Arm Holdings PLC (ARM) 2024 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good day, and welcome to the Arm Second Quarter of the Financial Year Ending 2024 Earnings Conference Call.

美好的一天，歡迎參加 Arm 截至 2024 財年第二季的收益電話會議。

(Operator Instructions) Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded.

（操作員指示）請注意，今天的會議正在錄製中。

I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Ian Thornton, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

現在我想將會議交給今天的發言人，投資者關係主管伊恩桑頓 (Ian Thornton)。請繼續。

Thank you, Abigail. Good morning, good afternoon, everybody. My name is Ian Thornton, and I'm the Head of Investor Relations at Arm. I'd like to welcome you to our earnings conference call for the second quarter of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024. I'm joined today by Rene Haas, the Chief Executive Officer of Arm; and Jason Child, Arm's Chief Financial Officer. Hopefully, you will all have downloaded and read the shareholder letter. If not, it is available on the Arm Investor Relations website at investors.arm.com. As the shareholder letter provides a rich update on our strategic progress in the quarter, we will dispense with the prepared remarks from the CEO and CFO, and instead focus on Q&A.

謝謝你，阿比蓋爾。大家早安，下午好。我叫 Ian Thornton，是 Arm 投資人關係主管。歡迎您參加我們關於截至 2024 年 3 月 31 日的財年第二季度的收益電話會議。今天，Arm 首席執行官雷內·哈斯 (Rene Haas) 也加入了我的行列。和 Arm 財務長 Jason Child。希望你們都已經下載並閱讀了股東信。如果沒有，可以在 Arm 投資者關係網站 Investors.arm.com 上找到。由於股東信函提供了有關我們本季度戰略進展的豐富最新信息，因此我們將省去首席執行官和首席財務官準備好的講話，而是將重點放在問答上。

Before we begin, I'd like to remind everyone that during the course of this conference call, Arm will discuss forecasts, targets and other forward-looking information regarding the company and its financial results. While these statements represent our best current judgment about future results and performance as of today, our actual results are subject to many risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from what we expect.

在我們開始之前，我想提醒大家，在本次電話會議期間，Arm 將討論有關公司及其財務業績的預測、目標和其他前瞻性資訊。雖然這些陳述代表了我們目前對未來績效和績效的最佳判斷，但我們的實際結果受到許多風險和不確定性的影響，可能導致實際結果與我們的預期有重大差異。

In addition to any risks that we highlight during this call, important risk factors that may affect our future results and performance are described in our registration statement on Form F-1 filed with the SEC on September 14, 2023. Arm assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made.

除了我們在本次電話會議中強調的任何風險之外，我們於2023 年9 月14 日向SEC 提交的F-1 表格註冊聲明中還描述了可能影響我們未來業績和業績的重要風險因素。Arm 不承擔更新的義務任何前瞻性陳述，僅代表其作出之日的情況。

In addition, we will refer to non-GAAP financial measures during the discussion. Reconciliations of certain of these non-GAAP financial measures to their most directly comparable GAAP financial measures and a discussion of certain projected non-GAAP financial measures that we are not able to reconcile without unreasonable efforts and supplemental financial information can be found in the shareholder letter that we released earlier today. The shareholder letter and other earnings-related materials will be available on our website at investors.arm.com.

此外，我們將在討論中提及非公認會計準則財務指標。某些非公認會計原則財務指標與其最直接可比較的公認會計原則財務指標的調節，以及對某些預計的非公認會計原則財務指標的討論，如果沒有不合理的努力和補充財務信息，我們就無法對這些指標進行調節，可以在股東信中找到我們今天早些時候發布的。股東信函和其他與收益相關的資料將在我們的網站 Investors.arm.com 上提供。

And I'll now hand you over to Rene, who will make a brief opening statement before we go to your questions.

現在我將把您交給雷內，他將在我們回答您的問題之前做簡短的開場發言。

Thank you, Ian. And as Ian mentioned, we have given you the shareholder letter in an attempt to minimize the opening remarks by myself and Jason, but I can't resist; I'll just start with a few comments to kick off.

謝謝你，伊恩。正如伊恩（Ian）所提到的，我們向您提供了股東信函，試圖盡量減少我和傑森（Jason）的開場白，但我無法抗拒；我將首先發表一些評論。

We are very pleased following the IPO process to kick off our very first quarter as a public company, and the quarter was excellent. We had record revenue, really fueled by demand for all Arm products, which has driven our licensing numbers up, over 100%, year-on-year. This is largely driven by what I would consider as an AI R&D super cycle where people are investing more and more in new technologies to take advantage of the huge opportunity going forward.

我們非常高興按照 IPO 流程開啟了作為上市公司的第一個季度，這個季度非常出色。我們的收入創歷史新高，這實際上是由對所有 Arm 產品的需求推動的，這推動了我們的授權數量同比增長超過 100%。這在很大程度上是由我認為的人工智慧研發超級週期所推動的，在這個週期中，人們越來越多地投資於新技術，以利用未來的巨大機會。

On the royalty side, slightly down year-on-year. However, the new businesses that we have emphasized in terms of our new growth strategy into the cloud and automotive were up approximately 20%. And the financial results relative to profitability were excellent.

特許權使用費方面，年比略有下降。然而，我們在雲端和汽車領域的新增長策略中強調的新業務成長了約 20%。相對於獲利能力而言，財務表現非常出色。

So in summary, very, very pleased about the first quarter and very, very pleased about the results we've shown as the first of our many quarters going forward as a public company.

總而言之，我們對第一季非常非常滿意，對我們作為上市公司在未來多個季度中的第一個季度所展示的業績非常非常滿意。

So with that, I will turn it over, I suppose to Abigail to queue up the questions.

因此，我將把它交給阿比蓋爾來排隊問題。

At this time, we'll conduct the question-and-answer session.

這時，我們將進行問答環節。

(Operator Instructions) Our first question comes from Toshiya Hari with Goldman Sachs.

（操作員說明）我們的第一個問題來自高盛的 Toshiya Hari。

I had two questions, maybe one for Rene. I think your royalty business was up mid-single digits or 5% sequentially. And I think units were down about 5% sequentially. So can you speak to what drove your revenue there? Is it chip ASPs? Is it royalty rates? Or is there a combination of both? I think during the IPO, you guys had talked extensively about the transition from v8 to v9. So I'm guessing that was one of the bigger drivers but if you can provide a little bit of context to what drove your royalty business on a sequential basis, that would be helpful.

我有兩個問題，也許是問雷內的。我認為您的特許權使用費業務連續成長了中個位數或 5%。我認為單位數量比上一季下降了約 5%。那麼您能談談是什麼推動了您在那裡的收入嗎？是晶片ASP嗎？是特許權使用費嗎？或兩者兼而有之？我想在 IPO 期間，你們廣泛討論了從 v8 到 v9 的過渡。因此，我猜這是更大的驅動因素之一，但如果您能夠提供一些背景資訊來說明按順序推動您的版稅業務的原因，那將會有所幫助。

Sure. Yes, thanks for the question. And you're right, it is largely driven by the transition to v9 accelerating, particularly across the smartphone segment. Additionally, as we had mentioned earlier in our discussions with analysts, we're seeing growth now across the automotive and cloud infrastructure business. And those have different royalty rates than our smartphone business does. So as a result, what you're seeing is that even with units down, the overall numbers are actually up in terms of revenue.

當然。是的，謝謝你的提問。你是對的，這在很大程度上是由向 v9 的加速過渡所推動的，特別是在智慧型手機領域。此外，正如我們之前在與分析師的討論中提到的，我們現在看到汽車和雲端基礎設施業務的成長。這些產品的專利費率與我們的智慧型手機業務不同。因此，您看到的是，即使銷量下降，整體收入實際上還是上升了。

Great. And then as my follow-up, during the IPO, you had shared with us that roughly, I think it was 97% of estimated royalties under contract in fiscal '25 kind of being locked in from a royalty rate perspective, 81% for fiscal '26. So I was hoping now that a couple of months has gone by, if you can provide an update on those numbers.

偉大的。然後，作為我的後續行動，在IPO 期間，您粗略地與我們分享了這一點，我認為從特許權使用費率的角度來看，25 財年合約中預計特許權使用費的97% 是被鎖定的，而25 財年合約中的81% 是被鎖定的。 '26。所以我現在希望幾個月過去了，如果你能提供這些數字的最新情況。

Yes. Yes, again, thanks for the question. And I would say we're about at the same level in terms of where we are in terms of mile markers towards progress. We're still confident in terms of the numbers that we had talked about in the past. But more importantly, everything's tracking as we would expect at this point in time. So those numbers are still unchanged.

是的。是的，再次感謝您的提問。我想說，就進展里程而言，我們處於同一水平。我們對過去討論的數字仍然充滿信心。但更重要的是，目前一切都在我們的預期中進行。所以這些數字仍然沒有改變。

(Operator Instructions) Our next question comes from Ambrish Srivastava with BMO Capital Markets.

（操作員說明）我們的下一個問題來自 BMO 資本市場的 Ambrish Srivastava。

My first question is, if I look at the fiscal year guide, given you had such a big upside on the licensing side versus what we were modeling for, what's the mix embedded in the guide between royalties and licensing?

我的第一個問題是，如果我看一下財政年度指南，考慮到與我們建模的內容相比，許可方面有如此大的優勢，指南中嵌入的特許權使用費和許可之間的組合是什麼？

Yes. The -- well, for the -- so if you kind of unpack our expectations for the back half of this year, the next 2 quarters, we're expecting royalties will flip to positive, I'd call it, single-digit growth in Q3. And then by Q4, we expect to see double-digit growth on a percentage basis. Licensing, we expect to continue to be strong. I do expect our assumptions on Q3, we do have some lumpiness with our licensing business, especially with ASC 606.

是的。那麼，如果你了解我們對今年下半年、未來兩個季度的預期，我們預計特許權使用費將轉為正數，我稱之為個位數成長在第三季。然後到第四季度，我們預計將出現兩位數的百分比成長。許可方面，我們預計將繼續保持強勁。我確實預期我們對第三季的假設，我們的授權業務確實存在一些不穩定，尤其是 ASC 606。

So we do have some -- as we always have, some large deals that are in play. As of right now, I think versus what we thought a quarter ago, I think there's going to be a little more falling into Q4 versus Q3. So I think with our guidance for Q3, our expectations are to be somewhere in that kind of, call it, 0% to 10% growth on a year-on-year basis. But we expect pretty significant growth because we do expect some pretty big license deals coming in Q4.

