So ARM is doing what Nvidia couldn't

Lakados

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
10,283
In case you didn't know ARM and Qualcomm are in a bit of a legal battle over licensing and specifics about Qualcomm's custom core designs which ARM says violates their agreements, but Qualcomm says it's covered by through their purchase of NUVIA which ARM invalidated for dubious reasons after Qualcomm spoke out against the Nvidia deal.
Anyways, one of the things that have come up in the lawsuit is apparently ARM will stop licensing its CPU designs after 2024 and will instead require OEMs to directly license their chips from ARM cutting out the middlemen, Qualcomm, MediaTek, Samsung, etc...
They are also supposedly adopting a "Take it or leave it" approach to the architecture and no longer allowing modifications such as the Samsung/AMD, or Mediatek/Imagination, furthermore, none of these partners will be allowed to use their in-house ISP or NPU regardless if it is better or not.
In short, it seems ARM in its struggles to find a path to being profitable is doing all the things the regulators feared Nvidia would do if they had been allowed to make that purchase.

It's from 2022 but seems to have been glossed over in many places or outright missed so if there is a different thread for this my bad.
https://www.semianalysis.com/p/arm-changes-business-model-oem-partners
https://www.semianalysis.com/p/is-arm-desperate-qualcomm-claps-back
https://www.fierceelectronics.com/s...ests-oems-need-arm-ip-licenses-not-chip-firms

I am trying to find some sources for this that aren't subscription/paywall blocked, so sorry in advance.
 
This is why it is insanity to keep bouncing from one proprietary ISA to another proprietary ISA.

The world should have learned its lesson from the fiasco of how Intel enforced and sued everyone over the x86 ISA.

The market needs license-free interoperability between designs, and companies justy keep playing their stupid games of lock-ins and lock-outs to try to carve up the market into little individual fiefdoms so they don't have to compete with each-other. It ought to be illegal.

The free market depends on multiple players (3-5 minimum) in every market being interchangeable, and going hog wild competing against each other. Otherwise none of the principles of free market capitalism work.

The chances are probably remote, but maybe, just maybe RISC-V benefits from this.
 
Wouldn't this also affect Apple, or does their position of being on the board and having a permanent license help them to dodge this?
Their whole shtick is essentially customization of ARM.

EDIT: In the first article.
If true, it seems Arm is playing very dirty with their threats to Qualcomm and OEMs. Mediatek, Samsung, and other Arm partners should be very scared. This is going to accelerate RISC-V roadmaps rapidly. It also reeks of anti-competitive behavior. Nvidia has a 20-year Arm license secured, so they will be fine. Apple obviously has great licensing terms due to their history with founding Arm. We hear Broadcom also has very favorable terms as well.
 
Last edited:
In short, it seems ARM in its struggles to find a path to being profitable is doing all the things the regulators feared Nvidia would do if they had been allowed to make that purchase.
oaKWHLJ.jpeg
 
Wouldn't this also affect Apple, or does their position of being on the board and having a permanent license help them to dodge this?
Their whole shtick is essentially customization of ARM.
ARM and Apple's agreement is weird but as best I can tell Apple has a perpetual, non-revocable license for the ARM v8 architecture, but it does not mention any future ARM revisions.
In the legal filings, the only place Apple is mentioned is by Qualcomm in their complaints that ARM's new licensing requirements would make them utterly incapable of competing with Apple's custom silicon.
So that would make me think that Apple is exempt from the changes.
 
ARM and Apple's agreement is weird but as best I can tell Apple has a perpetual, non-revocable license for the ARM v8 architecture, but it does not mention any future ARM revisions.
In the legal filings, the only place Apple is mentioned is by Qualcomm in their complaints that ARM's new licensing requirements would make them utterly incapable of competing with Apple's custom silicon.
So that would make me think that Apple is exempt from the changes.
I pulled a quote from the article. But probably missed your response.

Apple in theory does need to have updates (v9, V10, etc) for the future. Not sure how far their permanent licensing goes. I also don't know how much they contribute to ARM either. Of course we all hope the contribute because that helps everyone, but I have no idea.
 
Last edited:
I pulled a quote from the article. But probably missed your response.

