hope the GNAA recognizes my effort to help the gay niggers of the world. I would hope they offer me membership."

As always, Rolloffle was unavailable for comment, as he is a British douchebag.

About Apple

Apple Computer is the creator of the Macintosh, popularly known as the "gay computer". 83% of GNAA members are Mac users. Not surprisingly, there was a masturbation party at DiKKy's Norwegian villa to celebrate the release!

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. (You can download the movie (~130mb) using BitTorrent, by clicking here [idge.net] .
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is Niggernet, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .


If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________. fucking
| ______________________________________._a,____ | CmdrTaco
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | will
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | he ever learn that
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA is totally
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | unstoppable? Teamed
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | up with the other troll groups,
| _________#1__________?________________________ | GNAA will absolutely own
| _________j1___________________________________ | the shitty place that is slashdot.
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Just remember, the longer the lines are,
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | the smaller CmdrTaco's penis.
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | This logo is (C) 2003, 2004 GNAA [idge.net]
` _______________________________________________'

(C) GNAA 2004


GTAPL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9659997)

Gay Tigger Association of Pooh-Land

ARM--- (3, Insightful)

Jace of Fuse! (72042) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659846)

Why should I have anything against the company that makes the processor in my GBA? :D

Re:ARM--- (3, Funny)

Trejkaz (615352) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660006)

Exactly. Whereas if the GBA had to run Windows, we would be totally furious.

I kind of like ARM (4, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659849)

Maybe their lack of problems comes from the fact that they don't employ sumbarine patents, price fixing, coercion or collusion to keep their position in the market.

They just make a product that's good for its intended purpose and let the marketplace decide.

If only more companies would follow that lead, this would be a better world.

LK

Re:I kind of like ARM (5, Funny)

sacmog (779672) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659871)

Hey, I have two ARM's and they don't suck at all. Maybe if they did I wouldn't need the ..... Never mind. Wrong topic. (Had to be said).

[OT] your sig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9660026)

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
-Hillary Clinton


The full quote is:

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Well let me be the first of many to say... (0)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659851)

ARM Sucks!!! jk. Who the hell cares? Does one have a choice? Cell phones work. We bitch when they don't work.

Re:Well let me be the first of many to say... (2, Interesting)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659875)

``We bitch when they don't work.''

Which is far too often, actually. However, I am led to think that this is always (barring physical damage) a software problem. Some might even add: a problem with Microsoft software. I don't know anybody who has a phone with Microsoft software, but the software on Nokia phones does crash, silently fail (e.g. phone not receiving calls while indicating everything is fine), and have strange limitations (no more messages can be stored, even though a few hundred KB of memory available).

Re:Well let me be the first of many to say... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659921)

Which Nokia phone?

Re:Well let me be the first of many to say... (1)

Marcah (691411) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660024)

Amen to that.

I have a Nokia communicator 9210i, and the only reason i bought it was because i could install an ICA-client to it for accessing our servers at work.
But then, the reality sets in. The phone seems to be ok, but after couple of hours when i look at it's display again, i find out that i have missed a call. The phone had been a one meter away from me in a silent room, so i know i that would have heard the ringing if it would have actually ringed. And trust me, this has happened enough times to me so that i can be sure it's a fault in the phone (or it's software, that is) and not my senses.
Also, a couple of times it has just silently powered itself off (once again, phone just sitting on the table with a fully charged battery and nobody touching it).

This is quite bad thing when you think that the actual primary purpose of a phone is to receive or place calls. You should NOT need to be checking your phones display every five minutes just to see if the damn things BSOD'd itself.
I'm curious, has these things happened to someone else with the Commicator line of those phones?

Shipped? (4, Informative)

mst76 (629405) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659852)

I didn't know ARM "shipped" any processors at all.

Re:Shipped? (2, Informative)

deminisma (703135) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659868)

Right. As the article says ARM designs chips and then license the designs to parties that then manufacture them.

Not just a monopoly. (5, Informative)

rebeka thomas (673264) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659854)

Being a monopoly isn't illegal

Using your monopoly position in illegal anticompetitive ways however, is.