因此，我們確實有一些——正如我們一直以來所做的那樣，一些大型交易正在進行中。截至目前，我認為與我們一個季度前的想法相比，我認為第四季度的情況會比第三季的情況要多一些。因此，我認為根據我們對第三季的指導，我們的預期是年增 0% 到 10%。但我們預計會有相當顯著的成長，因為我們確實預計第四季會出現一些相當大的授權交易。

In terms of the -- I guess, your -- the mix of revenue split, hard to say at this point. It's going to be I'd say, yes, closer to 50-50 than -- but that really depends on how strong the royalty recovery is in Q4. There's all sorts of industry reports. And I think if you look at most of the guidance as well as we have a pretty easy comp from a year ago, it could get maybe closer to 60% of total but we'll see.

就——我想，你的——收入分配的組合而言，目前很難說。我想說，是的，接近 50-50——但這實際上取決於第四季度特許權使用費復甦的強勁程度。各種行業報告都有。我認為，如果您查看大部分指南，以及我們一年前的相當簡單的比較，它可能會接近總數的 60%，但我們拭目以待。

Got it. Got it. No, I think you gave enough detail. And my second question is a little bit longer term. On AI, you guys have been pretty detailed about giving us a percent. I think you said, correct me if I'm wrong, 43% of royalties have -- are driven by AI. I just wanted to understand, going forward, what's going to be the driver? Is it -- and I'm assuming that majority of the 43% is on the edge. So as we look forward, is it going to be more as we have seen with Grace Hopper, which is volumes are very small. Is it going to be more infrastructure driven, i.e., something like Hopper or the data center hyperscalers? Or is it more going to be -- more of the same, more on the edge on the mobile side?

知道了。知道了。不，我認為你提供了足夠的細節。我的第二個問題是一個有點長期的問題。關於人工智慧，你們已經非常詳細地告訴我們要給我們一個百分比。我想你說過，如果我錯了，請糾正我，43% 的版稅是由人工智慧驅動的。我只是想了解，未來的驅動因素是什麼？是嗎？我假設 43% 的人中的大多數都處於邊緣狀態。因此，當我們展望未來時，是否會像我們在格蕾絲·霍珀（Grace Hopper）身上看到的那樣，數量非常小。是否會更多地由基礎設施驅動，例如 Hopper 或資料中心超大規模？還是會變得更相同、更靠近行動端？

Yes. So this is a very, very fast-moving market relative to the models that are being released that are almost on a daily basis, combined with just how quickly some of these agents are moving across different devices. So when you think about, for example, the endpoints, a PC or a smartphone, that could be running a ChatGPT agent or Microsoft Copilot, just a quarter or 2 ago, we may not be classifying them as devices that were running AI. So our expectation is that increasingly, all of the devices that exist in the overall value chain from the cloud to the endpoint, and the endpoint can be the smallest sensor with a compute engine, will need some level of AI capability, which is why our licensing activity has been as strong as it is.

是的。因此，相對於幾乎每天都會發布的模型，以及其中一些代理商在不同設備上移動的速度，這是一個非常非常快速變化的市場。因此，當您考慮例如可以運行 ChatGPT 代理或 Microsoft Copilot 的端點（PC 或智慧型手機）時，就在四分之一或 2 年前，我們可能不會將它們歸類為運行 AI 的裝置。因此，我們的期望是，從雲端到端點的整個價值鏈中存在的所有設備（端點可以是具有計算引擎的最小感測器）將越來越需要一定程度的人工智慧功能，這就是為什麼我們許可活動一直很活躍。

People are looking to add as much capability in terms of compute to capture the workloads that are being developed. And in some cases, it's really a function of making sure you have enough compute capacity to run the model when you don't even know yet what the model is. So I think we are in a very interesting time relative to how this overall market is going to play out.

人們希望在計算方面添加盡可能多的功能，以捕捉正在開發的工作負載。在某些情況下，它實際上是在您甚至不知道模型是什麼時確保您有足夠的計算能力來運行模型的功能。因此，我認為我們正處於一個非常有趣的時期，整個市場將如何發展。

To specifically answer your question, whether it's the endpoint or the cloud, both. And I think it's going to be a rapid acceleration across the next few years, where a few years from now, we won't talk about the percentage of devices that have AI in them. It will be sort of table stakes that they all do.

具體回答您的問題，無論是端點還是雲端。我認為未來幾年這將是一個快速加速的過程，從現在開始的幾年後，我們將不會談論具有人工智慧的設備的百分比。他們都在做賭注。

Our next question comes from Vivek Arya with Bank of America.

我們的下一個問題來自美國銀行的 Vivek Arya。

Rene, for my first one, I'm curious, you had the IPO 2 months ago and the process started before that. What have been the big changes in your macro and industry assumptions, positive or negative? Since the team went through that process, any color by end market, geography? And specifically, what I'm trying to get to is that if you look at the way you were thinking about royalty revenues in December and the next few quarters, have they changed in any way, positive or negative, given any potential changes in your macro assumptions?

Rene，對於我的第一次，我很好奇，你們兩個月前進行了 IPO，流程在此之前就開始了。您的宏觀和行業假設發生了哪些重大變化，無論是積極的還是消極的？既然團隊經歷了這個過程，終端市場、地理位置有什麼不同的顏色嗎？具體來說，我想說的是，如果你看看你對12 月和接下來幾季的特許權使用費收入的看法，考慮到你的收入可能發生的任何潛在變化，它們是否發生了任何變化，無論是積極的還是消極的？宏觀假設？

Yes. So thanks for the question. We haven't changed anything in our models that we're talking about publicly relative to the years out forecast in terms of what -- any assumptions are relative to the numbers. But going back to the commentary that I made on the previous question, I do think what we're seeing from a macro standpoint, is people figuring out across every end device that's being built and again, that end device can be a smartphone, it can be a base station, it can be a laptop, people are figuring out how to make sure they have enough compute capability to take advantage of these applications and models and agents that are being introduced almost daily.

是的。謝謝你的提問。我們沒有改變我們公開談論的模型中的任何內容，相對於未來幾年的預測，任何假設都與數字相關。但回到我對上一個問題所做的評論，我確實認為從宏觀角度來看，人們正在弄清楚正在構建的每個終端設備，並且終端設備可以是智慧型手機，它可以是基地台，也可以是筆記型電腦，人們正在研究如何確保他們有足夠的計算能力來利用這些幾乎每天都在引入的應用程式、模型和代理。

So from the perspective of, have we changed our models, not anything we're talking about publicly. But what I can say and feel and again, you see it relative to the licensing activity being as strong as it is, there is absolutely a rush to ensure that there is enough compute capacity in the end devices. One of the enemies of growth in our business is getting to good enough from a compute standpoint and we are nowhere close to good enough. And that ends up meaning a drive for R&D to figure out just how to handle all these new capabilities.

因此，從我們的角度來看，我們是否改變了我們的模型，而不是我們公開談論的任何事情。但我可以再說一遍，你可以看到，相對於如此強大的許可活動，絕對急於確保終端設備有足夠的運算能力。從計算的角度來看，我們業務成長的敵人之一是變得足夠好，而我們還遠遠不夠好。這最終意味著研發部門必須找出如何處理所有這些新功能的動力。

And for my follow-up, there's recently been excitement about the combination of Windows and Arm. I know there have been previous attempts, which, right, were not as successful. I'm curious, Rene, how do you think about the potential for Windows to succeed on Arm-based devices? Is that a tangible factor for 24? Is that a factor for '25 and beyond? Just give us your perspective on how successful it can be and what is different this time versus the prior attempts that Windows has had in dealing, interacting with Arm technology?

對於我的後續報道，最近人們對 Windows 和 Arm 的結合感到興奮。我知道以前有過嘗試，但沒有那麼成功。我很好奇，Rene，您如何看待 Windows 在基於 Arm 的裝置上取得成功的潛力？這是 24 的有形因素嗎？這是 25 年及以後的因素嗎？請告訴我們您對它的成功程度的看法，以及這次 Windows 在與 Arm 技術打交道和互動方面與之前的嘗試相比有何不同？

Yes. The Windows and Arm ecosystem is one that I have a personal history with having been there from the very, very beginning. And we have come a long, long way from that point relative to readiness of the application ecosystem, readiness of developers, native applications. So I think from a software standpoint, everything is now in place for the next growth cycle.

是的。我個人從一開始就參與了 Windows 和 Arm 生態系統。相對於應用程式生態系統的準備情況、開發人員的準備情況、本機應用程式的準備情況，我們已經走了很長一段路。因此，我認為從軟體的角度來看，現在一切都已準備就緒，可以迎接下一個成長週期。

One major ecosystem, not called Windows, has moved over 100%. And I think what they've proved is that there's an amazing battery life, amazing performance and amazing application compatibility across a number of different dimensions. You can run Windows on that alternate ecosystem and get really, really good performance. So I think we are on the cusp of getting over this hill. I feel very, very good about the growth projections for Windows and Arm.

一個主要的生態系（不稱為 Windows）的變化率已超過 100%。我認為他們已經證明了在多個不同維度上具有令人驚嘆的電池壽命、令人驚嘆的性能和令人驚嘆的應用程式相容性。您可以在該替代生態系統上運行 Windows，並獲得非常非常好的效能。所以我認為我們即將翻過這座山。我對 Windows 和 Arm 的成長預測感到非常非常滿意。

Our next question comes from Charles Shi with Needham & Company.

我們的下一個問題來自 Needham & Company 的 Charles Shi。

Maybe the first one, I want to ask since export control, U.S. government put out there all the rules and they recently updated that. I wonder if you can provide a comment on whether that has any impact on Arm's business? And specifically, since you have a really distinct business model, especially on the royalty side, to the extent when your customers may be put on the end of the list, are you able to collect the royalties? That's a related part of the question.

也許是第一個，我想問自從出口管制以來，美國政府制定了所有規則，並且最近更新了這些規則。不知道能否評價一下這對Arm的業務是否有影響？具體來說，由於您有一個非常獨特的商業模式，特別是在版稅方面，當您的客戶可能被放在清單的末尾時，您是否能夠收取版稅？這是問題的相關部分。

Yes. So for starters, every time these new export rules come out, we have a team of folks in our trade compliance group that go through the information in a very detailed way and trying to understand exactly how it might impact our company. I can say that we obviously would comply with any kind of export restrictions that apply to our technology or what we build.

