Jump to content

Talk:Arm Holdings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Arm (company))

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Is ARM still a PLC?

[edit]

If it's a public limited company, that would mean that I can buy shares of it on some stock exchange, such as the London Stock Exchange, right? Is it still listed? If not, wouldn't that mean it's no longer a PLC? Guy Harris (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARM is not a PLC. I believe the article should now live at ARM Ltd. but this page exists so I'm not able move this one myself. Aimaz (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, SoftBank;s "SoftBank Group" page says "SoftBank is a corporate group comprising the pure holding company SoftBank Group Corp. and 739 subsidiaries (as of March 31, 2016)." and lists, among major subsidiaries, "ARM Holdings plc", saying "ARM Holdings plc became a subsidiary of the Company on September 5, 2016." ARM's own Financial Results page says "ARM Holdings plc is a wholly owned subsidiary of SoftBank Group Corp."
However, "ARM" doesn't show up on the LSE site, and "ARMH" doesn't show up on the NASDAQ site, so if they're still called "ARM Holdings plc", I'm not sure what the "l" in "plc" stands for.... Guy Harris (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" ... I'm not sure what the "l" in "plc" stands for. .." - as stated already above, it stands for Public Limited Company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant "what the "p" in "plc" stands for"; if it stands for "public", in what fashion is it "public" if you can't buy its shares? Guy Harris (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is a misunderstanding of the status of Public limited company. As the Wikipedia article correctly identifies, a Plc may be wholly owned by a single family, or be a wholly-owned subsidiary of a company. Registering as a Plc is a very modest and simple step and does NOT involve participation in an open market, even though conversely it is a prerequisite for some markets. For a company the size of Arm, the obligations involved in being a Plc are really no more than general accounting practice requires, so there would be no reason for Softbank to change its structure in this regard, especially if for its own purposes it reqards Arm as a distinct tradeable asset.
If this page has been moved to ARM Ltd based on the reasoning given here it was wrong to do so: ARM Plc is still the correct name if the company says it is, subject to its continuing compliance with having allotted and paid share capital pursuant to Companies Act 1985 et seq. Atconsul (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARM vs Arm vs arm

[edit]

