News

Arm’s power play will backfire

It was stupid to bring the dispute into the public arena.

Jon Peddie

Arm’s attempts to increase licensing fees for companies like Qualcomm have led to a public dispute, highlighting concerns over future smartphone supply chains. Qualcomm received a termination notice for its architectural license, but it, along with Apple and Nvidia, could potentially shift away from Arm, thanks to their own CPU designs or alternatives like RISC-V. Arm’s public approach has backfired, negatively affecting its share price, and risks long-term business relationships, raising consumer and investor concerns over higher prices.

Car fire
(Source: JPR)

Remember when Apple tried playing hardball with Qualcomm? Apple is again one of Qualcomm’s biggest customers.

Arm is trying to make Qualcomm pay more for the same product they have been buying for decades. Where is the added value?

Arm will try its strong-arm tactic on Apple and then Nvidia, two companies not known for being pushovers. How do you think that’s going to work out for Arm? Maybe they will even go after MediaTek and Huawei.

The irony of this is it is precisely what people feared would happen if Nvidia got ahold of Arm.

Qualcomm and Apple have their own CPU design and can drop Arm within one product cycle.  Nvidia has a RISC-V design team and can probably weed Arm out of its next-generation Superchip and automotive products in a similar cycle. Maybe all of them should have done that already. Maybe that’s what Arm sees in its crystal ball and is trying to get what it can before the money pump ceases.

Currently, Arm’s pricing changes are specifically targeted at architectural licenses, not all products. This change is reportedly part of a dispute with Qualcomm, which has received a 60-day notice of termination for its architectural license agreement.

Arm’s business model involves various licensing types, including:

  • Academic licenses: Effectively free for research and educational purposes, but designs can’t be sold.
  • Single-use licenses: Suitable for start-ups or specific design needs, costing around $1 million upfront plus 2% per chip sold.
  • Multi-use licenses: For larger companies, allowing multiple product designs within a set timeframe (e.g., three years).
  • Perpetual multi-use licenses: For indefinite use in various devices, commonly used by larger companies.
  • Subscription licenses: Access to Arm’s entire portfolio for a set period.
  • Architecture licenses: The highest level, allowing companies like Apple, Marvell, and Qualcomm to design custom cores.

The pricing dispute with Qualcomm may impact smartphone supply chains, but details on specific price increases are scarce.

And since Arm has taken their negotiations into the public arena in an attempt to hurt Qualcomm’s share price and frighten its customers, they have burned their bridges behind and made it more difficult for Arm to give a little and get a little without losing face. We think they are going to lose a lot more than face.

Both companies’s share prices fell the other day, Arm more than Qualcomm, and both are up Friday morning, Qualcomm more than Arm. That doesn’t look like Arm’s little ploy is working out the way they had hoped. Consumers and investors don’t want more expensive smartphones.

Of course, Arm could have kept this between itself and Qualcomm, and the investors and consumers would have been drawn into the battle, and if prices went up, we’d grumble and pay up. Now we have a greedy villain to hate—what a dumbass move.