是的。因此，首先，每當這些新的出口規則出台時，我們的貿易合規小組都會有一個團隊以非常詳細的方式檢查這些信息，並試圖準確了解它可能對我們公司產生的影響。我可以說，我們顯然會遵守適用於我們的技術或我們建造的產品的任何類型的出口限制。

The latest round of documentation that came back from the U.S., I would say not so much. In fact, probably not at all in terms of the impact there. Generally speaking, the impact to Arm is not that significant for 2 reasons. One, the components and pieces that we build are generally under the thresholds that have been listed by the United States government in terms of export control. And secondly, in the areas where there's a de minimis content in terms of U.S. people working on the design because much of our technology is actually designed and developed outside the United States in Continental Europe and United Kingdom, were not impacted quite so much. So generally speaking, the last set of rules did not impact Arm, and we have, broadly speaking, not seen a large impact there.

從美國回來的最新一輪文件，我想說的不是那麼多。事實上，就那裡的影響而言，可能根本沒有。一般來說，對 Arm 的影響並不那麼大，原因有兩個。第一，我們製造的零件通常低於美國政府在出口管制方面列出的門檻。其次，在美國人員參與設計的領域，由於我們的大部分技術實際上是在美國以外的歐洲大陸和英國設計和開發的，因此受到的影響並不大。所以一般來說，最後一套規則並沒有影響 Arm，而且從廣義上講，我們沒有看到那裡有很大的影響。

To your question relative to how it works in terms of do we collect royalties if someone's on the entity list, et cetera. It's pretty simple. If an end product that contains our technology can't be shipped and there's no revenue to be derived then we feel the ripple effect of that. Again, in the last quarter, no impact from that. And as we forward a forecast to the guidance that we gave for the remainder of the year, nothing that we see on the horizon that's impacted there.

對於您關於它如何運作的問題，如果有人在實體名單上，我們是否收取版稅，等等。這很簡單。如果包含我們技術的最終產品無法出貨且沒有收入可得，那麼我們就會感受到由此產生的連鎖反應。同樣，在上個季度，沒有受到影響。當我們將預測轉向今年剩餘時間的指導時，我們沒有看到任何會受到影響的情況。

Maybe a second question I want to ask is on operating margin, you provided the full year operating expense, what you expect. It kind of implies the fiscal Q4 margin is going to be down -- I mean, operating margin is going to be down. I mean, even if I back out that onetime increase in Social Security taxes, roughly $45 million, it's still down a little bit. So how should we think about what's driving that kind of year-end margin weakness? And how should we think about going into next fiscal year? I know you have a long-term 60% operating margin target but how do we get from here to that 60%, I mean, on an annual basis?

也許我想問的第二個問題是營業利潤率，您提供了全年營業費用，您的期望是多少。這有點意味著第四季財政利潤率將會下降——我的意思是，營業利潤率將會下降。我的意思是，即使我取消了一次性增加的社會安全稅（大約 4500 萬美元），它仍然會下降一點。那我們該如何思考是什麼導致了年底利潤率的疲軟呢？我們該如何考慮進入下一個財年？我知道你們有一個 60% 營業利潤率的長期目標，但我們如何實現每年 60% 的目標呢？

Yes. I'll let Jason take that one.

是的。我會讓傑森拿走那個。

So yes, so the way I'd answer it is the margin -- I think, at the midpoint, it's in kind of the high 20-ish percent range. Obviously, the expenses I'm giving are independent of whether we come in at the middle or high end or even low end of the range. If you assume those -- that OpEx and you also account for the onetime impact of Social Security, which relates to the stock vesting that was tied to the IPO, that's about 600 basis points of impact. So I think if you -- the midpoint implies somewhere around 20-ish, 8-ish percent, if you take out that adjustment, that would put you in the kind of mid-30s and low 30s if you're at the bottom end of the estimate and you'd be closer to low 40s if you're at the high end of guidance or maybe high 30s. And so that's the mechanics in Q4.

所以是的，所以我回答這個問題的方式是利潤率——我認為，在中點，它處於 20% 左右的高範圍內。顯然，我給的費用與我們處於中間、高端還是低端無關。如果你假設這些——營運支出和你還考慮了社會安全的一次性影響，這與 IPO 相關的股票歸屬有關，那麼影響大約是 600 個基點。所以我認為，如果你——中點意味著大約 20% 到 8% 左右，如果你去掉這個調整，那麼如果你處於最低端，那麼你就會處於 30 多歲和 30 多歲以下的水平如果您處於指導值的高端或可能是30 多歲，那麼您會更接近40 多歲。這就是第四季的機制。

Going forward, I would say we do expect to deliver incremental margin in the -- I would say, in the medium term, i.e., over the next few years that will approach -- start to approach that 60% target that we're aiming towards. However, you just saw we've actually added about 1,000 people in the last year. And most of that is because of the headcount -- mostly engineers, about 85% of those heads that we added in last year were engineers. And those folks are specifically working on the compute subsystem and the increased kind of complexity needed with all the designs that folks bought this quarter and are going to forecast to buy in the coming quarters.

展望未來，我想說，我們確實期望在中期內實現增量利潤率，即在未來幾年內，開始接近我們設定的 60% 的目標向。然而，您剛剛看到我們去年實際上增加了大約 1,000 名員工。其中大部分是因為員工數量——主要是工程師，我們去年增加的員工中約 85% 是工程師。這些人專門致力於計算子系統以及人們本季購買的所有設計所需的複雜性的增加，並將預測在未來幾個季度購買。

And so that will put maybe a little bit of pressure in Q4, but I still expect you to see us deliver solid 40-plus percent overall margin for this year and then certainly for next year. And I do expect us no change in our trajectory to get to that 60% margin over the coming years.

因此，這可能會給第四季度帶來一點壓力，但我仍然希望您看到我們今年的整體利潤率穩定在 40% 以上，明年也肯定如此。我確實希望我們的發展軌跡不會發生變化，在未來幾年內能夠達到 60% 的利潤率。

Our next question comes from Chris Caso with Wolfe Research.

我們的下一個問題來自沃爾夫研究公司的克里斯·卡索。

A question is another one on AI. And obviously, a lot of discussion about AI capabilities and client devices. Can you go into a little more detail about how Arm monetizes that? Is it from a higher per chip royalty? From a better mix at your customers, maybe some higher device ASPs? How do you see that playing out over time as AI gets embedded in client devices?

一個問題又是一個關於人工智慧的問題。顯然，有很多關於人工智慧功能和客戶端設備的討論。您能否更詳細地介紹一下 Arm 如何從中獲利？是來自更高的每晶片專利費嗎？透過對客戶的更好組合，也許可以得到一些更高的設備 ASP？隨著人工智慧嵌入客戶端設備，您如何看待這種情況隨著時間的推移而發生？

Broadly speaking, the way I would think about it is whenever you're running one of these AI clients or assistants or agents, it's going to require a significant uptick in terms of compute capability, both in terms of if there's an in-situ accelerator and/or through the CPU complex, keeping in mind that in a client device, when you run these AI agents or whenever you're running something that's going to be a copilot of some sort, nobody wants to see their battery life suddenly go down 40% in terms of everything that was involved in running the algorithms.

從廣義上講，我的想法是，每當你運行這些人工智慧客戶端或助手或代理之一時，都需要顯著提高運算能力，無論是否有現場加速器和/或透過CPU 複合體，請記住，在客戶端設備中，當您運行這些人工智慧代理或每當您運行將成為某種副駕駛的東西時，沒有人希望看到他們的電池壽命突然下降40% 涉及運行演算法所涉及的一切。

So what that means for us in the broad sense is I expect it's going to be a higher need for more compute capacity. We'll see more advance cores, we'll see larger cores, more v9, which in the end game should mean higher royalty rates for us. That would be our belief going forward in terms of just the mega trend.

因此，從廣義上講，這對我們意味著我預計這將是對更多運算能力的更高需​​求。我們將看到更多先進的核心，我們將看到更大的核心，更多的 v9，這最終對我們來說意味著更高的版稅。這將是我們對大趨勢的信念。

Got it. If I can just go back -- and Jason, go back to some of the comments on OpEx, you just spoke about them in terms of operating margin. But just as we look at modeling operating expenses as we go into next year, obviously, it sounds like we should take out that onetime Social Security tax in the fourth quarter. But what do you -- well, I guess, what would be the path of OpEx as you go into next year? And to what extent is that dependent on the revenue stream? Is there a -- are you modulating OpEx according to revenue where or are you just spending where you need it?

知道了。如果我可以回去 - 賈森，回到關於營運支出的一些評論，您剛剛談到了營運利潤率。但正如我們在進入明年時對營運費用進行建模一樣，顯然，聽起來我們應該在第四季度取消一次性的社會安全稅。但是，我想，明年進入營運支出的道路會是什麼？這在多大程度上取決於收入來源？您是否根據收入調整營運支出，或只是在需要的地方支出？

Yes. I don't -- in terms of providing guidance for next year, I'm not ready to do that. I would say kind of our long-term model approach isn't really any different. So I'm not ready to kind of go -- provide any updates to that. But I would expect -- we definitely will be growing OpEx less than revenue. And so I do expect to get incremental margin. I just -- I can't say exactly kind of what the quantum is for next year until we get a little later into the year.

是的。我不——就為明年提供指導而言，我還沒有準備好這樣做。我想說，我們的長期模型方法實際上並沒有什麼不同。所以我還沒準備好提供任何更新。但我預期——我們的營運支出成長肯定會低於收入成長。所以我確實希望獲得增量利潤。我只是——我不能確切地說出明年的量子量是多少，直到今年晚些時候。

Our next question comes from Andrew Gardiner with Citi.

我們的下一個問題來自花旗銀行的安德魯·加德納。

I have one on licensing to start with. Clearly, you beat expectations quite handily in the quarter on that front. And I suppose this was a part of the business that during the IPO process you explained was an area where you guys had pretty good visibility, it was fairly predictable given the timing of contract renewals. So was the beats a pull forward of demand? Or are you seeing the, as you put it, Rene, the AI super cycle? Is that driving upside to the pipeline that you had there earlier in the year?

我有一個關於許可的問題。顯然，本季在這方面輕鬆超出了預期。我想這是業務的一部分，在 IPO 過程中，你們解釋說，這是一個你們有很好可見性的領域，考慮到合約續約的時間，這是相當可預測的。那麼節拍是需求的拉動嗎？或者你看到了，正如你所說的，Rene，人工智慧超級週期？這是否會推動今年早些時候的管道上漲？

Yes. Thank you for the question. It's a good question. I would say it was expansion of deals that we had visibility on. What we have generally pretty good visibility is when our renewals do and/or when our customer is going to be looking at uptakes of new technology. I think what we saw, broadly speaking, was the partners that we knew about that we were expecting deal closure, their appetites got bigger over the quarter, and they took more technology. So the size of the deals were larger.