We need to discuss and investigate the proper way to spell ARM before renaming ARM to Arm. On the arm.com website, I noticed they started changing some of their webpages from ARM to Arm or even arm. Is the case change just for the company name? How about old core names like ARM7? How about ARM Architectures? How about ARM instruction set? Is some of this changing or all of it changing? I don't know. We should investigate and NOT get in a big hurry, because this affects lots of things on Wikipedia. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arm has published guidelines today as well as the major changes across the sites. https://www.arm.com/company/policies/trademarks • Froeba (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that paragraphs from that page probably shouldn't be copied and pasted into the article as is, because that might be considered a copyright violation.
If somebody wants to, for example, mention the name change in the History section, they can do so in their own words, and give the trademark policy page as a reference, including the relevant part of that quote, namely the second sentence, in the quote= section of the reference template. Guy Harris (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the trademark policy change speaks, for example, of "Arm7", "Arm7TDMI", "Arm9", and "Arm11" as trademarks, so it looks as if the old core names changed.
However, neither the documentation on the infocenter.arm.com site (http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.set.architecture/index.html) nor the Architecture page on developer.arm.com (https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture) speak of "Arm" except on the boilerplate material at the top and bottom of the page, so I'd suggest waiting for those to change before we do anything about the "ARM architecture"; fortunately, the names of the application architectures just have "A" at the beginning, and the names of the instruction sets in AArch64 just have "A" or "T" at the beginning, so they aren't going to change (the trademark policy change speaks mostly of "Arm", not "arm", so we don't need to call anything lower-case-"a" "arm" - they appear to be drawing a distinction between the company name and its corporate logo - see https://www.arm.com/company/policies/trademarks/guidelines-corporate-logo - just as we don't have to replace "Sun" in "Sun Microsystems" with the old Sun logo.
Note also that the branding page (https://www.arm.com/company/policies/trademarks/guidelines-brand) speaks of "ARM Compliant Product[s] (as defined in your agreement)"; perhaps the word "agreement" indicates that the phrase is in legal documents, which might constrain them from waving their magic marketing wand and converting it to "Arm compliant products". I don't know whether there are issues of that sort that might constrain whether they can rename "ARM architecture" to "Arm architecture", for example. Guy Harris (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The company policy pages at (https://www.arm.com/company/policies/trademarks) are the gospel of this matter. This is in fact happened, which is why I changed it. I work for Arm and was asked to change all of the references. This in particular change needs to happen. AlienDev (talk) 3 August 2017 (UTC)
<ref>[https://www.arm.com/company/policies/trademarks From 1 August 2017, Arm has a new corporate logo and it is now using the Arm word in sentence case instead of the ARM word in uppercase in text.]</ref>
Essentially, when writing a sentence we use Arm. When talking about our product or anything else, we use Arm. The Arm corporate logo is now lowercase. there is only the once instance where it is used uppercase which is mentioned earlier, but should be ignored unless it is exactly that phrase and context. AlienDev (talk) 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Then I suggest you tell the appropriate fellow employees to fix http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.set.architecture/index.html, and the documents to which it points you, and fix https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture as well, before you do anything about "ARM architecture" or tell others to do anything about "ARM architecture", because, unless the architecture doesn't count under "anything else", or "we" doesn't refer to "Arm Holdings", "we" aren't "[using] Arm" in that context yet. Guy Harris (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I skipped over Wikipedia related issues, and decided to do a trademark search. I randomly picked "ARM7TDMI" to search the uspto.gov trademark database. I found an entry, but it's all uppercase "ARM7TDMI". I tried to find "Arm7TDMI" but I couldn't find anything, either because I'm not an expert on their search engine or it doesn't exist. I haven't yet searched other ARM trademarks, but this makes me curious if this is the exception or not. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mark = ARM7TDMI at https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86390868&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
Mark Statement = "The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font, style, size, or color." at https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86390868&docId=APP20140913074240#docIndex=19&page=1
Mark Registration Certificate at https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86390868&docId=ORC20160405003745#docIndex=1&page=1
For what it's worth, the EU Intellectual Priority Office's search engine finds "ARM7TDMI", again, all upper-case. Their search engine is case-insensitive; a search for "iphone" found "Made for iPad iPhone", capitalized exactly in that fashion, as well as "IPHONE", capitalized in exactly in that fashion, both owned by Apple Inc. (capitalized in exactly that fashion :-)). I don't know what trademark law in various locales says about registering a trademark with several capital letters and then claiming that a version with some of those letters un-capitalized is covered by the registration. Guy Harris (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are all very good points. I'm not very thrilled of being told what to do, but I'll look past that for now. Arm Holdings refers to Arm as the company. The company page is Arm.com and will always be considered the company itself and the gospel on all things involving the company itself. That does and will always include how to spell product names, how to write product names, how to write the company name itself, and anything else to do with brand, product, trademarks, etc. The infocenter space is a documentation area and would be a very large undertaking to change the case of some words. especially because that system is version controlled. the developer space is an interesting point, but if you read the URL, it is just a section of the parent website, arm.com. I would completely understand the hesitance in the change if the company website didn't state any difference. It does, a lot of differences. There is even trademark and brand guides on that website which state, "Arm" when writing in text, "arm" is the logo as an image, and that one, only one instance of "ARM" in a very specific context or when the entire sentence is written in caps. What exactly is the logical argument in the parent website, arm.com, not being the authoritative source on how to write "Arm" when referring to it's company or it's products? AlienDev (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
>> "I'm not very thrilled of being told what to do"
