Originally Posted by samab
Another thing that you got it wrong is that you think Samsung is a architecture licensee. There are only 4 architecture licensees --- Marvell, Qualcomm, Infineon and Microsoft.
This was reported by a single blogger stating that McGuire told her this. Not that ARM or McGuire stated this at a conference call unless you have a link that shows otherwise.
In 2008 ARM CEO East stated that a leading handset OEM had signed an architecture license during the ARM 2Q earnings call. Not reported by a ZDNet blogger second hand.
Marvell, Qualcomm and Infineon are not handset OEMs. Samsung and Apple are and some folks believe this to be Samsung and others Apple. Of the two Apple is most likely but either way there's more than the 4 stated. You are correct that Samsung isn't a confirmed holder. My bad. On the other hand it's not likely to be anyone other than Samsung or Apple.
"And looking ahead, we can see further designs out in the future based on the licensing activity of today
within this set of results. We are talking about an architecture license with a leading OEM
for both current and future ARM technology. So, that means do not get excited about any revenue on this deal because it is all tied up with future technology and the revenue will be recognized over several years
, but it is very important as far as we are concerned in terms of securing design-ins with that particular OEM and also in the mobile space altogether"
Unidentified Audience Member
Yes, good morning. The first question would be on the OEM deals you signed in the quarter
. How should we think about those from a revenue perspective and how do they actually work in terms of what the OEMs are getting from you?
Warren East - ARM Holdings plc - CEO
Okay. I mean from a revenue perspective, as I said, think about that as -- because of the nature of the products licensed actually, it's revenue over a period of several years. So, not a material impact on short-term revenue on a quarter-by-quarter basis.
And in terms of what people actually get, well again it varies. The one deal that we talked about this morning is actually an architecture license.
The other deals are various, actually, from design-only licenses through to design and ability to manufacture chips.
"Unidentified Audience Member:
Morning, morning. Just a follow-up question on the earlier one about the OEM deals. Particularly, what's the significance that the deal is with the handset OEM rather than the chipmaker
, firstly? And then, I guess, related to that, you have been reasonably restrained about Intel this morning. Would you also expect to see them pursue similar deals with kind of handset OEMs, top tier names potentially, any view on that?
Warren East - ARM Holdings plc - CEO:
Yes, two questions. So on that particular transaction, we are not really disclosing any more about that transaction than is in our earnings release and we have already disclosed. Some handset manufacturers want to have more control over the design of their handset, including the components within it, than others. And it's as simple as that. And the ARM business model offers one that level of control if that's what one wants to do and one has the technical resources available to do it. And that's a question for each and every handset manufacturer. So, sorry, I can't really be very forthcoming about that. "http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_...transcript.pdf
There is at LEAST one more than your list of four. An architecture license deal had been concluded with a handset OEM in 2008. Microsoft isn't a handset OEM either.
I never claim that Samsung can't build their own A9 --- I said that they can't do it within the time line given.
The timeline is July of 2011. 7 and a half months from now for the iPhone 5. iPad is closer but given Apple's penchant for secrecy Samsung could be fabbing now.
I was talking about time line, time line, time line. I never said that they couldn't design it. I never said that they couldn't manufacture it. I said that they can't design it within the time line given.
Design is done. They're sampling now. Orion might get another spin before full production but the design itself is done for both Orion and Saratoga. ARM made a big deal about 32nm at their conference so given Saratoga sampled in Feb and ARM released a POP I think the 32nm A9 design is ready.
I said that even if they can design it, they can't produce it in quantities that would satisfy Samsung's own internal demand, let alone produce in massive quantities that Apple demands.
That Samsung Mobile is using Tegra doesn't imply that Apple isn't getting priority manufacturing for the 2011 iPad and iPhones. Again, Samsung favored production of the A9 for the iPad ahead of production of the Hummingbird for their own phones.
Considering the fact that Cortex A15 is design for 32nm, by the time that the fabs are ready to do 32nm --- they would be manufacturing A15 chips then.
Wrong. The 32nm fab qual'd in June and Samsung's Lin stated at the November TechCon it's ready for full rate production. ARM has specific A9 enhancements (POP) for Samsung's 32nm process ready for license and they showed working silicon at TechCon. The A15 is still a ways off.
If Samsung is currently in full rate production in their 32nm fab Apple could have enough for an iPad 2 launch in March/April. Supplies will be constrained but they can still sell the current iPad as the lowest end model with the two higher end models being the iPad 2 like they do with the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4.
I'm starting to think that 32nm is actually the most likely scenario. Apple didn't buy Intrinsity, PA Semi and trot out the A4 to let 45nm Tegra 2 based Android tablets and phones have an advantage until 2H 2011 and miss their desired iPad and iPhone refreshes.