是的。感謝你的提問。這是一個好問題。我想說的是我們能看到的交易的擴展。我們通常有很好的可見性，那就是我們何時進行續約和/或何時我們的客戶將考慮採用新技術。我認為，從廣義上講，我們所看到的是我們所了解的合作夥伴，我們預計交易會完成，他們的胃口在本季度變得更大，並且他們採用了更多技術。因此交易規模更大。

I'd say the one thing I would add versus expectations, in the quarter, if you look at revenue, certainly growing 28% is strong, but also RPO or total backlog actually grew $700 million both year-on-year and even sequentially quarter-over-quarter. And if you actually do the math on total bookings or RPO bookings, revenue plus change in RPO, you could actually see that we did over $1.1 billion in bookings in the quarter, which is the best quarter in our history.

我想說的是，與預期相比，我要補充的一件事是，如果你看一下本季度的收入，28% 的增長肯定是強勁的，而且RPO 或總積壓訂單實際上同比甚至環比增長了7 億美元-超過季度。如果你真的計算一下總預訂量或 RPO 預訂量、收入加上 RPO 的變化，你實際上可以看到我們在本季度的預訂量超過了 11 億美元，這是我們歷史上最好的季度。

So that definitely, to Rene's point, while we had insight into the pipeline, the size of the deal did expand and get bigger. And certainly, a lot of that, we think, is tied to this kind of deeper investment in R&D, given everything that's happening in AI currently.

因此，就雷內的觀點而言，雖然我們對管道有深入的了解，但交易的規模確實擴大了，規模也確實擴大了。當然，我們認為，考慮到目前人工智慧領域所發生的一切，其中很大一部分與研發方面的更深層投資有關。

Well, and especially then you lean into my question because in the letter, you say that of that RPO, you're expecting to recognize 28% of it over the next 12 months, which given roughly where expectations were following what you guys had given us through the IPO process, it looks like you've got -- you've already got 2/3 of your -- of that licensing revenue in hand. So even if you don't sign that many more deals, it looks like you're pretty well set for the rest of the year in terms of licensing. So, is the expectation is not too conservative on that front at this point?

嗯，特別是當你問我的問題時，因為在信中，你提到了 RPO，你預計在接下來的 12 個月內認識到其中的 28%，這大致給出了你們所給出的期望值如果我們透過IPO 流程，看起來您已經獲得了2/3 的授權收入。因此，即使您沒有簽署更多交易，看起來您在今年剩餘時間在許可方面也已經準備好了。那麼，目前在這方面的預期是不是太保守了呢？

You're talking about expectations for next year or the back half of this year?

您是說明年還是今年下半年的期待？

Well, they're sort of 12 months forward, right? So what you're saying about 28% of the RPO to be recognized over the next 12 months.

好吧，他們已經提前了 12 個月，對吧？因此，您所說的 RPO 的 28% 將在未來 12 個月內得到確認。

Well, we feel good about the guidance, and we did increased the targets for the back half of this year versus what we thought at IPO. And we haven't talked about next year, but certainly, given the tailwinds that I think exist on the licensing side, and then now that we are seeing signs of progress on the royalty side, we're not ready to finalize the numbers, but there definitely are tailwinds.

嗯，我們對指導意見感到滿意，而且與我們在 IPO 時的想法相比，我們確實提高了今年下半年的目標。我們還沒有談論明年，但當然，考慮到我認為許可方面存在的有利因素，現在我們看到特許權方面取得進展的跡象，我們還沒有準備好最終確定數字，但肯定有順風車。

Yes. I think you're reading it correctly. To Jason's point, $1 billion in bookings in a quarter, there were years where we didn't do that in a year, minus a few hundred million. So we are very, very confident about the level of backlog we've built up and how that gets recognized over time. So we feel very confident about that. But more importantly, from the financials, not to minimize that, it does underscore very, very strong demand for Arm technology relative to the R&D investment that people are making.

是的。我認為你讀得正確。對於傑森來說，一個季度的預訂量達到 10 億美元，有幾年我們一年內沒有做到這一點，減去了數億美元。因此，我們對我們已經積壓的訂單水平以及隨著時間的推移如何得到認可非常有信心。所以我們對此非常有信心。但更重要的是，從財務狀況來看，它確實強調了相對於人們正在進行的研發投資而言，對 Arm 技術的非常非常強勁的需求。

We see no -- in the midst of inflationary pressures, geopolitics, lots of unknowns about end markets, what we're not seeing is people pushing out deals, not making investments, staying with the current generation of technology for a cycle, none of that whatsoever. What we're seeing is sort of, as much as possible, an acceleration to make sure that there's as much compute capacity in the end devices that are being built, largely back on the AI piece because people -- because these models are changing so fast and being evolved so quickly, the understanding of what amount of compute capacity you need to take advantage of the capabilities that are being introduced, it's a bit of an unknown. What you do know is that you probably don't have enough compute in the devices that you've designed today. So adding to it is critical, which is why we saw such an expansion this last quarter.

我們看不到——在通膨壓力、地緣政治、終端市場的許多未知因素中，我們沒有看到人們推動交易，而不是進行投資，在一個週期內堅持使用當前一代技術，沒有一個無論如何。我們所看到的是一種盡可能的加速，以確保正在建造的終端設備有盡可能多的運算能力，這主要依靠人工智慧部分，因為人們——因為這些模型正在發生變化，所以快速發展且發展如此之快，了解您需要多少運算能力才能利用正在引入的功能，這有點未知。您所知道的是，您今天設計的設備可能沒有足夠的運算能力。因此，增加這一點至關重要，這就是我們在上個季度看到如此擴張的原因。

Our next question comes from Harlan Sur with JPMorgan.

我們的下一個問題來自摩根大通的 Harlan Sur。

Another one on licensing. As you mentioned, there is some timing-related dynamics and revenue rec dynamics regarding licensing in the December and the March quarter. Some of the uncertainty is to be expected, especially on large deals, as you mentioned. So on the fiscal second half, is more of the uncertainty on timing of licensing deal closure or more around the revenue recognition profile of those signed deals?

另一篇關於許可。正如您所提到的，12 月和 3 月季度的授權存在一些與時間相關的動態和收入記錄動態。正如您所提到的，一些不確定性是可以預料的，特別是在大型交易上。那麼，在下半財年，是授權交易結束時間的不確定性更大，還是這些已簽署交易的收入確認情況的不確定性更大？

Timing. Yes. We're -- I mean, deals -- as Rene just mentioned a moment ago, deals certainly have the capacity to change in overall size or quantum. But that's -- that, for the most part, usually provides more upside. So in this case, it's really just about timing and -- as these deals -- I mean, given we did $1.1 billion in bookings last quarter, these are very, very large deals that require lots of complicated approvals that go to the highest levels of these organizations that can take a while. And that's hard for us to predict. And so it's certainly, our view on -- I would not evaluate just Q3. I would evaluate Q3 plus Q4, and plus Q4 is what we took up in our guidance and feel very good about the trajectory.

定時。是的。我們——我的意思是，交易——正如雷內剛才提到的，交易的整體規模或數量肯定有能力改變。但在大多數情況下，這通常會提供更多的好處。因此，在這種情況下，這實際上只是時間問題，而且——正如這些交易一樣——我的意思是，考慮到我們上季度的預訂額為11 億美元，這些都是非常非常大的交易，需要大量複雜的審批，並需要得到最高層的批准。這些組織可能需要一段時間才能完成。這對我們來說很難預測。因此，我們的觀點當然是──我不會只評估第三季。我會評估 Q3 加上 Q4，加上 Q4 是我們在指導中採取的，並且對軌跡感覺非常好。

Yes. So having been with the company 10 years and watched how this process works, we generally have pretty good visibility on a 6-month basis. But to tell you whether something is going to close in December or January, given the fact that there may be a lot of legal language to review, it takes approvals, December is a holiday period, could be a bit about our control. So to the level of being potentially conservative on a quarter timing, I think that's potentially the detail you're extracting here; but our confidence that the deal will actually close is quite high, given that we know what the needs are, which is why to Jason's point, the guidance went up.

是的。因此，在公司工作了 10 年並觀察了流程的運作方式後，我們通常對 6 個月的情況有很好的了解。但要告訴你一些事情是否會在 12 月或 1 月關閉，考慮到可能有很多法律語言需要審查，需要批准，12 月是假期，可能有點關於我們的控制。因此，就季度時間可能保守的水平而言，我認為這可能是您在這裡提取的細節；但考慮到我們知道需求是什麼，我們對交易真正完成的信心相當高，這就是傑森所說的指導值上升的原因。

But more importantly, and I give that example of December, January as both a figurative one and a real one because that's exactly what we'd be looking at here, and it makes a big difference on which side of the boundary it hits. But our degree of confidence that the technology will be needed by the end customer is quite high.

但更重要的是，我以12 月和1 月為例，既作為象徵性的例子，又作為真實的例子，因為這正是我們在這裡要看到的，並且它觸及邊界的哪一側會產生很大的差異。但我們對最終客戶需要該技術的信心非常高。

Perfect. And then maybe mid to longer term, the step-up in royalty rates over the next few years is, in large part, driven by the adoption of your total compute or compute subsystem solutions where we're not only delivering more CPU or MCU cores to your customers, but also integrating some of the key subsystem blocks like bus architecture, cache memory management, memory controllers, security, et cetera, [saves] your customers a significant engineering, design and validation costs and return you guys get a higher royalty rate, TCS has been very successfully adopted by several of your large mobile customers. Can you guys just give us a sense on the traction of driving more subsystem solutions into your automotive, industrial, PC, data center compute customers? And any sort of way to quantify the momentum there?

完美的。從中長期來看，未來幾年專利費率的上昇在很大程度上是由整體計算或計算子系統解決方案的採用所推動的，在這些解決方案中，我們不僅提供更多的 CPU 或 MCU 內核為您的客戶提供服務，而且還整合了一些關鍵子系統模組，如總線架構、快取記憶體管理、記憶體控制器、安全性等，[為]您的客戶節省了大量的工程、設計和驗證成本，並為您帶來了更高的版稅回報目前，TCS 已被您的幾個大型行動客戶非常成功地採用。你們能否讓我們了解一下為汽車、工業、PC、資料中心運算客戶提供更多子系統解決方案的吸引力？有什麼方法可以量化那裡的勢頭嗎？

So we just announced for our infrastructure business, our CSS partner program, where we are engaged with people like TSMC, Cadence, Synopsys, Intel, et cetera, to more rapidly accelerate partners who want to move into this solution space. That's really been driven by the fact that the demand for this has been higher than we expected.

