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.

    ARM需要做一些改变吗？

    在沃伦•伊斯特（ARM现任CEO）的领导下，我们的团队一直非常稳定。但是最近几年，有几位在这里工作多年的高管离开了公司，这也不是什么秘密。现在的团队不同于多年来带领我们走到这里的团队。我在这里已经工作了很长时间。我现在的挑战是，如何让我们的团队继续沿着过去几十年的路径前进。目前，ARM业务中没有什么结构性问题显示这一模式不再适用。事实上，在面临经济和科技挑战的当今，这一模式只有更加适用。合作模式是解决这些挑战的极佳方式。因此，我根本不担心这个问题，也根本不担心半导体需求。这关乎继续和坚持——确保ARM的领导团队是有效的，员工知道我们的目标，在公司成长的过程中不丢失企业文化。这些挑战并非只有ARM一家公司正在面临。

    今天有关摩尔定律（Moore's Law）的探讨，与10年或20年前有何不同？（摩尔定律认为，半导体行业安装在电脑芯片上的晶体管数量每18至24个月将增加一倍。）

    不同的一点是，今天已有足够的历史经验可以证明技术挑战是可以被解决的。现在人们讨论的是，既然我们已经解决了这些问题，使用这些技术解决方案是否经济可行。在摩尔定律讨论中，这是如今人们更加担心的内容。过去的担心是如何缩小晶体管体积。晶体管规模成本已呈指数倍下降。摩尔定律并非铁律，这背后没有自然规律。这只是一项至今仍然没有被打破的预测。但现在，人们开始担忧晶体管规模成本会上升，如果成本真得上升，该怎么办。关于替代材料和碳纳米管有很多的研究，实验室内的研究都着眼于如何持续缩小体积。但到头来你能否承担这一解决方案的成本，是一项挑战。不过我不爱杞人忧天。当前科技以越来越富创意的方式存在，我们有足够的方式去利用科技。

    ARM现任CEO离职时还相当年轻，而保罗•欧德宁（英特尔即将离职的CEO）的离职是人们预期之中的。你认为这是为什么？

    我不能代表保罗•欧德宁发言，但我很了解沃伦，他已在ARM担任了12年的CEO，这是相当长的CEO任期。这显然是一个要求高的工作。要求每天24小时，一周7天的工作，以及频繁的飞行。换做任何一个人，在人生的某个时刻，都会说，“你知道吗，我想有段时间做做其他事情。”沃伦做这件事很久了。他想把这项工作交给其他人。我们有很多共同的理念，但我们是不同的自然个体，我们会有不同的方式。在年龄上，我有一点点优势，希望我的身体还能绕地球多飞几年，而且，基于我对公司的了解，我可以确保我们继续朝着正确的方向前进。（财富中文网）

    Are there changes that need to take place at ARM?

    Under Warren's [East, ARM's current CEO] leadership we've had an incredibly stable team. But over the last couple of years it's no secret that a couple of executives who've been there a long time have left. The current team is different from the team that got us here. I've been there a long time. My challenge right now is making sure that the team continues the path forward that we've enjoyed the last couple of decades. There's nothing structural about ARM's business that says the model that we have doesn't apply anymore. In fact what we have is even more applicable today as we face economic challenges and technology challenges. This partnership model is a great way of addressing this. So that doesn't worry me at all, and the demand for semiconductors doesn't worry me at all. It's about keeping it all going -- making sure that the leadership team at ARM is effective, that employees get where we're going, that as the company grows we don't lose the culture. These are not unique challenges to ARM.

    What's different about the conversation around Moore's Law today versus 10 or 20 years ago? (Moore's Law states that the number of transistors the industry can place on a computer chip will double every 18 to 24 months).

    What's different is that there's enough history to say the technical challenges can get solved. What people now talk about is, now that we've solved them, is it economically viable to use the technology solutions. That's what people are worrying about more now on the Moore's Law conversation than they ever were. Previously it was about what are we going to do to shrink the transistors. The cost per transistors has gone down exponentially. Moore's law isn't a law, there's no natural thing behind it. It's a prediction that has held up. Now people are worried about does the cost per transistor start to go up, and if it does, what do you do about that. There's plenty of research going on into alternate materials, carbon nanotubes, all these things are being worked on in a lab somewhere to keep scaling. But whether you can afford the solution at the end of the day is the challenge. I'm not worried about people saying, well unless the next generation comes along the world will end. There are plenty of ways to use the technology as it exists today in more and more creative ways.

    Your current CEO is leaving at a rather young age, and Paul Otellini (Intel's outgoing CEO) is stepping down ahead of when everybody expected. Why do you think this is?

    I can't speak for Paul Otellini, but I've known Warren very well, and he's been the CEO of ARM for 12 years, which is a long time to be a CEO. It's clearly a demanding job. It is 24/7, and you fly a lot. At some point in anyone's life you say, "You know, I'd like to go do something else for a while." Warren's been doing this a long time. He wants to hand it over to someone else. We share a lot of common philosophies, but naturally we're different people, we'll have a different approach. I've got a little bit of an age advantage on him, and hopefully I can put up with lapping the planet for a few more years, and based on my knowledge of the company I can keep moving us in the right direction.