Wikipedia isn't the old lawless wild west, where you can do what ever you want to do, instead Wikipedia has a mountain of rules and guidelines. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate their rules and regulations. I am absolutely fine working within their rules. AlienDev (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The webpage https://www.arm.com/company/policies/trademarks attempts to use "trademark" as an authoritative reason. After we checked just one trademark, it appears the webpage assertion doesn't hold weight for one trademark, which makes a person wonder if other ARM trademarks are similar. I haven't gone back yet to check other ARM trademarks to determine if my random check is a fluke or the norm. At this moment, Wikipedia articles use uppercase ARM7TDMI, which matches official trademark pages. Still, even if the trademark was changed, we could cite "historical use" reasons, "common use" reasons, and possibly other reasons to keep it uppercase. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That webpage is authoritative, as it is Arm's trademark policy section, rules, etc. The one paragraph is clear as day. When writing a normal text paragraph, please refer to the company as "Arm". There are other pages within the section (such as https://www.arm.com/company/policies/trademarks/arm-trademark-list/arm-trademark and https://www.arm.com/company/policies/trademarks/arm-trademark-list/arm11-trademark), that highlight how to use the new change with product names such as Armv8-A and Arm1136. Products aside, the name of the company itself is now changed to Arm. not sure how much more clear that can be. It is that I am trying to get updated at the very least. I don't really mind if Arm1136 references don't get updated. They will over time, I'm sure. It is the "ARM Holdings", "ARM Architecture", etc, those references is what I'm trying to get updated to "Arm". AlienDev (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm concerned about changing ARM to Arm or arm on Wikipedia is that it affects thousands of changes across thousands of articles. Searching for "arm.com" on google lists 69.1 Million results just for this single ARM search, which likely means hundreds of millions of webpages would be affected. ARM has been uppercase for decades, thus I consider this effort a silly waste of time. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That really isn't up to you to decide. We as a company decided that this is something we wanted to waste our time on. Our trademark lawyers and our brand managers do not agree with you that it would be a waste of time, or else I wouldn't be here arguing the point. AlienDev (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If ARM doesn't change 100% of their websites / 100% of their documents / 100% of everything they own, then ARM shouldn't expect anyone else to do the same. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you don't know what 100% of our websites are. I'm not even sure you could find a list of 50% of our websites, let alone a list of our documents to verify that statement. Our main, company corporate website, arm.com, has been updated. The rest of the web will follow. The logos has been updated on many. Content on pages have been updated on many. This is the direction we are taking. It is a very silly argument. Seeing my updating the name as malicious is silly. AlienDev (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1st) I didn't use the word "malicious" nor have I implied it in this talk section. (2nd) Another user left a warning on User:AlienDev talk page because your edits initially appeared to be vandalism from a brand new account, which is very common on Wikipedia. Also, changing between anonymous edits and account edits is another sign of vandalims attempts. (3rd) Over the past days, I've wondered if "AlienDev" might not actually be an ARM employee, since anyone can create an anonymous account and claim to be anyone they want. In the last hour, I was looking through the public edit history to see what you tried to change, and I noticed that one of the edits was an anonymous edit with an IP address. I checked that IP address with a reverse-IP lookup website, and it stated the IP belonging to ARM in Cambridge, so we I know that someone at ARM company made an edit to this article. For now, I'll assume it was AlienDev. (4th) Per my previous statement, you need to read this Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and you need to pass this along to others at ARM. (5th) I changed the company name in a few key areas in this article, which is enough to get by through the weekend. (6th) My concern isn't with the corporate name, but instead with historical product names that have been used for decades and concerns with trademark documents not matching mandates on the ARM website. (7th) I don't have anything against ARM as a company or your products. I have designed ARM-based hardware and software for over a decade, and it's currently my favorite group of CPU cores. On the other hand, as an American with 1st amendment rights and as a long-term ARM user, I have the right to call-out anything that I think is silly or a monumental waste of time. For a vast majority of companies, almost no one outside of a company cares about corporate marketing IP, instead a vast majority of customers ONLY care about the actual products. No engineer is going to choose a competitor over ARM or visa versa, because of corporate marketing IP. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I wasn't directing the malicious comment at any single person. Wiki has changed a lot over the years since I last used it. Honestly, I didn't see who said it. I can appreciate the issues with my account looking new, and the anonymous thing. The anonymous bit was an accident. I didn't have "keep logged in" activated. Yes, I am an Arm employee, as you have noticed via the reverse lookup. Yes, you have every right to think it is silly, I'm not saying you shouldn't think it is silly. What I said is that we do not think it is silly and it is up to us what we spend our time doing. This is one of those things that we have chosen to do. At this time, with all of this aside. I need to make those updates, where do we go from here. AlienDev (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My tuppence. I agree the logo and the pages specifically about the company should be changed to reflect their policy. However I do not agree that there should be any general change to the names of articles, especially of older products like ARM7. The great preponderance of references refer to the old style and that is how Wikipedia does things. The more current things can change gradually as people start doing whatever it is the company does and anything new they say will just follow their new guidelines. Wikipedia is not supposed to lead general use or follow official guidelines - see WP:OFFICIAL - it is supposed to follow general use. Dmcq (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plus this article should note the change from ARM to Arm in how it styles itself. Dmcq (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Arm Holdings, the company, not the architecture. Discussion of the name of the architecture belongs elsewhere. Sam Tomato (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it amazing how in 2017 that ARM Holdings claimed "Arm" in mixed case was extremely important to them, and acted like it was "the end of the world" if "ARM" wasn't changed to "Arm" on Wikipedia, yet today in 2020 the home page of their website has "arm" in lowercase, LOL. I actually laughed out loud when I saw "arm" in lowercase on their website, because it reminded me of this discussion! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the revenue counted in JPY Japanese Yen, instead of USD ?