Yes, but (4, Informative)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659864)

The government also have to show harm to the consumer (at least in the US you do - I don't think they have to in Europe). This is always the hardest part.

Re:Yes, but (4, Informative)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659890)

I think that, in this scenario, there really hasnt been any harm to the consumer.

ARM has produced solid products for years and years. They're widely accepted in the "industry" as powerful processors for application-specific tasks that consume low amounts of power, on a relatively small budget.

What's more, they're a kind of standard. If you're hiring a microcontroller programmer, or an embedded programmer, I'd say there's a pretty good chance that they at least have some exposure to working with ARM hardware, as opposed to something more obscure.

All this combined decreases the cost of development for the companies, and results in more products coming to market.

Re:Yes, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9660010)

That's not really very hard in the case of Windows... the entire OS is built around causing harm to the consumer.

Re:Not just a monopoly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9660034)

Yes it is, you idiot.

Re:Not just a monopoly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9660044)

The very existence of Linux, BSD, Apple, etc. proves that Microsoft is not a monopoly.

I thought ARM (5, Informative)

mocm (141920) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659859)

only designs CPUs. Do they really manufacturethem?
The article only talks about CPUs shipped, but not that ARM ships them.
AFAIK ARM cores are use by many chipmaker from Intel to TI, but arm don't sell CPUs.

Re:I thought ARM (5, Informative)

tsho (129531) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659899)

You're right.

It's well known that ARM is a Connected Community is a global network of companies aligned to provide a complete solution, from design to manufacture, for products based on the ARM architecture.

Look here: http://www.arm.com/community/

they do it differently (5, Insightful)

Da_Slayer (37022) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659861)

Maybe it is cause ARM does not really shove itself down people's throats. Their business practices help set them apart. In addition, they embrace open source/standards and it's ideals. An example: ...the OpenMAX(TM) working group to define a royalty-free, cross-platform API (application programming interface) that standardizes access to multimedia processing primitives used extensively in video codecs such as MPEG-4, audio and image codecs, and 2D and 3D graphics. The OpenMAX API will enable library and codec implementers to rapidly and effectively make use of the full potential of new silicon - regardless of the underlying hardware architecture.

Lets see free, cross platform, standardized and hardware independent. That meets all my requirements of a good idea(tm). Also their support for embedded Linux probably does not hurt them either.

Becuase they are unkown, mostly. (5, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659867)

There are plenty of other monopolies or near monopolies out there. Go read up on Sysco if you want one (they control basically all grain silos in the US). The ones people care about are the one that get press time. The ones that stay low on the radar, almost nobody cares about. Most people don't actually do a lot of general research, they just get in to whatever is news. You have to do a bit of digging to come upon lesser known monopolies.

Re:Becuase they are unkown, mostly. (1)

dekeji (784080) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659986)

Go read up on Sysco if you want one (they control basically all grain silos in the US). The ones people care about are the one that get press time. The ones that stay low on the radar, almost nobody cares about.

And Sysco stays "low on the radar" because they don't make a hell of a lot of difference to most people's lives. Maybe bread is a few cents more expensive because of Sysco, big deal. Maybe Sysco executives are fabulously wealthy, but why should anybody care?

But Microsoft doesn't stay low on the radar: plenty of people have to buy software, use software, and deal with bugs in Microsoft software, software that they would never have chosen to buy on their own.

So, the difference between Sysco and Microsoft is not some accident of press coverage or some unfair persecution of Microsoft, it really is due to how their respective products and corporate policies impact people's lives.

And what do you think would happen (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660045)

If Sysco destoryed all their grain storage and stocks? This would be their right, as they own it. Do you think that would have no impact on the world? Do not think it would have more impact than software bugs?

Sysco is just the chosen example, there are plenty of others. How about General Electric? They aren't the singular monopoly you are used to, but rather the verticle type, controlling a whole line of products. The make your light bulbs, your appliances, they sell you your insurance, make your medical equipment, your jet engines, you weapon systems, etc. They are a larger company than even Microsoft, the largest in the world last I checked.

Thing is, you really do care about what you hear about. Now if you have a special intrest in something that most peopel don't and thus hear about something that affects it, maybe you care about something most people don't but really, you limit your scope of care to that which you hear about and matters to you.

