英特尔和ARM：换个CEO，接着开打

    芯片业的冤家对手——ARM和英特尔（Intel）的CEO更迭计划日前大局已定。但彼此间的战役不会有任何改变。两家公司都选定了长期效力公司的内部人士来执掌大权——英特尔原首席运营官布莱恩•克兰尼克于上周接任CEO，ARM现任总裁西蒙•希加斯也将于7月接班。因此，很难想象两个阵营哪个会做出全方位的改变。而且，向高通（Qualcomm）、英伟达（Nvidia）等提供芯片架构授权的ARM是否需要大规模转变也不清楚。英国芯片设计公司ARM的规模虽然远小于英特尔，但它并不依赖于死气沉沉的PC市场。ARM架构芯片在移动手机市场的份额高达95%，并正在尝试开拓低功耗服务器等新市场。日前，《财富》杂志（Fortune）专访了ARM即将上任的 CEO希加斯，探讨了他对公司的长远规划、与英特尔的竞争以及摩尔定律的现状。

    《财富》杂志：人们经常将你们与英特尔作为竞争对手相提并论，但你们的模式完全不同。经常这样对比，公平吗？

    希格斯：英特尔是一家半导体公司；我们不是。高通、三星（Samsung）、英伟达、Marvell等都是半导体公司。移动设备领域的竞争是在英特尔和其他这些半导体公司之间进行的。其他这些半导体公司都使用ARM架构。但从业务层面来看，是英特尔与ARM的客户在竞争。我们很重视这一点。这是插槽争夺战，是英特尔与我们的授权产品竞争，我们不能坐视一旁，告诉客户说，“很遗憾你失去了那个插槽位置。”如果失去了这些插槽位置，我们的销量和特许授权费都会受到影响。因此，我们需要不断地开发一流的微处理技术，帮助我们的客户创造出提供最佳用户体验的产品。

    英特尔最出色的资产是其芯片制造厂和制造能力。你们呢？

    我认为是合作企业。你可以有很棒的技术，但最出色的技术不一定能胜出。对于我们而言，这就是将优秀的技术融入商业模式，让ARM获得成功，帮助人们以更低的成本打造创新设备。我认为，这样做的好处在于可以让半导体产品更加多元化，进而推动终端产品的多样化。这关乎更多的选择：作为消费者，你可以走进商店买到自己想要的东西，“我要那个”。你会有非常多的选择，因为在供应链的不同环节都会有资金用于创新，不像PC行业由两家分掌，制造PC者的利润率只有2%，除了改改塑料颜色，再也无力承担更多创新。

    Much has been made of the upcoming leadership transitions at chip rivals ARM (ARMH) and Intel (INTC). But it's unlikely that the battle plan will change for either side. Both companies chose long-time insiders to take the helm—Intel COO Brian Krzanich will become CEO later this week, and ARM's Simon Segars, currently the company's president, takes over in July. So it's hard to imagine sweeping changes in either camp. Besides, it's not clear that ARM, which licenses its chip architecture to the likes of Qualcomm (QCOM) and Nvidia (NVDA), is in need of massive transformation. Though much smaller than Intel, the British chip designer isn't dependent on the lackluster PC market. ARM-based chips power 95% of mobile phones, and the company is now trying to venture into new markets like lower-power servers. Fortune recently caught up with Segars, ARM's incoming CEO, to find out about his plans for the company, the rivalry with Intel and the state of Moore's Law.

    FORTUNE: You're often viewed as head-to-head competitors with Intel, yet you have such a different model. Is it fair to constantly compare you to them?

    Segars: Intel is a semiconductor company; we are not. Qualcomm, Samsung, Nvidia, Marvell, etc. are semiconductor companies. In the mobile device, the competition is between Intel and all those other guys. All those other guys use the ARM architecture and are dependent on us to keep that relevant. But at the business level it's Intel competing against ARM's customers. For our part we take that very seriously. It's a competition for sockets among Intel and our licensees, and we can't just sait there and say, "Sorry you lost that one." Because if those sockets are lost, then it impacts our volumes and our royalties. So we need to be sure that we keep developing great microprocessor technology to help support our customers in creating products which deliver the best user experience.

    Intel's greatest asset is its fabs and manufacturing power. What's yours?

    I think it's the partnership base. You can have great technology, but the best technology doesn't always win out. For us it's been the combination of great technology deployed through the business model that has made ARM successful, and it's helped people build innovative devices at lower cost. I think the benefit of that has been greater diversity in the silicon that's enabled greater diversity in the end product. It's about enabling choice so that as a consumer you can go into a store and go, "I'll have that one." You've got a lot of choice there because there is money available through the supply chain for innovation to happen at different points, unlike PCs where two people have controlled it and the person that makes PCs runs on 2% profit margin and can't afford to innovate in anything other than which shade of grey the plastic is.