US chipmaker Qualcomm agrees takeover of UK's Alphawave
US chipmaker Qualcomm has agreed a $2.4bn (£1.8bn) takeover of Alphawave - a deal set to result in another UK tech firm falling into foreign hands.
Shareholders in the UK firm, which designs semiconductors attractive in artificial intelligence (AI) development, will receive 183p per share under the terms.
The price represents a 95% premium to that seen before Qualcomm disclosed its interest.
News of the agreement was announced as the annual London Tech Week got under way in the capital, with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaking of tech's importance to the UK's prospects.
Softbank-owned chipmaker ARM - previously a London-listed firm before it was snapped up under a £32bn deal in 2016 - had also been chasing Alphawave but has since walked away.
The UK company's "serdes" technology is said to be the main prize within the deal.
It underpins the speed at which data is processed by chips - crucial for AI development.
Qualcomm said the deal would bolster its enhancement of AI. Its chips have been widely used by Apple and Samsung though its interest in iPhones has recently been curtailed through the development of Apple's own chip components.
Alphawave said it considered the terms of the cash offer to be fair and reasonable and that it intended to unanimously recommend it to its shareholders.
In his speech marking the start of London Tech Week, the PM said tech and AI were "absolutely central" to the UK.
Cheap valuations and a weak pound have made UK firms attractive to US investors in recent years while a number of UK listed firms have shifted primary listings to the United States in a bid to attract greater investment.
The government has moved to make UK listings more attractive as part of its growth agenda.
The prime minister launched a new free government partnership with industry, including Nvidia, Amazon, Google and BT, to train 7.5 million UK workers in essential skills to use AI by 2030.
A separate "TechFirst" initiative will roll out AI training to every secondary school over three years.
Sir Keir told the audience in central London: "AI and tech makes us more human, which sounds an odd thing to say, but it's true.
"We need to say it because... some people out there are sceptical.
"They do worry about AI taking their job."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
44 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Defence at 5pc or learn to speak Russian? Spasibo, Mr Rutte
The secretary general of Nato, Mark Rutte, has come to London as the head of the most powerful military alliance on the planet to remind us Brits that unless we re-invest in our military capabilities we had better start learning Russian. Had we not achieved a similar feat after the 'awakening' of 1940, we would now be talking German. The development of Hitler's Nazi Germany in the 1930s is so frighteningly similar to Putin's actions in the 2010s and 2020s as to make you think the same playbook is being followed. Appearing to almost directly address Ms Reeves – ahead of her spending review on Wednesday – Rutte said: 'If you do not go to the 5 per cent, including the 3.5 per cent for defence spending, you could still have the NHS … the pension system, but you better learn to speak Russian. That's the consequence.' Rutte means 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence – as opposed to Keir Starmer's only concrete target of 2.5 per cent – plus another 1.5 per cent on security and infrastructure. In some respects Rutte is wrong. There will be no welfare state and no NHS if Putin takes over. Just look at the fate of ordinary people in Russia who can barely afford to eat, and both inflation and interest rates north of 20 per cent and rising. That shows what life might be like under a modern Warsaw Pact. Mr Rutte realises that we cannot appease tyrants like Putin and the only way to scare them off is to show strength. 'We are deadly serious that if anyone tries to attack us, the consequences of that attack would be devastating – be it Russia or anyone else,' he said. We must not repeat the mistakes of our forebears in the 1930s, who failed to rearm to the level of deterrence. If we had realised that only total domination of Europe would satisfy Hitler, we would have confronted pressing demands at home for more welfare spending and avoided war – not by letting the aggressor have his way, as was famously attempted by Neville Chamberlain, but by being strong enough that Hitler would have avoided a confrontation. As history recalls, when Chamberlain returned from Munich saying he had chosen 'peace in our time', Winston Churchill rebuked him: 'You were given a choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.' If we look realistically at what Putin has been telling us for the last 20 years we will understand that only the re-establishment of the old Soviet Union will satisfy him. The fact that none of those countries want to be part of Putin's Russia, means only one thing, as we are sworn to defend them under Nato Article 5: war. If we abandon them, we will be dishonoured – and we will be next, facing an enlarged empire with even greater resources. The Germans, realising belatedly the threat of another tyrant who wants to subjugate them, have issued a stark warning this week. Herr Bruno Kahl, head of the Federal Intelligence Service, said his agency had clear intelligence indications that Russian officials believed the collective defence obligations enshrined in the Nato treaty no longer had practical force. 