Don't pretend like there aren't other monopolies out there, and that they can't do things to fuck people over. If you haven't researched it and/or don't care, that's fine, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Also notice I never mentioned Microsoft. I am simply pointing out a general trend. I like using the Sysco example because most people haven't heard of them, and because most people dismiss them with a wave as you do. They never consider what a widespread interruption to the food supply would mean.

My real point is that companies can be monopolies, so long as they stay off the public radar. My dad works for one such company, but no one knows they are a monopoly so no one cares.

A good reason to learn ARM assembly (2, Insightful)

onelin (116589) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659872)

With that amount shipping a year... I really should get around to fiddling with ARM assembly more. Not a bad way to land a job, I bet.

Re:A good reason to learn ARM assembly (2, Insightful)

thinkfat (789883) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659893)

Why would learning assembly language help you to a job? Widen your horizon, programming languages are just tools. Its the mind that makes the difference.

Re:A good reason to learn ARM assembly (2, Insightful)

fatphil (181876) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659907)

When I worked in a mobile phone conslutancy, we wanted to remain flexible, and targeted both Hitachi and ARM processors. To do this, we wrote everything apart from a tiny abstracted kernel in portable C.
All the DSP and layer 1 stuff took place on ASICS, obviously. That's reflected in other places where I've worked too - assembly just isn't required for 99% of tasks nowadays.

FP.

It's not a crime to be a monopolist (1, Redundant)

StLawrence (734027) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659873)

Being a monopolist, or having a monopoly, is not a crime.
However, engaging in behavior that takes unfair advantage of
one's monopolist state to inhibit or stifle competition can be a
crime.

I am not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong...

Why nobody complains (3, Insightful)

bobhagopian (681765) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659874)

I propose a simpler explanation: obscurity. The fact that ARM has a large market share doesn't automatically mean that everyone knows about it -- in fact, how many /.ers can honestly say that we know a lot about ARM?

In short, we at /. are really good at complaining about Microsoft, Intel, AMD, SCO, and just about any company whose name is mentioned. But because ARM keeps a pretty low profile, it avoids the hatred that will inevitably be directed toward it now that its on slashdot.

Re:Why nobody complains (2, Interesting)

AtomicBomb (173897) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659927)

With exception to the nnARM guy, who wrote an ARM7 clone in VHDL...

http://www.us.design-reuse.com/news/news277.html

Re:Why nobody complains (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659940)

They might be obscure to you, but not to many of us. They simply haven't recieved any criticism because they haven't done anything to warrant it.

Re:Why nobody complains (5, Informative)

h0tblack (575548) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660007)

Arm have a very interesting history. They were originally setup by Acorn back in the early/mid eighties to produce a CPU for the future lines of desktop machines Acorn were producing (A3000, RiscPC's etc). This enabled Acorn to be the first with RISC-on-the-Desktop machines a long time before Apple came along with their claim to this title with their PPC based desktop machines about ten years later.
ARM were floated off as a seperate entity by Acorn (a very wise move which enabled ARM to grow where Acorn failed) with investment by Acorn, VLSI and Apple (they used the ARM in their Newton). Being a member of Acorn's enthusiast group I was offered dirt cheap shares and only wish I'd had the money to buy some as they rapidly increased in value. Part of this increase came about as ARM partnered with Digital to work on the StrongARM, before becoming rather closer to Digital, and then in turn Intel (as part of some agreement following the two large companies throwing law-suits at each other over unrealted matters). Intel's involvment with ARM enabled them to produce the XScale and no-doubt helped increase penetration in the wider mobile market.
It's amazing to see a company that I knew from a young age grow into such a pervasive entity. I still have a couple of old Acorn machines, the most powerful of which has one of the first StrongARM chips availible in it, it wasn't until a decade later that I got my next StrongARM, in the form of a much smaller Zaurus. There's also ARM's lurking in games-consoles (GBA, Dreamcast), routers, PDA's, portable music players, mobile phones, infact just about every type of small device. A Lot of people use products with ARM tech in them without even realising it.