因此，我們剛剛宣布了針對基礎設施業務的 CSS 合作夥伴計劃，我們與 TSMC、Cadence、Synopsys、Intel 等公司合作，以更快地加速想要進入該解決方案領域的合作夥伴。這實際上是因為對此的需求高於我們的預期。

And if you just step back and think about why would this be of such high interest to end customers, from -- if a customer is designing a -- an SoC that had one microcontroller core into it or two, handing out to that customer, they then develop their chip. They put their IP around and then ultimately developing a product. That model works very well for certain segments. But you're trying to build something that is for a laptop or a cloud infrastructure or a 5G switch and you're putting down 16 CPUs, 30 CPUs, 100 CPUs, and you're trying to incorporate the fabric, and you're trying to incorporate the cache memory interfaces, and are also trying to build a chip that used to take you 16 weeks from TSMC to now 26 weeks. You've got 10 weeks added to your cycle time and now the subsystem part that you have to integrate is really hard.

如果你退一步思考一下，為什麼最終客戶會對此如此感興趣，如果客戶正在設計一個 SoC，其中包含一個或兩個微控制器內核，然後分發給該客戶，然後他們開發自己的晶片。他們利用自己的智慧財產權，最終開發出產品。該模型對於某些細分市場非常有效。但是，您正在嘗試建立適用於筆記型電腦、雲端基礎架構或 5G 交換器的產品，並且您需要放置 16 個 CPU、30 個 CPU、100 個 CPU，並且您正在嘗試整合該結構，並且您正在嘗試整合高速快取接口，並且也嘗試建造一款晶片，以前需要16 週的時間，從台積電現在需要26 週。您的週期時間增加了 10 週，現在您必須整合的子系統部分非常困難。

So particularly in the cases where many of these subsystems are exactly what we just described, they are the compute, they are the block that Arm's delivers, it actually makes a ton of sense for partners to look for us to provide that. That applies extremely well, as I said, to the markets I mentioned, including automotive, ADAS, including mobile. So we are oversubscribed on this. And again, on the guidance standpoint, not going to change any words that we provided in terms of what the overall future looks like. But it is, I think, a huge value driver for our end customers. So we see this direction of travel only increasing.

因此，特別是在許多子系統正是我們剛才描述的情況下，它們是計算，它們是 Arm 提供的模組，對於合作夥伴來說，尋找我們提供這些功能實際上非常有意義。正如我所說，這非常適用於我所提到的市場，包括汽車、ADAS，包括行動市場。所以我們對此超額認購。再次強調，從指導的角度來看，我們不會改變我們就整體未來情況提供的任何文字。但我認為，這對我們的最終客戶來說是一個巨大的價值驅動力。所以我們看到這個方向的發展只會增加。

Our next question comes from Ross Seymore with Deutsche Bank.

我們的下一個問題來自德意志銀行的羅斯·西莫爾。

For my first question, I just wanted to get into the implied December and -- well, actual December guide and implied March guide. It looks like you're missing the Street a little bit in December but then beating it in March. Is that just the lumpiness of the licensing you've mentioned a bunch of times? And I guess, more precisely, what's the general expectation on the royalty side of things, especially in the March, considering that there's lots of moving parts, cyclically right now. But seasonally, that doesn't tend to be the best of quarters for your mobile business, the smartphones, et cetera. So just the puts and takes on those would be helpful.

對於我的第一個問題，我只想了解隱含的 12 月指南以及隱含的 12 月指南和隱含的 3 月指南。看起來你在 12 月有點錯過了華爾街，但在 3 月卻擊敗了它。這只是您多次提到的許可的混亂嗎？更準確地說，我想，考慮到目前有很多週期性的變化，人們對特許權使用費的整體期望是什麼，尤其是在三月。但從季節性來看，這往往不是行動業務、智慧型手機等業務最好的季度。因此，僅僅對這些進行投入和採取就會有幫助。

Sure. So yes, on the licensing side, exactly as we described. Our 6-month visibility is very, very good. Our month to week visibility is a little fuzzier. And as a result, we're going to err on the side of caution and not overstep but make sure we deliver on what we say we're going to do. And as I said, we're extremely confident in the deals that we've identified and the need for the technology. I'll let Jason comment a bit more in terms of the direct of travel on royalties. But broadly, we've seen 3 quarter of sequential growth. We have a lot of strong indicators from partners that we are out of the trough and climbing out of the trough.

當然。所以是的，在許可方面，正如我們所描述的。我們 6 個月的能見度非​​常非常好。我們每個月的能見度有點模糊。因此，我們會謹慎行事，不要越界，但要確保我們兌現我們所說的要做的事情。正如我所說，我們對已確定的交易和技術需求非常有信心。我會讓傑森就版稅的直接傳播發表更多評論。但總體而言，我們已經看到第三季的環比成長。我們從合作夥伴那裡得到了很多強有力的指標，表明我們已經走出低谷並正在爬出低谷。

Relative to the direction of travel, the slope of the curve, I'll let Jason sort of speak to that. But generally speaking, our indicators are pretty strong as far as that market goes. And as I said, in the other markets where we continue to grow and gain share in cloud and automotive, our confidence level is quite good.

相對於行進方向，曲線的斜率，我會讓傑森來談談。但總的來說，就市場走勢而言，我們的指標相當強勁。正如我所說，在我們繼續成長並在雲端和汽車領域獲得份額的其他市場，我們的信心水平相當不錯。

Ross, on the royalty side, what I would say is, in this most recent quarter, we did see positive sequential growth return. And if you look at some of our largest partners, they've seen the same. If you -- our guidance, which is in part, we are looking at some of the industry reports as well as also looking at some of the forecasts from our partners. And I think we're forecasting something pretty similar to what others are saying, and that is we're expecting to see somewhere in the probably high -- kind of mid- to high single-digit sequential growth in the next -- I would say, next 2 quarters, each of the next 2 quarters.

羅斯，在特許權使用費方面，我想說的是，在最近一個季度，我們確實看到了積極的連續成長回報。如果你看看我們一些最大的合作夥伴，他們也看到了同樣的情況。如果您—我們的指導（部分內容），我們正在查看一些行業報告以及我們合作夥伴的一些預測。我認為我們的預測與其他人所說的非常相似，那就是我們期望在接下來的某個時間看到可能較高的——中高個位數的連續增長——我會比如說，接下來的2 個季度，接下來的2 個季度的每個季度。

And so when you factor that into the downturn that really kind of took hold last year, that means you're going to see year-on-year growth in royalties get back to I'd say, positive single digits in Q3. And then, I'd say, get definitely kind of well into the double-digit growth by Q4. And then we'll see from there but obviously, the comps certainly are easier as well in the first half of next year. So I think we have a good setup. And as long as this kind of recovery that us and our partners are seeing continues to come to fruition, it should be a great setup.

因此，當你將去年真正出現的經濟低迷因素考慮在內時，這意味著你將看到特許權使用費的同比增長回到我想說的，第三季度的正個位數。然後，我想說，到第四季肯定會實現兩位數的成長。然後我們會看到，但顯然，明年上半年的比賽肯定也會更容易。所以我認為我們有一個很好的設定。只要我們和我們的合作夥伴所看到的這種復甦繼續取得成果，這應該是一個很好的安排。

I guess for my second question, this has been a bit of a rolling correction. You just talked about some of the dynamics coming out of the other side, thankfully. But some of the other markets, automotive, industrial, broad-based ones, seemingly like they are just rolling over now to the downside. What's the impact to Arm if some of your more client businesses improve? I realize you have a bigger exposure to those. But as far as implied royalty revenue rates, those sorts of things, if the automotive and the industrial IoT side of things weakened, can you make up for that with the mobile side of things, the client side, or are there trade-offs that we all need to appreciate?

我想對於我的第二個問題，這是一個滾動修正。謝天謝地，你剛剛談到了對方的一些動態。但其他一些市場，如汽車、工業、基礎廣泛的市場，似乎現在才剛開始下滑。如果您的一些更多客戶業務有所改善，會對 Arm 產生什麼影響？我意識到你對這些有更多的接觸。但就隱含的特許權使用費收入率而言，如果汽車和工業物聯網方面減弱，您能否透過移動方面、客戶端來彌補這一點，或者是否需要權衡我們都需要欣賞嗎？

Our expectations are the combination of increasing v9 products that actually are starting to ship because we're still -- on the royalty side, we're still in the relatively early days of v9 shipments. Think of it as being probably somewhere in the, like 10% or so of our royalties are shipping with v9. So as -- since we started -- since really a lot of these designs were sold over the past couple of years, those products are really just starting to come to market now. So that's certainly going to be a tailwind to growth both as we see recovery in units, but then also as we see these higher rates flow through.

我們的期望是增加 v9 產品的組合，這些產品實際上已經開始發貨，因為我們仍然 - 在版稅方面，我們仍處於 v9 發貨的相對早期階段。可以認為它可能在 v9 中，例如我們 10% 左右的版稅。因此，自從我們開始以來，由於在過去幾年中確實售出了許多此類設計，因此這些產品現在才剛開始進入市場。因此，這肯定會成為成長的推動力，因為我們看到單位數量的復甦，而且我們看到這些更高的利率流動。

There's also a lot of -- there's some strong growth drivers certainly happening in the infrastructure business where certainly, while the industry had been a bit slow in this last year, things seem to be picking up. And obviously, with all of the different hyperscaler AI efforts, there's a lot going on there. And so we're going to continue to gain share on the infrastructure side, specifically on the cloud compute side.

還有很多——基礎設施業務肯定會出現一些強勁的成長動力，儘管去年該行業有點緩慢，但情況似乎正在好轉。顯然，隨著所有不同的超大規模人工智慧的努力，那裡發生了很多事情。因此，我們將繼續在基礎設施方面獲得份額，特別是在雲端運算方面。

Auto is an area where we've also seen pretty strong gains. Certainly, the market -- I think our expectations won't be as strong as it's been over the last year or so. I think their inventory levels have probably caught up a bit more. And so at least from a -- I'd say, from an auto inventory, not a chip inventory perspective. And then our expectations are, I think, similar to yours. We don't expect IoT to be a big growth driver in the near term. I think certainly could be further down the road as we see what AI does for edge compute and whatnot, but for right now, probably not a strong growth driver for next year. So that's, I'd say, kind of how we're looking at it on a lot-by-lot basis. We will certainly let you guys know as we learn more and progress throughout the year.