[edit]

I got confused when i read this. I think it should be USD. Tran Trong Nhan (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a British company owned by a Japanese company that's selling 90% of its ownership to a US company. I don't think the sale has closed yet. Guy Harris (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't. It's not selling any % of its ownership to a US company as the deal is going to be blocked by the UK Government. So exactly what currency it should be in is a good question, but certainly not USD. 82.24.169.40 (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even Softbank's page is counted in USD lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.41.100 (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure to which page you're referring, but the "SoftBank Group Corp. Consolidated Financial Report For the Three-Month Period Ended June 30, 2021 (IFRS)" uses both JPY and USD in the "Arm Segment" section starting on page 25. The first table, on page 25, of "Net sales" and "Segment income (income before income tax)" use millions of JPY. Page 25 has another table of "Net sales in U.S. dollars", breaking the results down by "Technology royalty" and "Technology non-royalty"; they say that "Net sales in this section are presented in U.S. dollars as Arm’s revenue is primarily based in U.S. dollars." Guy Harris (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Softbank's Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.41.100 (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British company?

[edit]

The norm to define the nationality of a company is where the ultimate parent company is domiciled? ie Japan 79.67.170.255 (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct.
It should be called a Japanese company. 57.140.28.17 (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We seem underinformed about recent events. As of Sept 23, Arm is nobody's subsidiary, has worldwide shareholders, and sells its shares on NASDAQ under US jurisdiction. Atconsul (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - the nationality of a company is where the company itself is domiciled. It's perfectly possible for a company with nationality x to be owned by a company with nationality y.
For instance: Ben & Jerry's is an American company because it's domiciled in North America. The fact that it's owned by a British company (Unilever) doesn't change that.
In either case, ARM is no longer a subsidiary of another company, so this is a moot point. 92.21.128.16 (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arm china

[edit]

Would “independent arm china” continue to access the arm group ever-evolving technology? Riskit 4 a biskit (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arm_Holdings&oldid=1246339378"