sometimes, monopolies are good (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659877)

i'm not saying this, that, or the other thing about arm, but if you look at the debacle of california and their power problems when electricity was deregulated there, then it is clear that for some matters, a monopoly is actually a good thing

it's simplistic to think monopoly=bad automatically

but it's also bad to not recognize where monopolies are a necessary evil due to the high cost and other barriers to competition (do you really want to wire all of california a number of times redundantly for electricity?)

where you recognize a monopoly as inescapable, you must regulate them, bind them with legislation, and watch them like a hawk... and then they are "good"

btw, here's another monopoly that just made the news, and no, they are neither good nor necessary:

us govt and de beers in an agreement to allow them to reenter the us market after a 50 year hiatus for monopolistic practices [bloomberg.com]

Re:sometimes, monopolies are good (1)

neglige (641101) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659926)

it's simplistic to think monopoly=bad automatically

Well, yes and no. A monopoly is not automatically a bad thing. But the market situation lets the supplier set a price where the market, as a whole, is being hurt.

This does not mean a supplier (in this case ARM) will by default pick such a price - although it would be feasible from a business point of view. There are other aspects to consider: marketing aspects, a low price as an entry barrier etc.

And even if the supplier does pick the optimal price from his point of view, it does not say anything about the _absolute_ "damage" done to the market. A good in a competitive market could be priced at 10 cent, and the monopoly price could be 20 cent. While this is not optimal technically, in reality most people don't care :)

When did success become (3, Insightful)

King_of_Prussia (741355) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659878)

something to hold against a company or person? I thought America was the land of capitalism, where those who rise to the top of their fields (be they individuals or corporations) are lauded for their achievements, not sniped at from the sidelines for being more successful than someone else. I come from a country where "tall poppy syndrome" (the cutting down of those above you) is endemic, and it is not a pleasant environment to operate a business in. If America wishes to stay on top of the world's technology ladder, it would be beneficial to eradicate this attitude towards success.

I see this kind of ting far too often on slashdot, a post about some great achievement followed by a snarky comment from an editor about its inefficiency or some other nit, to be followed up by hundreds of posts proclaiming how they would have done it better. I say applaud those innovating and succeeding, don't discourage them.

PS, I have 8 gmail invites to give away (I can't get rid of them fast enough lol), so if you want one please post your obfuscated email addresses below (logged in members only, preference given to subscribers).

Re:When did success become (-1, Offtopic)

AvinashM (212062) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659891)

I won't mind having 1 GMail invite. My email address is avinash AT noulakaz DOT net

Thanks.

Re:When did success become (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9659909)

Re:When did success become (0, Offtopic)

King_of_Prussia (741355) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659914)

Come on, that's just not cricket. Will somebody with mod points mod this down before the spambots get to it?

Re:When did success become (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9659944)

The last time I heard of someone making a dummy email account, putting it in their sig, and counting spam, the amount came down to nothing.

Re:When did success become (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9659958)

We all know that you posted that AC comment.

'King of Prussia' is a known troll.

Re:When did success become (-1, Offtopic)

thesp (307649) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659895)

Ooh..gmail? Forgive use of a mailexpire account, some people here may not be trustworthy... glolmaskal AT toungucyol.mailexpire.OBFUSCATED .com

Re:When did success become (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9659897)

maxious [at}} lambdacomplex d0t org

Re:When did success become (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9659916)

Re:When did success become (-1, Offtopic)

NimNar (744239) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659898)

thanks, i really want a gmail account. jonathan_beck at yahoo.com

Re:When did success become (-1, Offtopic)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659903)

I have 8 gmail invites to give away (I can't get rid of them fast enough lol), so if you want one please post your obfuscated email addresses below (logged in members only, preference given to subscribers).

Any chance I could get in on that? joetierney a7t myrealbox.com

Re:When did success become (-1, Offtopic)

thug220 (204509) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659908)

You can send one my way, please.... yakadoo2 at hotmail dot com.

Re:When did success become (-1, Offtopic)

karstux (681641) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659912)

Oooh, gmail. Wouldn't mind one of those! :-) If you'd be so kind, mail to: blackhole AT apoapsis DOT net. Thanks!