汽車領域我們也看到了相當強勁的成長。當然，我認為市場的預期不會像去年左右那麼強烈。我認為他們的庫存水準可能已經趕上了一些。因此，至少從——我想說的是，從汽車庫存，而不是晶片庫存的角度來看。我認為我們的期望與您的期望相似。我們預期物聯網不會在短期內成為巨大的成長動力。我認為，隨著我們看到人工智慧在邊緣運算等方面的作用，未來肯定會更進一步，但就目前而言，可能不是明年強勁的成長動力。所以，我想說，這就是我們逐批看待它的方式。隨著我們在這一年中學到更多並取得進步，我們一定會讓你們知道。

Our next question comes from Pierre Ferragu with New Street Research.

我們的下一個問題來自 New Street Research 的 Pierre Ferragu。

I'd like to come back to OpEx. I mean, you've given a lot of clarity on numbers, thanks for that. But my question is probably a bit more generic. So if we say like Q4 to Q4, your OpEx has increased by -- will have increased by about like 20% or so. I'd like to better understand like the operational drivers of that increase and in general, how your OpEx is increasing? Maybe I have like too much of a simplified view of your model. But to me, you spend a lot of OpEx on developing products and then after that, you license these products, and then after some time, these licensed products end up into the products of your clients. And so I would have expected OpEx to grow very early in the process and not really at that point in time when actually your licensing activity is very rapid and the next stage is for your clients to actually integrate your IP in their product. So there is probably an element of the model that I'm missing, and I'd love if you could help me better understand that.

我想回到營運支出。我的意思是，您對數字給出了很多清晰的信息，謝謝。但我的問題可能更籠統一些。因此，如果我們說第四季度到第四季度，您的營運支出增加了約 20% 左右。我想更了解這種成長的營運驅動因素，以及整體而言，您的營運支出是如何成長的？也許我太喜歡你的模型的簡化視圖。但對我來說，你在開發產品上花費了大量的營運支出，然後你授權這些產品，然後經過一段時間，這些授權的產品最終進入你的客戶的產品。因此，我預計營運支出會在此過程的早期階段成長，而不是在您的授權活動實際上非常迅速且下一階段是讓您的客戶將您的IP 實際整合到他們的產品中的那個時間點。因此，我可能缺少模型中的某個元素，如果您能幫助我更好地理解這一點，我會很高興。

And so -- and also one thing that could help is to give us a sense of that increase in OpEx, is that almost exclusively product development like R&D or actually, is there a lot of like business development and managing client relationships within the start of this new licensing program that maybe we are missing the way we understand it?

因此，還有一件事可以幫助我們了解營運支出的成長，即幾乎完全是研發等產品開發，或者實際上，在開始時是否有很多類似業務開發和管理客戶關係的事情。這個新的許可計劃也許我們沒有理解它？

Thanks for the question. So first -- yes, so if you look back over the last year, we've added about 17% increase in headcount, about 1,000 people. 85% of those heads are in R&D. And so while there may be some G&A and some sales, whatever, we're talking about it, it's 15% as everything that's non-R&D. And our total R&D as a headcount and a percentage of total OpEx runs about 80%. So we're, I'd say, pretty consistent in terms of our overweighting towards building capabilities -- future capabilities.

謝謝你的提問。首先，是的，如果你回顧去年，我們的員工人數增加了約 17%，大約是 1,000 人。其中 85% 的負責人從事研發工作。因此，雖然可能有一些 G&A 和一些銷售，但無論如何，我們正在談論它，它是非研發費用的 15%。我們的研發總額佔總營運支出的比例約為 80%。因此，我想說，我們在過度重視建立能力——未來能力方面是非常一致的。

And most of this R&D, to your point, when we're -- the R&D teams are creating designs and that we're then, of course, selling, but we're constantly working on the next evolution. Right now, what's been happening over this last year, and the reason why there's been such a significant amount of hiring, is because we -- as we started selling the compute subsystem capabilities because that's certainly what customers have clearly been and partners have been looking for from us, that's required us to build a solutions engineering team, which is a bit of a new muscle for us. And so that team went from, I'd say, very, very small a year ago to now about 1,000 people.

就你而言，大部分研發工作，當我們——研發團隊正在創建設計，然後我們當然會出售這些設計，但我們正在不斷致力於下一個演變。現在，去年發生的事情以及之所以有如此大量的招聘，是因為我們——當我們開始銷售計算子系統功能時，因為這肯定是客戶和合作夥伴一直在尋找的對於我們來說，這需要我們建立一個解決方案工程團隊，這對我們來說是一個新的力量。所以我想說，這個團隊從一年前非常非常小到現在大約有 1,000 人。

And so that's been a big area of hiring and a lot of the contracts and a lot of the royalties that we're going to get from those hires, we're going to start seeing really not until we get into our fiscal year-end '26 as we talked a bit about during the road show. So it is, to some extent, some forward investments and -- but there is contracts. I think someone earlier asked the question that we had something like 81% of our royalty contracts were already signed for FY '26. So the vast majority of the benefit we're going to get from them has been signed but will not ship until we get into late '25 and early '26.

因此，這是一個很大的招聘領域，我們將從這些員工中獲得大量合約和特許權使用費，直到我們進入財政年度結束時，我們才會開始真正看到這一點。 '26 正如我們在路演期間談到的那樣。因此，在某種程度上，這是一些遠期投資——但有合約。我想早些時候有人問過我們 26 財年 81% 的特許權使用費合約已經簽署的問題。因此，我們將從他們那裡獲得的絕大多數好處已經簽署，但要到 25 年底和 26 年初才會發貨。

Yes. And as far as the product development cycle goes, your question is a very good one relative to how to think about product development and cycle times. We put out products very, very frequently. The mobile and PC world, they need to see new CPUs every single year. They need to see new GPUs every single year. So we are developing the next-generation product and releasing something literally on an annual beat. The hyperscaler market is probably every 2 years but we also do performance scores and efficiency scores on a bit of a tick-tock basis. And then automotive cores are probably anywhere between 2 to 3 years. So our people are always working.

是的。就產品開發週期而言，您的問題是一個非常好的問題，涉及如何考慮產品開發和週期時間。我們非常非常頻繁地推出產品。在行動和 PC 領域，他們每年都需要看到新的 CPU。他們每年都需要看到新的 GPU。因此，我們正在開發下一代產品，並每年發布一些產品。超大規模市場可能每兩年一次，但我們也會定期進行效能評分和效率評分。然後汽車核心可能需要 2 到 3 年。所以我們的員工一直在工作。

And I would also say that one of the things we did during the SoftBank years to invest is we actually got out of a number of commodity businesses that we were in, such as video IP, display IP, where we were highly undifferentiated and use those resources to develop a Neoverse CPU road map and to develop an automotive AE road map. AE is automotive enhanced including functional safety.

我還要說的是，我們在軟銀時代所做的投資事情之一是，我們實際上退出了我們所處的許多大宗商品業務，例如視頻IP、顯示IP，在這些業務中我們沒有高度差異化，並使用這些業務。開發 Neoverse CPU 路線圖和開發汽車 AE 路線圖的資源。 AE 是汽車增強型，包括功能安全。

So there is a constant treadmill of products and CPUs and GPUs and NPUs that are being developed. And then to Jason's point, when we start to put those into subsystems, that's a new output and a deliverable. So the IP group provides those IP cores to the Solutions Engineering Group, which is then essentially the group responsible for stitching them together as a subsystem. So it is an ongoing engineering flywheel that does not abate. And as I said, relative to the broader market demand, we're nowhere close to good enough. People want smaller, faster, better all the time, which is what we're working on.

因此，正在開發的產品、CPU、GPU 和 NPU 不斷湧現。然後到傑森的觀點，當我們開始將它們放入子系統中時，那就是新的輸出和可交付成果。因此，IP 小組將這些 IP 核提供給解決方案工程小組，該小組本質上負責將它們拼接在一起作為一個子系統。因此，它是一個持續不斷的工程飛輪，不會減弱。正如我所說，相對於更廣泛的市場需求，我們還遠遠不夠好。人們一直想要更小、更快、更好，這就是我們正在努力的方向。

That's very, very clear. Like subsystem engineering really answers the question I had. Maybe one quick follow-up, if I may. If I look at where you're guiding and how it compares to like sell side consensus, you're kind of quite significantly higher on OpEx for Q4. And so my question here is maybe a bit provocative but does that mean that the sell-side analysts didn't listen to you carefully in us during the IPO process and mis-modeled a bit OpEx in the near term or does that mean that today compared to 3 months ago, you've actually built up OpEx faster than what you were thinking 3 months ago?

這非常非常清楚。就像子系統工程確實回答了我的問題一樣。如果可以的話，也許可以快速跟進。如果我看看你的指導方向以及它與賣方共識的比較，你會發現第四季的營運支出相當高。因此，我在這裡的問題可能有點挑釁，但這是否意味著賣方分析師在IPO 過程中沒有仔細聽取您的意見，並且在短期內對營運支出進行了一些錯誤的建模，或者這是否意味著今天與 3 個月前相比，您實際上建立營運支出的速度比您 3 個月前想像的要快？

I can answer that. The short version is the assumptions back when we had Analyst Day in early August was for a lower stock price than we actually ended up issuing most of the equity at, and also, I would say, higher social security taxes, especially in the U.K., where they're about 2x higher than they are in the U.S. And when we flow through the increased stock price and then we flow through the increased taxes, that's the driver. So it's not an ongoing cost driver. That's why there's -- our expectations are still to deliver somewhere in the 40% range of non-GAAP operating margin in the near term in this year, and we still have a long-term target that will be getting to the 60% range. There's no change to those targets. It's the short-term aspects of dealing with some of the IPO-related costs, which just ended up being a little higher than we had previously forecasted.

我可以回答這個問題。簡而言之，我們八月初分析師日時的假設是，股價低於我們最終發行大部分股票的實際價格，而且我想說的是，社會安全稅更高，尤其是在英國，它們比美國高出約兩倍。當我們經歷上漲的股票價格，然後經歷增加的稅收時，這就是驅動因素。所以它不是一個持續的成本驅動因素。這就是為什麼 - 我們的預期仍然是在今年短期內實現 40% 的非 GAAP 營業利潤率，並且我們仍然有一個達到 60% 範圍的長期目標。這些目標沒有改變。這是處理一些與 IPO 相關的成本的短期問題，這些成本最終比我們先前的預測略高。

Our next question comes from John DiFucci with Guggenheim Securities.

我們的下一個問題來自古根漢證券公司的約翰·迪福奇。

My first question has to do with the related party revenue, which was flattish year-over-year versus the rest of the revenue was up just almost 40%. Can you provide more color around the license versus royalty mix for the related party business? And how we should think about that going forward?