'We are quite certain, and we have intelligence showing it, that Ukraine is only a step on the journey westward,' says Kahl. Secretary General Rutte is spot on. This message from a former European liberal politician may get many backs up here, but we cannot ignore it. History tells us he's right. Sadly we do not appear to have a Churchill among our modern day politicians to lead us through the coming confrontation with Putin. I know from comments added to my previous pieces on this subject in this paper that there appear to be some who want us to capitulate and give up without a fight. Most of them are clearly Russian bots, part of the massive Russian propaganda machine who would want us to do exactly that. But if people think life in Britain is bad now, look east and see the misery most Russians live under. Let us heed Rutte's warning, and in the immortal words of Donald Trump 'build baby build' military capability. Quite frankly if we fail to defend ourselves now, everything else vexing people at the moment will become horrifically irrelevant.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Turn Cornwall into industrial zone for net zero, Miliband urged
Cornwall should be made into an industrial hub to fuel net zero, government scientists have urged Ed Miliband. Britain's favourite holiday county and the broader South West of England have been deemed an energy 'super-region', meaning its geology is suited to a raft of new energy-based industries. The hot volcanic rocks lying below parts of Cornwall and Devon make them a top prospect for geothermal energy, according to the British Geological Survey (BGS), which advises the Government on the country's earth science. 'Deep geothermal resources alone could provide enough energy to satisfy the UK's heating needs for at least 100 years,' the quango said. The brines found in many of Cornwall's abandoned mines are also rich in lithium, a mineral essential for making batteries. Meanwhile, Dorset offers the potential for energy storage with rocks suitable for creating caverns to store natural gas or hydrogen, according to the quango. There are already separate plans to create such caverns under Portland Harbour, Britain's former biggest naval base. 'South-west England has significant deep geothermal resources offering opportunities for sustainable heat and power generation,' the BGS said. 'The region's sedimentary basins provide potential sites for carbon capture and storage (CCS), energy storage and geothermal projects … the region is well placed to support the UK's decarbonisation plans.' The Eden Project near St Austell already exploits the region's natural advantages, keeping visitors warm using heat extracted from rocks 3.3-miles beneath its surface. 'Cinderella of clean energy' However, the idea of expanding such schemes into a major industry in a county valued for its coastlines, landscapes and tourism is likely to face opposition. The South West is one of several areas whose geology the BGS suggests could support the move to net zero. Others include Northern Ireland, central Scotland, northern England and East Anglia. 'These geological super regions contain subsurface formations and conditions that are favourable to multiple different technologies within a relatively small area,' it said. The Scottish Central Belt is also deemed to be a rich source of geothermal energy with warm underground strata easily accessible via the region's many abandoned coal mines. Michelle Bentham, BGS chief scientist for decarbonisation and resource management, said: 'In Europe, geothermal energy is used much more widely. In the UK, we don't use it as widely and it's always been a bit of a Cinderella of clean energy technologies.' The BGS said careful planning for such technologies in these areas could help unlock an estimated £40bn of annual investment and support the Government's target of creating 650,000 jobs through renewable energy by 2030. Ms Bentham added: 'In the North Sea, we could potentially become a hub for carbon storage in Europe for countries that don't have the right geology who are trying to decarbonise.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Rachel Reeves's economic vision is coming into focus – a year too late
A government this young should not look so old. Keir Starmer has not yet celebrated his first anniversary in Downing Street, but the government already moves with the plodding gait of a caretaker administration. There were painful stumbles at the start. The cut to winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners was announced within a month of the general election. Now, in the face of overwhelming opposition, it has been largely reversed. Meagre savings to the exchequer were procured at an exorbitant price in political capital. The early display of unsentimental cost-cutting by the chancellor was meant to show that Labour was serious about fiscal discipline. The legacy of Tory mismanagement – a £20bn revenue shortfall – could be cited in mitigation. Pensioners were never going to relish the confiscation of their entitlements, just as farmers were sure to complain about the loss of inheritance tax perks and businesses were unlikely to thank the chancellor for hiking their national insurance bills. But maybe some slack would be cut to an incoming government that dared to take tough decisions; maybe the memory of terrible Conservative rule was convertible into credit for their successors. The idea was to advertise Britain, under newly reliable management, as a beacon of orderliness in a chaotic world and a magnet for investment. Prudently rationed public resources would be deployed in ways that stimulate growth – upgrading transport and energy infrastructure; housebuilding. Prosperity would follow, buoying the national mood. This week's spending review