Apple in theory does need to have updates (v9, V10, etc) for the future.
Maybe, v9 doesn't add a lot that desktops need.
V9 takes parts that were optional in V8 and makes them mandatory (apple already included them), it makes changes to the floor plan and chip configuration which makes it look far more Apple-like, then there are a number of changes that you don't need to worry about unless you are operating secure servers which don't apply to Apple. The only significant change for Apple is the addition in v9 of SVE 2 which replaced SVE 1, but Apple uses a variation of Neon which was a weird choice as it is not very parallel in its capabilities but makes sense if you think of it as something designed for a phone, your not exactly multi-tasking there, and the M series are just big versions of their phone silicon.
Anyways SVE2 was added to the ARM v8-A licensing which Apple does have so they could introduce that in future versions if they want.

I'm not worried about an ARM v10 at this point because I am not sure there will be an ARM left by the time that would be released. I expect Apple to slowly migrate to its own ISA over time to avoid this whole mess and in a few years it won't really be ARM at all but something else.
 
Last edited:
Maybe v9, doesn't add a lot that desktops need.
V9 takes parts that were optional in V8 and makes them mandatory (apple already included them), it makes changes to the floor plan and chip configuration which makes it look far more Apple-like, then there are a number of changes that you don't need to worry about unless you are operating secure servers which don't apply to Apple. The only significant change for Apple is the addition in v9 of SVE 2 which replaced SVE 1, but Apple uses a variation of Neon which was a weird choice as it is not very parallel in its capabilities but makes sense if you think of it as something designed for a phone, your not exactly multi-tasking there, and the M series are just big versions of their phone silicon.
Anyways SVE2 was added to the ARM v8-A licensing which Apple does have so they could introduce that in future versions if they want.

I'm not worried about an ARM v10 at this point because I am not sure there will be an ARM left by the time that would be released. I expect Apple to slowly migrate to its own ISA over time to avoid this whole mess and in a few years it won't really be ARM at all but something else.
I think that would still be bad for them and for everyone. It would be better for them to simply buy ARM, take it private and not allow licensing over either having it die or having to move to another ISA.
 
I think that would still be bad for them and for everyone. It would be better for them to simply buy ARM, take it private and not allow licensing over either having it die or having to move to another ISA.
If Nvidia wasn't allowed to buy ARM, Apple doesn't stand a hope in hell.
Apple's biggest strength is its custom cores, if they bought ARM they would be legally required to license those out to 3'rd parties, if they didn't every OEM that wanted to build a MBP clone or Android with the Apple silicon would sue for Apple being a Monopoly. Nah Apple would develop their own ISA before they did that.
 
I think that would still be bad for them and for everyone. It would be better for them to simply buy ARM, take it private and not allow licensing over either having it die or having to move to another ISA.

That sounds like it would result in an "end of the world" style legal battle as Qualcomm, Nvidia and everyone else sue them.

Probably not worth the headache for Apple.
 
That sounds like it would result in an "end of the world" style legal battle as Qualcomm, Nvidia and everyone else sue them.

Probably not worth the headache for Apple.
vs.... Lakados' suggestion of ARM not existing? I realize people are vindictive and they don't want anyone else to have things they don't, but thankfully the legal system mostly doesn't see it that way. If they stepped in and bought them out where no one else was willing to, pretty sure the courts would see it Apple's way.
Honestly, if bankruptcy was to occur, Apple is one of the few with the liquid cash to buy ARM out.
 
vs.... Lakados' suggestion of ARM not existing? I realize people are vindictive and they don't want anyone else to have things they don't, but thankfully the legal system mostly doesn't see it that way. If they stepped in and bought them out where no one else was willing to, pretty sure the courts would see it Apple's way.
Honestly, if bankruptcy was to occur, Apple is one of the few with the liquid cash to buy ARM out.

Not necessarily suggesting it would be better in general, but you have a wide variety of large corporations on the planet that have based their businesses around licensing and customizing ARM designs. If they were to suddenly be cut off, it doesn't take much of a leap to suggest that they might be pissed and sue.

I'm merely suggesting that it would be a headache for Apple to deal with, so I think they'd probably just avoid it.

