Star Brood wrote:How is it that Home Depot has several times the revenue of McDonald's!?
Each Home Depot customer typically spends a lot more than than a typical McDonalds customer. They also sell a lot to home remodeling contractors.
Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
Star Brood wrote:How is it that Home Depot has several times the revenue of McDonald's!?
clone wrote:End User why don't you compare some hard numbers between ARM and Intel and avoid the graphs
clone wrote:and when you compare those numbers how about not pretending the phone space is the only space.
clone wrote:look at the revenues.... arm is the ant, not ants, just an ant in comparison to Intel who not only dominates the desktop PC space but several other far more lucrative segments as well which is why they are the elephant.The sales numbers don't suggest that. Roughly 700 million ARM based devices will be sold this year.
arms 2012 revenue 913 million, Intel's 2012 revenue 53.3 billion, ARM's revenues up 16% Intel's 24% (despite suffering from the hdd shortage) ARM's margins 46% Intel's 63%.
ant v elephant.
jihadjoe wrote:Isn't that ARM revenue basically just what they get from licensing?
If we really want to get true "ARM" revenue we need to be looking at things like Samsung's mobile device sales, Qualcomm's APU sales, etc.
clone wrote:c'mon already.... if you want to get the true revenue for ARM you look at their quarterly and annual earnings reports, you don't look at Apple's revenues because they aren't ARM's, you don't look at Samsungs numbers or Googles or tablet sales.If we really want to get true "ARM" revenue we need to be looking at things like Samsung's mobile device sales, Qualcomm's APU sales, etc.
you get it all nicely wrapped up in a tidy clean bow.... 2012 ARM earned a little over 900 million from everything..... EVERYTHING.... next year they will probably make more but if Intel gets a platform... not a cpu but a complete platform put together that is compelling ARM will suddenly be the dominant ultra mobile player that got killed because ARM's business model is built around providing a cpu not a platform.
clone wrote:small and agile looks nice in theory but fails epically once focused on by larger players who have exponentially more resources available.... the operative word being "focused" in that scenario.
Blink wrote:If a Corvette uses a Keisler Transmission we don't calculate Kiesler's revenue by using Corvette sale's revenue. Using the money Apple makes off the iPhone to represent what ARM makes is completely incorrect. You would have to know the licensing agreement between them. Or you can simply follow the reported revenue of ARM Holdings as Clone has mentioned.
Also Qualcomm, Samsung, Nvidia, and Apple do not share technology. It's convoluted to pool them together as if they all shared resources and compare them to Intel itself.
ronch wrote:Does a strong AMD with a very competitive line-up really help the x86 industry have lower prices?
Ryu Connor wrote:I don't feel like prices have changed much in the last decade plus or so.
I recall paying around $500 for a Pentium III (Katmai) 500MHz. IIRC the 600MHz was closer to $1K and the 450MHz closer to $300.
To me I don't see how that's any different than the situation now with the 4770, 4930, and the 4960.
The area with the most new diversification was the low end.
Intel was marching in the direction of more diverse product lines regardless of AMD. Bob Colewell (Intel Engineer of PPro and P4) notes that Intel's marketing had been pushing for years to have a product line with at least three chips in it (i3, i5, and i7) due to the way people mentally evaluate and make purchases.
End User wrote:As I mentioned before "ARM" can be viewed in two ways:
1) ARM Holdings
2) ARM as the entire ecosystem
Both you and Clone are referring to ARM Holdings. I am referring to the ARM the ecosystem.
clone wrote:ARM doesn't have an ecosystem, they are a contributor to an ecosystem, ARM licenses a cpu design... that's it.1) ARM Holdings
2) ARM as the entire ecosystem
Intel on the other hand by designing the whole platform is designing the ecosystem... in their case they'll remove ARM from the equation by... if they are determined to by leveraging the entire platform to make it too expensive for others to source parts on their own.
clone wrote:c'mon already.... if you want to get the true revenue for ARM you look at their quarterly and annual earnings reports, you don't look at Apple's revenues because they aren't ARM's, you don't look at Samsungs numbers or Googles or tablet sales.If we really want to get true "ARM" revenue we need to be looking at things like Samsung's mobile device sales, Qualcomm's APU sales, etc.
you get it all nicely wrapped up in a tidy clean bow.... 2012 ARM earned a little over 900 million from everything..... EVERYTHING.... next year they will probably make more but if Intel gets a platform... not a cpu but a complete platform put together that is compelling ARM will suddenly be the dominant ultra mobile player that got killed because ARM's business model is built around providing a cpu not a platform.
small and agile looks nice in theory but fails epically once focused on by larger players who have exponentially more resources available.... the operative word being "focused" in that scenario.