我的第一個問題與關聯方收入有關，該收入同比持平，而其餘收入僅增長了近 40%。您能否為關聯方業務的授權與特許權使用費組合提供更多色彩？我們該如何思考未來的發展？

Sure. Thanks for the question, John. So related party revenue is Arm China, where all -- we have a couple hundred customers in China that are all aggregated and treated as one based on how the joint venture was set up. You should think of -- so China did -- it still grew, I call it, in the low single digits. But as a percentage of total, it fell from about 25% in the more recent period down to about 20%. And that's just because the rest of the world just grew so much faster.

當然。謝謝你的提問，約翰。因此，關聯方收入是 Arm 中國，我們在中國有幾百個客戶，根據合資企業的設立方式，這些客戶都被匯總並視為一個客戶。你應該想到——中國也是如此——它仍然以較低的個位數增長，我稱之為。但佔總數的百分比從最近一段時間的約25%下降到約20%。這只是因為世界其他地區的成長速度太快了。

In terms of the mix of license versus royalty, think of it as being pretty close to 50-50, a little over 50% of license, a little less than 50% is royalty. But all of that revenue for Arm China is treated as other because of the fact the way the Arm China joint venture is structured.

就許可與版稅的混合而言，可以認為其比例非常接近 50-50，略高於 50% 的許可，略低於 50% 的是版稅。但由於 Arm 中國合資企業的結構方式，Arm 中國的所有收入都被視為其他收入。

Got it. Okay. Great. That's really helpful. And actually, how about going forward? How should we be thinking about that mix going forward for Arm China?

知道了。好的。偉大的。這真的很有幫助。事實上，繼續前進怎麼樣？我們應該如何考慮 Arm 中國未來的這種組合？

I think the mix is pretty similar. It's -- they historically -- at least that's the color we have right now. They've historically been I'd say closer to 50-50 than the rest of the world, which is closer to 40-60, 40% license, 60% royalty. In terms of -- we'll certainly update you if we see a change but that's our expectation, I'd say, for the back half of this year.

我認為混合非常相似。從歷史上看，至少我們現在的顏色是這樣的。從歷史上看，他們比世界其他地方更接近 50-50，更接近 40-60，40% 的許可，60% 的版稅。如果我們看到變化，我們肯定會向您通報最新情況，但我想說，這是我們對今年下半年的期望。

Okay. Great. And for -- second question, when we think about the guidance for next quarter and the year, obviously, the macro backdrop has an effect, and you guys have your own crystal ball. I guess, we all do. And it has an effect on both license and royalties. But the royalty part is really something you probably have less control over and visibility into that timing, even though there were a lot of questions here on license, which is probably you have more visibility there.

好的。偉大的。對於第二個問題，當我們考慮下個季度和今年的指導時，顯然，宏觀背景會產生影響，你們有自己的水晶球。我想，我們都這樣做。它對許可證和版稅都有影響。但版稅部分實際上是您可能對該時間的控制和可見性較少的東西，即使這裡有很多關於許可的問題，這可能是您在那裡有更多的可見性。

Jason, you did hit on the royalty visibility on one of the questions but I just want to make sure I understand what's implied in guidance in regards to units. And I know there's a lot of other things that affect royalty revenue that are -- most of which are going in the right direction. We can all see industry analysts forecast for units, and that's -- we don't -- you guys have intimate relationships with your customers, so you can have even better visibility into that. But I'm just curious, are you assuming -- when you look at industry analyst estimates on units, are you assuming about the same, a little below or even perhaps a little even better, or do you just see things a little bit better than industry analyst estimates?

傑森，您確實在其中一個問題上提到了版稅可見性，但我只是想確保我理解有關單位的指導中隱含的內容。我知道還有很多其他因素會影響版稅收入——其中大部分都在朝著正確的方向發展。我們都可以看到產業分析師對單位的預測，那就是——我們沒有——你們與客戶有密切的關係，所以你們可以更了解這一點。但我只是好奇，你是否假設——當你查看行業分析師對單位的估計時，你是否假設大致相同、略低於甚至可能更好一點，或者你只是認為情況好一點高於行業分析師的預期？

Sure. Okay. So here's what I would say. So in this quarter we just reported, we were minus 5% on royalty. If I compare that to our three best comps, at least closest in terms of mix, you could look at MediaTek, you can look at Qualcomm and you can look at TSMC. Those guys were all between minus 11% to minus 24%, as they just reported the last few weeks. So we were -- so we had stronger growth in those guys, primarily because of our share gains that we're seeing in infra and auto and then also in some part because -- or in part because of the Armv9 adoption.

當然。好的。這就是我要說的。因此，在我們剛剛報告的本季度，我們的特許權使用費為負 5%。如果我將其與我們最好的三個比較，至少在組合方面最接近，您可以看看聯發科，您可以看看高通，您可以看看台積電。正如他們最近幾週剛剛報告的那樣，這些人的感染率都在負 11% 到負 24% 之間。所以我們在這些人中獲得了更強勁的成長，主要是因為我們在基礎設施和汽車領域看到了份額的成長，還有部分原因是——或者部分是因為 Armv9 的採用。

So we are expecting that -- and I think those guys as well as counterpoint from the other industry analysts, all seem to be kind of triangulating around flipping to positive sequential growth in this current quarter -- or I'm sorry, last quarter and then in the current quarter, expecting to see that get kind of in the high single digits approaching double-digit range. And that's pretty consistent with what we're expecting and then same for Q4. So I -- from everything I can see, and we do get paid royalties on 7-plus billion chips per quarter, so we do see quite a bit from a bunch of folks. As far as I can tell, we're kind of all triangulating relatively similar impacts. I think the difference probably are our v9 rates, it's maybe the piece that is why we typically grow a little bit faster than maybe some of the others.

因此，我們預計 - 我認為這些人以及其他行業分析師的反對意見，似乎都在圍繞當前季度的正連續增長進行三角測量 - 或者我很抱歉，上個季度和然後在本季度，預計這一數字將達到接近兩位數的高個位數。這與我們的預期非常一致，第四季也是如此。所以我——從我所看到的一切來看，我們確實每個季度從超過 7 億個晶片上獲得了特許權使用費，所以我們確實從一群人那裡看到了很多。據我所知，我們都在對相對相似的影響進行三角測量。我認為差異可能在於我們的 v9 速率，這可能是為什麼我們通常比其他一些公司成長得快一點的原因。

Does that answer?

這有答案嗎？

Yes, that's really helpful.

是的，這確實很有幫助。

Our next question comes from Matt Ramsay with Cowen.

我們的下一個問題來自馬特·拉姆齊和考恩。

I guess my -- Rene, my first question is just the phenomenon we've seen with gen AI computing in the last 12 months or so. I just wanted to get your take on what it may mean for Arm. Is it -- do you view it -- I mean, maybe balance of it as a positive catalyst in that, it can pull forward a bunch of sort of Arm server designs that might be hosts for accelerators in the data center and things like that? Or do you have concern that maybe it limits or shrinks the CPU TAM that you can grow into organically? How do you think the puts and takes of that are?

我想我的——Rene，我的第一個問題就是我們在過去 12 個月左右的時間裡在新一代人工智慧運算中看到的現象。我只是想聽聽您對這對 Arm 意味著什麼的看法。是嗎——你是否認為——我的意思是，也許它是一種積極的催化劑，它可以推動一系列 Arm 伺服器設計，這些設計可能是資料中心加速器的主機以及類似的東西？或者您是否擔心它可能會限製或縮小您可以有機增長的 CPU TAM？您認為其中的看漲期權和看跌期權如何？

Yes. No, Matt, thanks for the question. I think it's broadly a positive. And the reasons for that are as more and more of these LLMs are being used in cloud data centers for training, the -- obviously, any accelerator or GPU needs a CPU, that sort of table stakes. Then when you drill down one level deeper in terms of what is the type of CPU that you need, you need something that's energy efficient. You need something that's very, very low power, something that you can customize in terms of an overall system. Then it gets very interesting because when you look at TCO but more importantly, total system power, by actually developing a custom Arm-based SoC that can interface with one of these accelerators, you're actually able to get a very, very high degree of customization relative to power efficiency and throughput.

是的。不，馬特，謝謝你的提問。我認為這總體上是積極的。原因是，隨著越來越多的法學碩士被用於雲端資料中心進行培訓，顯然，任何加速器或 GPU 都需要 CPU，這種賭注。然後，當您更深入地了解所需的 CPU 類型時，您需要節能的產品。您需要一些非常非常低功耗的東西，一些可以根據整個系統進行客製化的東西。然後它會變得非常有趣，因為當您考慮TCO，但更重要的是總系統功耗時，透過實際開發可與這些加速器之一連接的基於Arm 的定制SoC，您實際上能夠獲得非常非常高的程度與功率效率和吞吐量相關的客製化。

The -- one of the biggest power requirements or beasts that -- from these applications is actually in terms of feeding the engine with memory bandwidth. So if you can design something that's actually custom, that can interface into the accelerators that can be hugely beneficial. I think as you know, there's a lot of work going on inside the community today developing custom ships that are Arm-based. So I think that's only a net positive.

這些應用程式最大的功率需求或野獸之一實際上是為引擎提供記憶體頻寬。因此，如果您可以設計一些實際上是定制的東西，它可以連接到加速器，這將是非常有益的。我想如您所知，當今社區內部正在進行大量工作來開發基於 Arm 的客製化船舶。所以我認為這只是一個淨正面因素。

Then when you layer on top of it, the leading player leading actor in that field on accelerators is obviously Nvidia. Nvidia has been doing us a big benefit in terms of making the CUDA drivers for the A100 and H100s available on Arm. So whether you're using a standard product from an Ampere or building a custom chip based upon Arm-based cores, I think this Generative AI workloads being pushed onto AI clouds is a tailwind for Arm. We're pretty excited by it.

然後，當你將其分層時，該加速器領域的領導者顯然是 Nvidia。 Nvidia 在 Arm 上提供 A100 和 H100 的 CUDA 驅動程式方面為我們帶來了很大的好處。因此，無論您是使用 Ampere 的標準產品，還是構建基於 Arm 核心的客製化晶片，我認為將生成式 AI 工作負載推送到 AI 雲上對 Arm 來說都是順風車。我們對此感到非常興奮。

As my follow-up, I think in another question, Jason, you spoke a little bit about Arm China and given all the things that are going on regulatory-wise. I wanted to step back a bit and you guys control the IP that gets given to Arm China for them to then do things within license into China and the royalties come back out the other end. I guess what I want to get a little bit more granular on given the dynamic environment we're in, is just what kind of visibility do you actually have through the structure of Arm China into the forward licensing trends and then from an audit perspective, the royalties that are coming out on a sort of quarterly basis. Just like the level of visibility you have to sort of the operations that go on within that organization as IP goes in and royalties come back out.