Re:When did success become (-1, Offtopic)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659930)

I wouldn't mind one of those :-)

simon&@&hostip,info

Cheers,
Simon

Re:When did success become (0, Offtopic)

df3rry (795627) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659955)

Hmmm could u spare one for me? dferry AT OBFUSCATED EMAIL ctv DOT es

Re:When did success become (0, Offtopic)

binkzz (779594) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659957)

Could I request one at all?

m.goulding
at
staff.covcollege.ac.uk

Why was this modded down? (0, Offtopic)

mark99 (459508) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659963)

Can't slashdot readers take critisim and self-reflection? He is only stating facts.

It is easier to critise than to construct, and many in this forum are guilty of that.

PS, You can send me one of those gmail thingees if you have any left (mark99 aaattt gmx dot net)

Re:When did success become (0, Offtopic)

passionplay (607862) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659982)

Please send me one invite. passionplay at hotmail dot com

Re:When did success become (0, Offtopic)

rpbailey1642 (766298) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660004)

I'd like a gmail invite, please. robert UNDERSCORE pratt AT hotpop DOT com.

Re:When did success become (0, Offtopic)

AndyChrist (161262) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660019)

It becomes something to hold against someone when they start using that success to prevent others from succeeding. (As opposed to using the skills and effort that led to their original success to prevent others from succeeding.)

Their Customers (1)

gunnmjk (734032) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659881)

Their website has this picture [arm.com] displaying products based on their architecture.

Of note: Microsoft, Portalplayer (iPod Interface), Philips, Redhat, IBM, LG, NetBSD, Texas Instruments. WOW, there's too many to list them all, but this is pretty crazy.
Looks like a monopoly to me, but does anybody know the names of ARM's competitors?

Re:Their Customers (2, Informative)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660032)

> but does anybody know the names of ARM's competitors?

Nowadays mostly Hitachi, and in elder days, MIPS.
Theres some overlap to Transmeta also in the market for handheld devices if I go by Transmeta's story, but I never encountered them as such in the marketplace.

Re:Their Customers (2)

cimetmc (602506) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660049)

It's only a monopoly because of the excellent value of their product, the ARM design. If they wouldn't provide good value, you could be sure that big chip manufacturers like Intel, Motorolla or TI would invest more R&D money in designing their own competing products rather than licensing the ARM design.
So that fact the most potential competitors license the ARM design rather than try to compete shows the quality of ARM. This is not a market like the PC market where Intel compatibility is a requirement. Most people that use embedded ARM processors don't care about code compatibilty. They only thing they want is a controller that does its job.

Marcel

gmail invites (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9659885)

Hey, I have loads of Gmail invites left and no-one to give them to. Reply to this post with your email address if you want one.

Re:gmail invites (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9659932)

i'll take one

rjharris292821@yahoo.com

thanks a lot!

Re:gmail invites (-1, Offtopic)

Fritzed (634646) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659933)

Hey if your serious I'd love one, I've been on the waiting list forever.

Thanks,
-> Fritz AT dreamhaven DOT org

note to mods who don't know what they're doing.
this is offtopic

Re:gmail invites (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9659965)

obvious troll (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9659949)

n/t

Re:gmail invites (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9660020)

president@whitehouse.gov

I really apprecialize it,

G.W.

Student's ARM7 clone disappears from Web (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9659887)

http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011102S0121

Why do you pay attention to ZDNet? (5, Insightful)

njdj (458173) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659892)

ZDNet finds it strange that no one seems to have anything against this company.

What ZDNet is implying is this: "People don't like Microsoft because it's a monopoly. But they don't dislike ARM, which is also a monopoly. That's inconsistent and illogical."

Firstly, it's highly questionable whether ARM can be called a monopoly in the sense that MSFT is, because ARM has only about 80% of its market, vs over 90% in the case of MSFT. ARM's competitors have more than twice as much market share as MSFT's competitors.