More likely they'd just allow ARM to fail (if bankruptcy were on the table) and then outbid others on the open market for their IP when it is auctioned off. That way, they would still get what they need, and they won't get any of ARM's contract entanglements.
 
vs.... Lakados' suggestion of ARM not existing? I realize people are vindictive and they don't want anyone else to have things they don't, but thankfully the legal system mostly doesn't see it that way. If they stepped in and bought them out where no one else was willing to, pretty sure the courts would see it Apple's way.
Honestly it bankruptcy, Apple is one of the few with the liquid cash to buy ARM out.
To say ARM not existing is a bit of a stretch, but I don't think it will exist as it is now.
I fully expect ARM will do everything that is claimed and will be required to do all the things people feared Nvidia would do, because ARM despite being one of the words most widely used IP's is not profitable.
ARM's licensing terms are too good for 3'rd parties and leave ARM in a position where they do not have the capital to advance their own designs so they are left trying to reverse engineer other firms work, as their own designs fall further and further behind.
Honestly, v9 is a cheap reverse engineering job combining the work done by Altera and Apple yet still fails miserably at reaching the performance of either, leaving Samsung, Mediatek, Altera, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon all designing their own cores and designs leaving ARM in the dust with nothing much to show for it and not enough cash flow to keep up.
The experts all called this as an absolute inevitability when the Nvidia purchase fell through.
 
I expect Apple to slowly migrate to its own ISA over time to avoid this whole mess and in a few years it won't really be ARM at all but something else.
Oh, it will still be ARM: Apple RISC Machines
Let's hope that day never arrives.

More likely they'd just allow ARM to fail (if bankruptcy were on the table) and then outbid others on the open market for their IP when it is auctioned off. That way, they would still get what they need, and they won't get any of ARM's contract entanglements.
This is quite the gamble, and less so that a megacorp like Apple, NVIDIA, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. were to get a hold of ownership of ARM.
The real threat is if a Chinese company outbids everyone and then legally/globally claims ownership of ARM.

As of Q4 2021 all Chinese large and megacorps are completely owned and controlled by the CCP.
The ARM IP is currently owned by SoftBank, a Japanese conglomerate, who has no legal ties or requirements to sell to USA-only or EU-only companies or governments.

This means that if a Chinese company wins that bid, the CCP itself now directly owns and controls the ARM IP itself, and that should make the world sweat.
 
Last edited:
Oh, it will still be ARM: Apple RISC Machines
Let's hope that day never arrives.
Does it matter?
At the end of the day you turn the machine on, you do stuff, you turn it off, and then go drink a beer.
I am not sure the specifics of the inside matter as long as they do what they are needed to do as fast or faster than it is needed.
Apple uses Swift for all its development and that is completely open source, as long as they add the needed libraries there for the compiler it's not like anybody is having to learn a new environment or a new language.
 
Oh, it will still be ARM: Apple RISC Machines
Let's hope that day never arrives.

I mean, Apple is already locking out the competition by using proprietary hardware, so what does it matter if they shift ISA's again?

Unlike other manufacturers, Apple doesn't need to be concerned with compatibility. As long as their own shit works, they don't care.
 
If ARM is losing money by raking in licensing fees across the board, they are doing something wrong. Instead of squashing the companies they've licensed the tech too, they should look inward and see why they are hemorrhaging money.
If they can't innovate and create better cores than the competition, they need to start scalping engineers or simply become a patent holder that is a PO box collecting checks.
 
Does it matter?
At the end of the day you turn the machine on, you do stuff, you turn it off, and then go drink a beer.
I am not sure the specifics of the inside matter as long as they do what they are needed to do as fast or faster than it is needed.
Apple uses Swift for all its development and that is completely open source, as long as they add the needed libraries there for the compiler it's not like anybody is having to learn a new environment or a new language.
Looking at history with what Apple has been capable of in regards to other companies and IPs, I would think this would be a concern.

I mean, Apple is already locking out the competition by using proprietary hardware, so what does it matter if they shift ISA's again?

Unlike other manufacturers, Apple doesn't need to be concerned with compatibility. As long as their own shit works, they don't care.
A prime example of what I just mentioned, especially if it is now applied to 3rd parties.
It may not cost Apple anything, but it could completely bust other companies, supply chains, development cycles, etc.

This is purely speculation based on what I know of Apple's history over the last 40+ years, and more recently so, but it is possible that everything will be fine and none of this will come to pass.
Everyone predicted doom and gloom if NVIDIA had successfully purchased ARM, but I think ARM going to Apple or the CCP would be much worse.
 
