TL;DR
Arm was sold to Softbank in 2016, raising concerns about UK tech sovereignty. Recent discussions suggest Apple might consider replacing Arm’s ISA with its own, impacting the industry.
Arm, the UK-based semiconductor design firm, is at the center of renewed industry attention as reports suggest Apple may consider replacing Arm’s architecture with its own CPU instruction set architecture (ISA).
Arm was acquired by Japan’s Softbank in 2016 for approximately £24 billion ($32 billion), a move that sparked concern among UK tech leaders about the future of British technological sovereignty. The sale was approved amid a period of economic uncertainty following the Brexit referendum, with the UK government citing the deal as beneficial for the economy.
Since the acquisition, Arm has maintained its role as a neutral architecture provider, licensing its designs to major chip manufacturers worldwide. However, recent industry discussions, notably from the ‘Supply Chained’ podcast, highlight that Arm’s decision to develop its own chips could be seen as a ‘poison pill’—a move that protected it from being acquired by larger chip companies like Intel or Nvidia. Now, by becoming a chip seller itself, Arm might be ‘swallowing its own poison pill.’
Meanwhile, speculation is growing that Apple, which relies heavily on Arm architecture for its iPhones, iPads, and Macs, could choose to develop its own CPU ISA, moving away from Arm. This idea was floated by industry analysts and discussed by Tim Culpan and Jon Y, suggesting that such a move could reshape the industry and challenge Arm’s dominance.
Why It Matters
This development is significant because it touches on the future of UK technological independence, the strategic positioning of Arm within the global chip industry, and the potential for major shifts in how companies like Apple design and control their hardware. If Apple were to replace Arm’s architecture with its own, it could disrupt the existing licensing model and impact the entire supply chain, affecting billions of devices worldwide. The UK’s decision to sell Arm has long been debated, and this new industry move raises questions about whether the sale was in the UK’s national interest.
ARM-based CPU development kits
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Background
Arm was floated on the London Stock Exchange and Nasdaq in 1998 before being acquired by Softbank in 2016. The sale came shortly after the Brexit referendum in June 2016, during a period of economic and political uncertainty in the UK. The government’s approval was based on economic growth prospects, although critics like Hermann Hauser lamented the loss of a key UK tech asset. Since then, Arm has remained a crucial player in the global semiconductor industry, licensing its architecture to companies like Qualcomm, Apple, and Samsung.
In recent years, industry discussions have centered on Arm’s strategic moves, including its own chip development efforts, which could be viewed as a defensive measure against potential acquisition or competition. Meanwhile, Apple’s reliance on Arm architecture has made it a potential candidate for developing its own CPU ISA, a move that could have far-reaching effects on the industry landscape.
“Arm’s move to develop its own chips is like swallowing its own poison pill—protecting itself from takeover but potentially creating new risks.”
— Tim Culpan
“This is a sad day for Britain’s tech industry—Arm was the last truly global British tech company.”
— Hermann Hauser
“If Apple develops its own CPU ISA, it could fundamentally alter the supply chain and licensing model that has underpinned the industry for decades.”
— Industry analyst
Apple custom CPU architecture books
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What Remains Unclear
It remains unclear whether Apple will indeed develop its own CPU ISA or what specific steps it might take. Industry insiders suggest it’s a possibility, but no official announcements have been made. Additionally, the long-term impact of Arm’s own chip development efforts on its licensing model and market position is still uncertain. The UK government’s stance and potential policy responses to these shifts are also not yet clear.
Make: FPGAs: Turning Software into Hardware with Eight Fun and Easy DIY Projects
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
What’s Next
Next steps include close industry monitoring for official signals from Apple regarding its CPU architecture plans. Further analysis will likely focus on how Arm’s chip development progresses and whether the UK government considers new protections or policies. Industry stakeholders will watch for any moves by competitors or regulators that could influence the landscape.
2Pcs Raspberry Pi Pico Development Board, Raspberry Pi RP2040 Dual-core ARM Cortex M0+ Processor, Running Up to 133 MHz, Support C/C++/Python, 2MB Quad SPI Flash Integrated with SPI/I2C/UART Interface
The Raspberry Pi Pico is a beginner-friendly microcontroller board that uses MicroPython to give you a taste of…
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Could Apple really replace Arm architecture with its own CPU ISA?
While it is a possibility discussed by analysts, no official plans have been announced by Apple. Such a move would be complex and involve significant engineering and licensing considerations.
Why did the UK government approve the sale of Arm to Softbank?
The UK government approved the sale citing economic benefits and stability during a period of political uncertainty after Brexit, though critics questioned whether it was in the national interest.
What would be the impact if Apple develops its own CPU ISA?
This could disrupt the existing licensing model, impact the supply chain, and shift industry power dynamics, potentially reducing reliance on Arm’s architecture.
Is the UK likely to intervene if Apple moves away from Arm?
It is uncertain. Current UK laws restrict intervention to competition or national security issues, and no indication suggests such a move is imminent.