作為我的後續行動，我認為在另一個問題中，Jason，您談到了 Arm 中國，並考慮到了監管方面正在發生的所有事情。我想退一步，你們控制著給予 Arm 中國的智慧財產權，讓他們在中國的許可範圍內做事，然後版稅從另一端回來。我想，考慮到我們所處的動態環境，我想更具體地了解一下，透過 Arm 中國的結構，您實際上對未來的許可趨勢有什麼樣的了解，然後從審計的角度來看，按季度發放的特許權使用費。就像可見性等級一樣，隨著智慧財產權的進入和版稅的收回，您必須對該組織內進行的操作進行排序。

Yes. So Matt, I'll let Jason kind of comment on the audit component and also sort of the integrity of the information that comes back. But just a couple of things I wanted to note on Arm China so that you and rest of the group can understand. First off, from a delivery standpoint, when Arm China signs a contract with a PRC customer, the IP actually goes from Arm Limited directly to the customer. It doesn't go into Arm China. So they are not a holder, if you will, of the product. The product is essentially downloaded directly from our servers to the end customer.

是的。馬特，我會讓傑森對審計部分以及返回資訊的完整性發表評論。但我想就 Arm 中國提出幾點注意事項，以便您和小組其他成員能夠理解。首先，從交付的角度來看，當Arm中國與中國客戶簽訂合約時，IP實際上是從Arm Limited直接交付給客戶的。它不會進入Arm中國。因此，如果您願意的話，他們不是該產品的持有者。該產品本質上是直接從我們的伺服器下載到最終客戶。

Secondly, for many of the high-value designs, particularly whether we're working in the networking space or the cloud space or automotive, they're generally working with our latest edge technology. And because of that, there is a lot of interaction between the customers in China, the Arm China salespeople and Arm Limited marketing and engineering. So we have really, really good visibility in terms of when these large strategic deals are being consummated because generally speaking, everything around demand creation and the technical interactions between the engineers at the customer and the engineers at Arm is something we have complete visibility into. So we have a very, very good idea of when large deals will close in China just by the nature of the relationship between our engineers, the partners' engineers and the sales folks for Arm China.

其次，對於許多高價值設計，特別是無論我們是在網路領域、雲端領域還是汽車領域工作，它們通常都使用我們最新的邊緣技術。正因為如此，中國客戶、Arm 中國銷售人員以及 Arm Limited 行銷和工程人員之間存在大量互動。因此，對於這些大型策略交易何時完成，我們擁有非常非常好的可見性，因為一般來說，圍繞需求創造以及客戶工程師和 Arm 工程師之間的技術互動的一切都是我們完全可見的。因此，根據我們的工程師、合作夥伴的工程師和 Arm 中國的銷售人員之間的關係性質，我們非常非常清楚何時會在中國完成大型交易。

I'll let Jason talk about audit and things of that nature.

我會讓傑森談談審計和類似的事情。

Yes. So we -- the Arm China customers run through the same process that all the rest of our customers run through, and that is there's royalty audits that are conducted after the fact. And again, that's no different than any other of our customers globally. And occasionally, there's findings, and we work through those findings and then get recoveries or adjustments and that process works well.

是的。因此，我們—Arm 中國客戶經歷了與我們所有其他客戶經歷的相同流程，那就是在事後進行特許權使用費審計。再說一次，這與我們全球任何其他客戶沒有什麼不同。有時，會有一些發現，我們會研究這些發現，然後進行恢復或調整，這個過程運作得很好。

Second, we also have audits from independent auditors. So Deloitte Touch does independent audits of Arm China. And they go through the same set of audit requirements that the rest of Arm and SoftBank goes through for that matter. So all of that work is done in parallel, and I would say the integrity information and the responsiveness and all that is really the same for Arm China as it is for all the other regions and parts of the organization that we work with.

其次，我們還有獨立審計師的審計。所以德勤對Arm中國進行了獨立審計。他們也遵循與 Arm 和軟銀其他公司相同的審計要求。因此，所有這些工作都是並行完成的，我想說，Arm 中國的誠信資訊和回應能力以及與我們合作的組織的所有其他地區和部門實際上是相同的。

Our last question comes from Sara Russo with Bernstein.

我們的最後一個問題來自薩拉·魯索和伯恩斯坦。

Rene, Jason, so it's been about 3 years since you launched Flexible Access, more than 3 years and about 3 years since Total Access has launched, and the letter gave some helpful details around a slight increase in ACV. Just wondering, for renewing customers, are you seeing any trend on increasing IP adoption because they're sort of into an all-you-can-eat-to-subscribe mode? And for those renewing customers then after they've been in Total Access for a while, are you seeing any increasing spend from those Total Access customers?

Rene、Jason，自從你們推出「Flexible Access」以來已經過去了大約 3 年，距離 Total Access 推出也已經過去了 3 年多、大約 3 年，這封信提供了一些關於 ACV 略有增加的有用細節。只是想知道，對於續訂客戶，您是否看到了 IP 採用率增加的趨勢，因為他們有點進入了無限量訂閱模式？對於那些續訂客戶，在使用 Total Access 一段時間後，您是否看到這些 Total Access 客戶的支出有所增加？

Yes. So Total Access, as you recall, about 3 years ago that we rolled that out, and we've seen a few things happened as the program has launched. One is customers that were initial adopters of it, when they've gone up to the next cycle, they've actually taken a larger consumption, either more tape-outs and/or more IP. Secondly, the program has worked extremely well from the standpoint of it reinforced what we kind of believed going in, and that is the churn rate for our large partners is pretty small, if not zero. The mean is around 16 years. The median is 19 years, it's just the longevity of the relationships that these partners have with Arm. It's allowed our FAEs to be much more involved and engaged in terms of pull-through of other IP. And then as mentioned earlier, particularly with everything going on with AI and such, it's sort of really, really moved the dial.

是的。所以，正如您所記得的那樣，Total Access 大約在 3 年前我們就推出了，隨著該計劃的啟動，我們已經看到了一些事情發生。一個類別是最初採用它的客戶，當他們進入下一個週期時，他們實際上消耗了更大的資源，要么更多的流片和/或更多的IP。其次，從強化我們的信念的角度來看，該計劃運作得非常好，那就是我們的大型合作夥伴的流失率即使不是零，也非常小。平均年齡約為16歲。中位數是 19 年，這只是這些合作夥伴與 Arm 關係的持續時間。它讓我們的 FAE 能夠更多地參與和參與其他 IP 的拉動。正如前面提到的，特別是人工智慧等領域正在發生的一切，它真的非常非常令人感動。

So ATA has been everything we hoped it would be and probably a bit more. It's removed a lot of churn in terms of the sales cycle. And for the partners, it's very, very easy for them because they do subscriptions around EDA tools. They'd rather -- they know they're going to spend money with Arm. As mentioned, many of these customers have been with Arm 10 years, 15 years, 20 years. So it's been a pretty natural evolution on that.

所以 ATA 已經滿足了我們所希望的一切，甚至可能更多。就銷售週期而言，它消除了許多流失。對於合作夥伴來說，這非常非常容易，因為他們圍繞 EDA 工具進行訂閱。他們寧願——他們知道他們會在 Arm 上花錢。如前所述，這些客戶中的許多人已經使用 Arm 10 年、15 年、20 年了。所以這是一個非常自然的演變。

So the program, I would say, has exceeded expectations. I would hope over time that we would get the vast majority of all our partners on this. I think we will because, a, there's very little churn to our business; and b, it puts all the resources in the right place in terms of having people accelerate the tape-out of chips.

所以我想說，這個計劃超出了預期。我希望隨著時間的推移，我們能夠得到絕大多數合作夥伴的支持。我認為我們會這樣做，因為，a，我們的業務幾乎沒有什麼變化； b，它將所有資源放在正確的位置，讓人們加速晶片的流片。

That's great. And maybe just a quick follow-up. As part of that program, are you -- because you're working with customers slightly differently, are you getting more visibility into customer design programs such that it gives you more confidence on sort of forecasting royalties and what you expect to see from a royalties perspective than maybe you've got in the more traditional licensing models?

那太棒了。也許只是快速跟進。作為該計劃的一部分，您是否 - 因為您與客戶的合作略有不同，您是否可以更深入地了解客戶設計計劃，從而使您對預測版稅以及您期望從版稅中看到的內容更有信心與您在更傳統的授權模式中獲得的觀點相比？

Yes. I think one of the things that was a byproduct of that, and I would say combination of industry trends/Total Access, is compute subsystems. Because once we started to get involved with partners more deeply, we started to understand exactly what their tape-out schedules were, exactly what they were trying to use from a process standpoint, what libraries they were using. We were suddenly in a completely different domain relative to how we were interacting with partners in terms of schedules.

是的。我認為其中一個副產品是計算子系統，我想說的是行業趨勢/全面訪問的結合。因為一旦我們開始更深入地與合作夥伴接觸，我們就開始準確地了解他們的流片時間表是什麼，從流程的角度來看他們到底想使用什麼，他們正在使用什麼庫。與我們在日程安排方面與合作夥伴互動的方式相比，我們突然處於一個完全不同的領域。

So what it's done for us is, I think it's accelerated subsystem engagements. And at the same time, our understanding and visibility of customer programs is at a level that we've never had before.

所以它為我們所做的是，我認為它加速了子系統的參與。同時，我們對客戶計劃的理解和可見性達到了前所未有的水平。

That concludes the question-and-answer session. At this time, I would like to turn the call back to Rene Haas, CEO, for closing remarks.

問答環節到此結束。此時，我想將電話轉回給執行長雷內·哈斯 (Rene Haas)，讓其致閉幕詞。

Okay. Thank you, Abigail. And on behalf of myself, Jason and Ian, I'd like to thank everyone for their excellent, thoughtful questions. This was the first time around for us in terms of as a trio doing this. We'll get better each time, but thankfully, we had a very good quarter to come off on and talk about, which made the job a bit easier.

好的。謝謝你，阿比蓋爾。我謹代表我自己、傑森和伊恩，感謝大家提出的精彩而深思熟慮的問題。對我們來說，這是第一次作為三人組這樣做。我們每次都會變得更好，但值得慶幸的是，我們度過了一個非常好的季度來進行討論，這使工作變得更容易一些。

As mentioned before, we're very, very excited about the prospects going forward. Very, very excited about the opportunity and look forward to continuing to engage with you all. Thank you so much.

如前所述，我們對未來的前景感到非常非常興奮。對這個機會非常非常興奮，並期待繼續與大家互動。太感謝了。

Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may now disconnect.

感謝您參加今天的會議。這確實結束了該程式。您現在可以斷開連線。