But, much more to the point, ARM has not engaged in illegal practices to bankrupt its competitors. Remember, for example, Microsoft's piracy of Stacker's technology. Remember how they broke Netscape, by reducing the price of their own browser to zero by cross-subsidizing its development. Today, MSFT is trying to strangle Linux by concluding agreements with PC vendors which prohibit sales of dual-boot systems. These agreements, forced on PC vendors by MSFT's enormous market power, are almost certainly illegal, but taking MSFT to court would cost many millions of dollars and the case would last for years. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

MSFT's attitude is, it's OK to break the law if you can get away with it or if the benefit exceeds the costs. That's why Microsoft is widely (and correctly) perceived as evil, not because it has a large market share.

Re:Why do you pay attention to ZDNet? (1)

AvinashM (212062) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659905)

That why the European Union has just fined Microsoft for 'illegal pratices' instead of 'being in a monopolistic situation'...

Intel, Hitachi would gave their right arms ... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9659901)

... for such market dominance. And Motorola, Samsung, Sony and everyone else too. I've vaguely known about ARM for a long time and associated them with RISC chips and some PDAs but didn't know they have gotten so big. This is really big, isn't it? Biggest chip supplier to the hottest and still growing appliance market. The Brits have lost it in many areas where they used to do well but this is pleasant surprise. Congrats to the Brits for a job well done.

Cost of Hardware VS. Cost of Software (1)

dnahelix (598670) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659911)

Hasn't most software either stayed the same price or is now more expensive, while hardware gets cheaper? (50% rhetoric/ 50% inquiry)

maybe this... (5, Insightful)

danalien (545655) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659913)

maybe this link [arm.com] will shead some light on why no-one is agains ARM?! ....

..they aren't in the business of 'competeing in/on a manufacturing' bases, but to provide their costumers with the designs they need (Seems like a 'service oriented' approach, to me).

/* they make their money by licesing 'the final design' on some royalty-base *I guess*, and I guess their costumers sees those royalties as 'part of the manufacturing costs' and don't really care much more about them. +Plus it would cost 'them' more to R&D and Devel/Debug etc etc on their own, then to go with ARM .... Finally it brews down to 'costs' and it seems ARM provides a compelling cost-effecting product/service(s) .... */

Because it was part invented by a lady (4, Interesting)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659918)


Following on from her success with BBC Basic, Sophie Wilson [dotgeek.org] was asked to help with the instruction set, testing it by hand, on paper !

Re:Because it was part invented by a lady (5, Informative)

Nighttime (231023) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660037)

Actually, Sophie Wilson is a transsexual.

And before I get modded a troll for this, it's a well-known fact in the Acorn community. Acorn being the company that helped start ARM and produced a range of desktop machines using said chips. He/she also was involved with the design of the BBC microcomputer.

Re:Because it was part invented by a lady (1, Troll)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660051)

> Following on from her success with BBC Basic, Sophie Wilson was asked to help with the instruction set, testing it by hand, on paper.

Heh... BBC basic....

Amazingly fast... too bad it also didn't do any garbage collection or freeing of memory of no longer used variables and such... I recall wondering for a while how they got it as fast as they did.. untill I got my hands on the basic roms.

For that matter.. the ARM was first used in the Acorn Archimedes wasn't it?

because... (1, Informative)

dj245 (732906) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659923)

And maybe it is strange: according to the article many would say ARM is a monopolist, but you never hear anyone say 'ARM sucks!'. But then again, why would they?"

Intel is Arm's strongest compeditor in low-power embedded chips with its Xscale chips. Unfortunately, Intel has applied the Pentium 4's famous Netburst architecture to the poor Xscale, resulting in marvelous clock speeds of over 700mhz, but with much added heat and power consumption. You can probably imagine what this does to battery life. The last thing the world needs is Prescott in a PDA.

ARM on the other hand has been following a high computation per clock cycle approach, like AMD (or Pentium M) which makes sense for their applications because it results in lower heat and power consumption. A 1ghz PDA might sound impressive, but if battery life is half an hour, I won't be buying one.

Re:because... (1)

AaronGTurner (731883) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659990)

Although the Xscale is a StrongARM chip, i.e. an ARM derivative.

Re:because... (2, Informative)

mooman22 (312066) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660000)

Unless I am very much mistaken the XScale is based on the ARM instruction set.

So Intel isn't competing against ARM with the XScale as they pay ARM to use the design.

