ARM earnings grow 22 percent on royalties from newer smartphones like iPhone 6

Posted:
in iPhone edited April 2015
Revenue at British chip designer ARM Holdings rose 22 percent to 227.5 million pounds ($339 million) in the first quarter, largely on the back of 64-bit smartphones such as the iPhone 6 and the newly-shipped Samsung Galaxy S6, a report noted on Tuesday.




The amount exceeded an average analyst forecast of $335 million, according to Bloomberg. During a conference call with reporters earlier today, ARM CFO Tim Score said that royalties were up because of "very, very high market share" in new smartphones.

In an official statement provided to Bloomberg, ARM did caution that it expects a sequential drop in industry revenues, but that this is consistent with seasonal trends. Many new smartphones are announced at Mobile World Congress in March, but launches then tend to peter out until the fall. Apple typically ships new iPhones in September.

Although devices like the iPhone 6 and Galaxy S6 use custom processors, both are based on licensed ARM architecture. This costs Apple and Samsung, but lets the companies devote more time and resources to optimizing their chips.

ARM's performance may be another sign that the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus have continued to sell well months after launch. Earlier this month, data from Kantar Worldpanel ComTech showed that by February the iPhone 6 was the best-selling smartphone in China and the UK, even if Android devices enjoyed greater global marketshare.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,520member
    I wonder why someone hasn't purchased Arm outright.
  • Reply 2 of 19
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    Such a shame Steve had to sell Apple's ARM holdings back in the days he was bringing Apple back from the dead.
  • Reply 3 of 19
    I wonder if Samsung will pay the royalties or just ignore patents like they did with Apple?
  • Reply 4 of 19
    konqerrorkonqerror Posts: 685member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by saarek View Post



    I wonder why someone hasn't purchased Arm outright.

     

    They're better independent since they need to appear vendor neutral. If Samsung bought ARM, would Apple stick around on the platform?

  • Reply 5 of 19
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post





    Although devices like the iPhone 6 and Galaxy S6 use custom processors, both are based on licensed ARM architecture.

     

    Not accurate.

     

    Samsung uses off-the-shelf ARM processor designs like the A53/A57 in the new S6. Apple makes custom processors that run ARMv8 code. They are two completely different types of licenses from ARM.

     

    Apple processors are far ahead of anything by ARM (and by extension, Samsung).

  • Reply 6 of 19
    paulmjohnsonpaulmjohnson Posts: 1,380member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by konqerror View Post

     

     

    They're better independent since they need to appear vendor neutral. If Samsung bought ARM, would Apple stick around on the platform?




    Yeah, exactly, the market as a whole is doing well because everyone is using a somewhat neutral architecture.

  • Reply 7 of 19
    Such a shame Steve had to sell Apple's ARM holdings back in the days he was bringing Apple back from the dead.

    Same thing I thought. But, we got the people who designed the StrongARM working for Apple now (P.A. Semi).

    Too bad Intel killed it.
  • Reply 8 of 19
    robertcrobertc Posts: 118member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

     

     

    Apple processors are far ahead of anything by ARM (and by extension, Samsung).


    I'm not sure about that. ARM's designs rely on implementation of multiple cores to obtain higher levels of performance.

     

    Samsung's latest Exynos for phones has higher multi-core performance than the A8x for tablets.

     

    Geekbench 3 multi-core:

    A8 (2 cores) - 2,888

    A8x (3 cores) - 4,529

    Exynos 7420 (4+4 cores) - 5,077

     

    If you're talking about a core-for-core comparison, then yes, Apple has the 2nd most powerful ARM core on the market. But the A57 was designed for a multi-core (big.LITTLE) implementation. 

  • Reply 9 of 19
    robertc wrote: »
    I'm not sure about that. ARM's designs rely on implementation of multiple cores to obtain higher levels of performance.

    Samsung's latest Exynos for phones has higher multi-core performance than the A8x for tablets.

    Geekbench 3 multi-core:
    A8 (2 cores) - 2,888
    A8x (3 cores) - 4,529
    Exynos 7420 (4+4 cores) - 5,077

    If you're talking about a core-for-core comparison, then yes, Apple has the 2nd most powerful ARM core on the market. But the A57 was designed for a multi-core (big.LITTLE) implementation. 

    big.Little is stupid, because phone software is almost entirely single core.
  • Reply 10 of 19
    herbivoreherbivore Posts: 132member
    ARMH revenues are up while INTC is flat. x86 sales are stalling in a major way.

    I guess stick PCs are now what Intel thinks will save the day. I can't help but think of the Zune when seeing those things.

    I will be upgrading my second generation iPad once Apple releases the A9X powered model. I rarely use a laptop or desktop anymore and mostly only because it is the only thing available. The laptops at Starbucks, etc. have all but disappeared. ARMH's future is very bright. Intel's x86 grows dimmer with each passing year.
  • Reply 11 of 19
    afrodriafrodri Posts: 190member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post





    big.Little is stupid, because phone software is almost entirely single core.

     

    Phones are not the only thing that ARM is targeting.  ARM's model is to make generic processors for a variety of applications (phones, embedded sensors, and, more recently, servers) and then offer architectural licenses for companies (like Apple, Broadcom, or AMD) to make their own implementations which specialize and target specific applications.

     

    Additionally, part of the goal of big.little for low power systems is so you can switch a thread from the big core to the little core and then power down the big core when performance is not needed. So, if your application domain calls for it, even single threaded codes can take advantage.