is meant to be a pivotal moment in the execution of that plan. There will be increases in capital and day-to-day spending by £113bn and £190bn respectively; well in excess of what the Tories had proposed before the election. The very opposite of austerity, the Treasury insists. Rachel Reeves boasts of 'national renewal' paid as the dividend of fiscal and political stability. But Whitehall departments not chosen for munificence face harsh real-terms spending cuts. And the benefit of investment in new trains, homes and power stations won't be felt for years, decades in some cases. In a more benign climate, a newish government could make a virtue of policy designed for the long term, not bending every announcement for tactical gain. But that amounts to a plea for national forbearance, urging collective sacrifice in anticipation of future reward. After years of stagnant incomes and rising bills, there isn't much receptiveness among British voters for yet more deferral of gratification. Also, the time to get a reliable mandate for that kind of programme was before the election. The fatal flaw in Labour's economic strategy was overestimating how much goodwill would be available to the party once it had fulfilled its electoral utility as a tool for ousting the Tories. Keir Starmer won a huge majority by making himself inoffensive to as many people as possible. The campaign started from the premise that Labour loses whenever voters think it is planning a reckless tax-and-spending spree, or suspect that its leader is a leftwing fanatic. Those threats were neutralised with ferocious discipline, but at a cost in clarity about the post-election agenda. Starmer embodied a contradiction – change without upheaval. That was bound to unravel on first contact with the reality of government. In a bygone era, Reeves's attempt to deflect blame for painful choices on to the Tory legacy might have been more effective. There was obviously a mess to be cleared up and sometimes voters have long memories. The winter of discontent was brandished in evidence to disqualify Labour from office for more than a decade. Endemic sleaze and callous neglect of the public realm in the 90s did the same for the Conservatives. Their recent reign of disrepute should impose another long period of opposition penance. It probably will, but not necessarily to Labour's benefit. The conventional division of allegiance between two main parties is breaking down, perhaps irrevocably. Reform UK regularly leads in opinion polls. In terms of councils controlled, the Liberal Democrats are Great Britain's second-largest party. These might be transient trends. It isn't unprecedented for smaller parties to capitalise on dissatisfaction with the ruling when the main opposition is still discredited and divided after recent ejection from office. In late 1981, the SDP-Liberal Alliance polled at about 50%. In a general election, 18 months later, they won 23 seats. Reform is not the first party to be led by Nigel Farage and his previous vehicles – Ukip; the Brexit party – didn't convert their midterm menace into parliamentary seats. But that was when the Conservatives were competitive. In 2019, Farage didn't even try to rival Boris Johnson, withdrawing more than 300 candidates to make a Tory majority more likely. There are reasons to think the current fragmentation in party support describes a more durable shift in the structure of British politics. Reform's ascent, mostly at the expense of the Tories, conforms to an international pattern of populists and nationalists challenging more established rightwing parties and, in the American case, swallowing the old guard whole. The moribund centre-right tradition of English conservatism doesn't look any closer to resuscitation than the twitching corpse of the pre-Trump Republican party. Powerful social and cultural trends are driving these changes. They express a depth of frustration and disillusionment that is resistant to appeals from candidates who come across as advocates for continuity of the existing system. This helps explain Labour's failure to sustain its status as the nation's preferred alternative to the Tories almost as soon as the election was over. The campaign foregrounded safety and reassurance, defining change primarily as a switch of personnel at the top. In the absence of a clear agenda for the future, Starmer and Reeves ended up owning everything that is desultory about the present. In an age of endemic mistrust in politics, there was precious little benefit of the doubt to be earned. Almost overnight, Labour became just another load of politicians, sounding the same, doing unpopular stuff and making excuses for why things aren't getting any better. That feels unfair to ministers who argue, with justification, that last autumn's budget and Wednesday's spending review set Britain on a path that is very different from anything the Tories had in mind. But precious months were wasted where the gap was too hard to discern, when the only visible agenda was painful tinkering with the status quo. The problem is not the trajectory now, but the shallowness of the angle where the lines diverged last July. It is the hesitancy of the steps, the stiff posture, that makes Labour look less like a fresh team with a purposeful stride, more like the familiar retread of a much longer incumbency. Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist One year of Labour, with Pippa Crerar, Rafael Behr and more On 9 July, join Pippa Crerar, Rafael Behr, Frances O'Grady and Salma Shah as they look back at one year of the Labour government and plans for the next four years Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