Rather than making it suck, Intel have produced a higher clock rate version of the architecture for use in applications that need more oomph.

See: Intel PXA255 Processor with Intel XScale Technology [intel.com]

Re:because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9660012)

the Xscale used to be called the StrongARM it was a joint Digital/ARM venture hence the Xscale is an ARM chip and for everyone sold ARM get cash.

Re:because... (3, Informative)

mikrorechner (621077) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660050)

Intel is Arm's strongest compeditor in low-power embedded chips with its Xscale chips.
Sorry, but that's BS.

As you can see here [intel.com] and here [arm.com] , Xscale is based on ARM designs, thus making Intel an ARM customer, not a competitor.

Russia (1)

Bombah (572185) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659925)

In Soviet Russia the ARM powers YOU!

ARM haven't shipped a single chip ever... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9659937)

... they design 'em, and other people licence the designs. A small point, but one worth making.

not strange ... (2, Insightful)

mqx (792882) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659947)

``and maybe it is strange: according to the article many would say ARM is a monopolist, but you never hear anyone say 'ARM sucks!'. But then again, why would they?"``

It's not strange at all: consumers and end users know little nor care little about the embedded processor, and frankly, the choice of embedded processor has little if any impact on the end user.

There are many other monopolies in various parts of society that people don't get worked up about.

Obbligatory Slashdot posts (0, Redundant)

mu22le (766735) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659952)

All packed toghether so you dont have to search

In soviet russia ARM boycots you!

I, for one, welcome our new processor market overlords.

I can't afford a non ARM cell phone, you insensitive clod.

Re:Obbligatory Slashdot posts (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660036)

All packed toghether

You forgot "what about a Beowulf cluster of ARM chips?" - or is that one no longer in use?

Re:Obbligatory Slashdot posts (0)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660054)

1. Archimedes
2. Bankrupsy
3. ???
4. Proffit!

one of the more unusual benefits of working at ARM (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9659962)

This, for starters. [ntlworld.com]

Re:one of the more unusual benefits of working at (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9660030)

I'd hit it.

(yea, I know, this is /. not Fark [fark.com] )

Why is a monopoly bad by default? (2, Interesting)

ezraekman (650090) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659964)

I don't think people dislike monopolies. They dislike what monopolies have come to represent, and what they can lead to. I don't hate the idea of a monopoly. Do you? I just don't like the apparent and usually inevitable consequences.

Monopolies aren't inherently evil, just like dictators. It's just that in almost every example of their existence, they have shown to be detrimental to individuals, businesses, or society as a whole. A "benevolent", utilitarian dictator with the intent to make life better for his/her people could be beneficial to society. He/she would not be limited by legislation, and could focus on working towards a better future without worrying about bureaucracy or red tape. History demonstrates that any good utilitarian tries to amass as much wealth and influence as possible in order to serve these exact purposes. The more power they have, the better job they can do to serve the people. Humans would do much better with a benevolent dictator that they could ever come close to with any semblance of democracy.

Of course, history also demonstrates that absolute power corrupts absolutely. The day the "benevolent" dictator decides that they've done enough for society and that it's time to serve themselves is the day that everything goes downhill. The unfortunate fact is that those who would make good dictators would never be ruthless enough to attain such power. If they were, they probably wouldn't be in the best interest of the public good.

A monopoly is not bad in theory. If a company or organization had a monopoly on... say, microchips, they could drive the technology much faster and better, because they would control every aspect of it. They wouldn't have to worry so much about their software being compatible with their hardware, because they always know exactly what processor is being used. They wouldn't have to fight with competitors over standards, and could add as much functionality as they wanted, setting their own standards.

Unfortunately, theory is not the real world. In practice, monopolies don't do things because they're in the best interest of the public. They do them because they're in the best interest of the company. (Or at least, the company's officers.) This leads to higher profits (theoretically), but lower customer satisfaction. Some side-effects include buggy software, products that fail or break sooner than they should, etc. Because of this, the getting-screwed-public gets fed up and starts hollering. Thus, everyone hates monopolies. But what if the products and services of a monopoly just worked? I'll bet John Q. Public wouldn't care one way or the other at that point.

