But not with ARM… so instead of Softbank making royalties Nvidia makes them. I’m struggling to understand how this merger would eliminate competition, consolidate the market, and put consumers at risk of harm.
> I’m struggling to understand how this merger would eliminate competition, consolidate the market, and put consumers at risk of harm.
Uh, how about this: NVIDIA raises the licensing fees substantially. NVIDIA won’t have to pay the licensing fee if they own Arm, which would expand their profit margin at the expense of Arm licensees, and raise prices for consumers.
Or they could refuse to license Arm IP to current licensees.
This is exactly why Nvidia wants to buy ARM. It’s straight out of the Jack Tramiel (of Commodore) playbook. Commodore bought MOS to guarantee supply of the 6502 then raised the price for all of their competitors. It’s one of the reasons why a Commodore 64 was less than half the price of the nearest competitor.
You really don't see how NVidia controlling what price their competitors have to pay for ARM technology and when they get access to it at all could have an impact on the market?
Right now SoftBank controls that price. If they could raise it and make more money off of ARM and piss on the market then why aren't they doing it? They’re a business trying to maximize profits after all, it’s in their interest regardless of who’s competing for what.
Softbank doesn't benefit if it weakens one of their licensees. NVidia would benefit from weakening other ARM licensees, even if that would hurt ARM income.
I do see how this might be a conflict, thank you for pointing it out. In general I’m not convinced that those competitors couldn't just leave and use some other instruction set. If ARM is too important to business to be owned by a selfish company, then declare it public domain already…
I don't know how accurate that website is. For France, it lists the following:
> Don’t Bank on the bomb identifies the following companies as producers of key components for the French nuclear weapons arsenal:
> Airbus Group (the Netherlands),
> BAE Systems (United Kingdom),
> Leonardo (Italy),
> Safran (France), and
> Thales (France)
(Neither of which has anything to do with nukes directly)
Which isn't incorrect but misleading. There are two French nuclear-capable missiles (ASMPA and M51, for air and submarine launches respectively) and one warhead ( TNA). ASMPA is a cruise missile designed by MBDA (which is the successor to government-owned missile companies), M51 was mostly designed by the military with some parts subcontracted to various subcontractors like MBDA, Safran, Thales, etc.
However, the nuclear warheads themselves are designed by a government-owned company, CEA, and everything nuclear related in France is at least majority government owned.
I don't feel it's misleading; a nuclear weapon is much more than the warhead.
Nuclear weapon delivery systems have been the most important part even since the first ever atomic bomb. The B-29 Superfortress that dropped the bombs on Japan cost about 1.5x as much as the Manhattan Project to develop[1].
Every discussion of arsenals I've seen focuses on delivery more than warheads [2][3].
Additionally, I can't speak for France, but in the US, the warheads are produced/refurbished in government-owned, privately managed and operated facilities. That's to say, the likes of Lockheed-Martin, Northtrop Grumman and Honeywell have all the operational knowledge and access, but technically Pantex is government-owned.