  • Reply 12 of 19
    konqerrorkonqerror Posts: 685member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by herbivore View Post



    ARMH revenues are up while INTC is flat. x86 sales are stalling in a major way.

     

    Not comparable. If you were to form Intel from Apple's supply chain, you'd have ARM + Apple + Samsung/TSMC + Broadcom + nVidia/Imagination. Intel brings in 50x more revenue than ARM.

  • Reply 13 of 19
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by afrodri View Post

     

     

    Phones are not the only thing that ARM is targeting.  ARM's model is to make generic processors for a variety of applications (phones, embedded sensors, and, more recently, servers) and then offer architectural licenses for companies (like Apple, Broadcom, or AMD) to make their own implementations which specialize and target specific applications.

     

    Additionally, part of the goal of big.little for low power systems is so you can switch a thread from the big core to the little core and then power down the big core when performance is not needed. So, if your application domain calls for it, even single threaded codes can take advantage.


     

    The problem is the core scheduling has been PATHETIC, so, your not really getting this theoretical performance at all. It is a concept better on paper then in reality. Big cores aren't really all powered off either, they use up some power even when not in use. That's why Intel is still beating AMD, single core perf is higher.

     

    The tasks that can be offloaded to multiple core often are better offloaded off the main CPU alltogether to specialised processors embedded in the SOC: signal processing, image & Video processing, communications, GPU, memory controllers, sensor data gathering/processing, etc.

  • Reply 14 of 19
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member

    "Revenue at British chip designer ARM Holdings rose 22 percent to 227.5 million pounds ($339 million) in the first quarter, largely on the back of 64-bit smartphones such as the iPhone 6 and the newly-shipped Samsung Galaxy S6, a report noted on Tuesday."

     

    Samsung has paid Bloomberg well. Not only it's trashing Apple Watch almost every day, it put the S6 where it don't belong. This publication is just a Samsung shill. It's The Verge with a better name.

  • Reply 15 of 19
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RobertC View Post

     

    I'm not sure about that. ARM's designs rely on implementation of multiple cores to obtain higher levels of performance.

     

    Samsung's latest Exynos for phones has higher multi-core performance than the A8x for tablets.

     

    Geekbench 3 multi-core:

    A8 (2 cores) - 2,888

    A8x (3 cores) - 4,529

    Exynos 7420 (4+4 cores) - 5,077

     

    If you're talking about a core-for-core comparison, then yes, Apple has the 2nd most powerful ARM core on the market. But the A57 was designed for a multi-core (big.LITTLE) implementation. 




    It all boils down to performance within a given power budget (computing capability/watt hour.)

    Apple has consistently whacked the competition, not to mention the other value ads that come with Apples's custom silicon.

  • Reply 16 of 19
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,258member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by saarek View Post



    I wonder why someone hasn't purchased Arm outright.



    The royalty fees to ARM are trivial, so it's not worth buying them to get out of that. And ARM doesn't place restrictions on what you can do with their ISA -- Apple can make any design innovations they want, and they don't have to share them with anyone else. So buying ARM won't result in a better product from Apple. I suppose ARM has some smart people working for them, but Apple seems to have no trouble hiring smart people, so it's not clear they need to buy ARM just to get good chip designers. 

     

    I think the only reason to buy ARM would be to screw over your competitors. But it's not at all clear that would work. You'd probably have to honor existing contracts, or pay some big penalty to get out of them. Then you'd be driving your competitors into the arms of Intel. And longer term, strengthening Intel in mobile is not in anybody's best interest (other than Intel). 

     

    Maybe there's one other reason to take over ARM -- to prevent someone else from doing it. But you wouldn't have to totally take over the company to do that. Just buy enough shares to thwart someone else. 

  • Reply 17 of 19
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,673member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RobertC View Post

     

    I'm not sure about that. ARM's designs rely on implementation of multiple cores to obtain higher levels of performance.

     

    Samsung's latest Exynos for phones has higher multi-core performance than the A8x for tablets.

     

    Geekbench 3 multi-core:

    A8 (2 cores) - 2,888

    A8x (3 cores) - 4,529

    Exynos 7420 (4+4 cores) - 5,077

     

    If you're talking about a core-for-core comparison, then yes, Apple has the 2nd most powerful ARM core on the market. But the A57 was designed for a multi-core (big.LITTLE) implementation. 




    That's completely beside the point of mobile processors. Apple's CPUs are far more efficient than any other. To achieve that score the Exynos is running 4 cores at 2.1 GHz, which yields only 500 extra points over Apples A8X which runs 3 cores at 1.5GHz. (The A8 runs at 1.4Ghz)

     

    The above scores per core, per GHz...

     

    A8 - 1031

    A8X - 1006

    Exynos - 604

     

    That's a fairly huge advantage.

     

    Also, big.LITTLE is a hyper architecture that sits above whatever CPUs are used. Those coupled CPUs don't need to be big.LITTLE compatible they just need to be architecturally compatible with each other. A7/A15 worked in a big.LITTLE configuration, just as the A53/A57 coupling.  

  • Reply 18 of 19
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,673member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post





    big.Little is stupid, because phone software is almost entirely single core.



    Yeah, that's not completely correct. A single application might be single core, but there are literally dozens of processes and hundreds of threads running at any given time on modern phones.

     

    But I do agree that 4 cores is overkill just as much as those hyper density displays.

  • Reply 19 of 19
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    The latest ARM roadmap to their reference designs according to a Chinese mention for those interested
    [IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/58266/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
Sign In or Register to comment.