The average person doesn't care if something goes well. They become livid when there's a problem. A customer won't usually do very much if a company does their job exceedingly well. They will usually boycott the company and stage a rally if the company does poorly. I took an entrepreneurship class in 1992, and learned that the average person would tell 3 people when they were pleased with a product or service, but 11 when they were displeased. Since the internet became the next big thing (around 1994-1995) those numbers have probably skyrocketed. Humans are a loud, complaining bunch.

So is a monopoly bad? Not inherently, but they usually end up that way. I'd say that no one is going after ARM because their products just work and don't seem to cause problems. Their monopoly has not intentionally shut down any competition, or blatantly violated anti-trust laws. Until they screw us, I say more power to 'em.

Cheap ARM hardware == good! (1)

ericzundel (524648) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659989)

There's nothing not to like about a $109 piece of hardware capable of running linux like the Gumstix [gumstix.org] brought to you by a little ARM processor.

Helium (1)

CaptainPhoton (398343) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659995)

Who here on Slashdot is actually developing with ARM-based processors? I have to say, Helium 210-80 is pretty freaking cool. We should be discussing the merits of this technology.

No choice (2, Insightful)

nempo (325296) | more than 10 years ago | (#9659996)

I think people don't say 'ARM sucks' because you can't really customize your cell phone/pda with this or that cpu, how much ram/hdd you want or what gfx card you want.

If you could actually build a DIY phone as most builds their computer THEN we probably would complain about the monopoly.

Customer is always right (4, Informative)

Fizzl (209397) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660002)

ARM does good business. They support they cutomers. they make good products. That's all. I don't care if they are a monopoly as long as they continue to be the benevolent dictator.

They ship exactly what the customer wants. In cell-phone markets it's common to "roll your own" processor. You basically order the ARM core and then tell them exactly what instructions you want to be in the chip. They will deliver that.

Not to the consumer (2, Insightful)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660015)

ARM does not sell to the consumer. They sell to other companies who have a professional purchase department. And if ARM tries to pull the same stunts as MS does, they will see a decline in sales, like, DAMN fast....

What about 'American Standard'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9660025)

Wherever I go in the US the toilet nearly always says 'American Standard' (I think I've seen one other brand somewhere). They seem to have almost complete domination over at least the public restroom market, and I've never heard any complaints about them. So are they a benevolent monopoly or am I just not clued in enough in the sanitary porcelain business?

Re:What about 'American Standard'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9660048)

I'm not an American but wouldn't that mean the toilet complies with American Standards. Unless it is a real company, in which case you should ignore me.

Maybe.. (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660027)

Just maybe no one keeps their phones long enough for them to relise any errors with them.

I cry for the English language (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9660028)

"Non-evil"

Aaarghh! In English, there is a perfectly fine word for that: benign.

Re:I cry for the English language (0)

yootje (770109) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660033)

Sorry, 100% Dutch ;) Blame the editors :P

Hmmm... (1)

john_smith_45678 (607592) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660029)

Maybe they're like that company in Halloween 3, just laying low until they can "activate" all their chips.

Bit if background (5, Informative)

aitsu (592587) | more than 10 years ago | (#9660042)

I used to use an ARM computer when home computing was taking off in the UK. They weren't ARM then, they were called Acorn, building oddball "home" computers like the Acorn Atom. In the 1980s Acorn fought off rival bids from the likes of Sinclair to land a deal with the Department of Education and the BBC to develop the BBC Microcomputer and later the Acorn Electron. Its version of BASIC - BBC BASIC - became the programming language standard taught in all schools in the UK for a whole generation. In fact you could stick me infront of a Beeb now and I could probably knock off a simple text adventure without even thinking. ARM, incidentally, used to stand for Acorn RISC Machines. (Later, the 'A' came to stand for 'Advanced'.) Yes, they were in fact one of the earier companies to commercialise RISC computing with their R-series designs, which were also supplied to UK schools in the form of the Acorn Archimedes computer. The Archimedes was one awesome machine.

This is all from memory, however. Here's a more accurate history [atterer.net] .

Available now: W ketchup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9660046)

Ahahahahaha!

This is just stupid [bbc.co.uk] .

And they're serious!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>