If ARM is losing money by raking in licensing fees across the board, they are doing something wrong. Instead of squashing the companies they've licensed the tech too, they should look inward and see why they are hemorrhaging money.
If they can't innovate and create better cores than the competition, they need to start scalping engineers or simply become a patent holder that is a PO box collecting checks.
It isn't so much the ARM licensing model isn't working, as it is very profitable, but it is more that SoftBank just continuously is hemorrhaging money on poor investments and failed project after failed project.
 
If ARM is losing money by raking in licensing fees across the board, they are doing something wrong. Instead of squashing the companies they've licensed the tech too, they should look inward and see why they are hemorrhaging money.
If they can't innovate and create better cores than the competition, they need to start scalping engineers or simply become a patent holder that is a PO box collecting checks.
Their licensing is too cheap, they made deals that gave away the product for peanuts to gain market share, but never found a way to transition to making money from it. 3'rd parties make vastly better margins selling ARM hardware than ARM makes from their licenses. Qualcomm alone spends more each year researching and advancing its custom ARM silicon than ARM makes in revenue. Their licensing model, the very thing all those companies who rallied against the Nvidia purchase wanted to keep in place is the very reason ARM is dying.
 
Their licensing is too cheap, they made deals that gave away the product for peanuts to gain market share, but never found a way to transition to making money from it. 3'rd parties make vastly better margins selling ARM hardware than ARM makes from their licenses. Qualcomm alone spends more each year researching and advancing its custom ARM silicon than ARM makes in revenue. Their licensing model, the very thing all those companies who rallied against the Nvidia purchase wanted to keep in place is the very reason ARM is dying.
Well, that is the end of ARM. So, let's see.......maybe RISC-V now has a chance.

Yeah, the selling point of ARM has been a cheap license that gives you a solid foundation for customizing your own chip. margins for ARM have been low due tot he license being too cheap, but it has made arm ubiquitous.

I'm really torn on whether or not this is the end of ARM.

It certainly undercuts any number of custom ARM based designs (Qualcomm, Samsung, Nvidia, unlaunched stuff by Intel and AMD, Amlogic, Rockchip, the list goes on and on and on.

And one has to wonder, if all of these companies saw a need to improve on the ARM design, rather than going with a vanilla arm design, does ARM really have the pull to do this? One would think they would need something truly impressive in the works in order to force the issue. Except, where else is the competition to turn? RISC-V? Would be nice to have open source ISA's, but also expensive to do a sudden about face.

By going straight to OEM's though, ARM would likely be looking at higher license fees. It would also mean less fragmentation in ARM hardware.

Could just be that ARM sees a path forward by being smaller by volume, but extracting more revenue out of what it keeps?

I don't know. It's complicated. All I know is I support an open source ISA. Preferably one with license requirements that prevent so many changes that it breaks compatibility. I don't know the specifics of RISC-V licensing, but I hope they have something in there to protect it from becoming too fragmented, broken and faux-proprietary.
 
Oh, it will still be ARM: Apple RISC Machines
Let's hope that day never arrives.


This is quite the gamble, and less so that a megacorp like Apple, NVIDIA, Amazon, Microsoft, etc. were to get a hold of ownership of ARM.
The real threat is if a Chinese company outbids everyone and then legally/globally claims ownership of ARM.

As of Q4 2021 all Chinese large and megacorps are completely owned and controlled by the CCP.
The ARM IP is currently owned by SoftBank, a Japanese conglomerate, who has no legal ties or requirements to sell to USA-only or EU-only companies or governments.

This means that if a Chinese company wins that bid, the CCP itself now directly owns and controls the ARM IP itself, and that should make the world sweat.
They already have v8 and some custom stuff because of their ownership of ARM China. So I’m not sure the CCP would bother.
 
Yeah, the selling point of ARM has been a cheap license that gives you a solid foundation for customizing your own chip. margins for ARM have been low due tot he license being too cheap, but it has made arm ubiquitous.

I'm really torn on whether or not this is the end of ARM.

It certainly undercuts any number of custom ARM based designs (Qualcomm, Samsung, Nvidia, unlaunched stuff by Intel and AMD, Amlogic, Rockchip, the list goes on and on and on.

And one has to wonder, if all of these companies saw a need to improve on the ARM design, rather than going with a vanilla arm design, does ARM really have the pull to do this? One would think they would need something truly impressive in the works in order to force the issue. Except, where else is the competition to turn? RISC-V? Would be nice to have open source ISA's, but also expensive to do a sudden about face.

By going straight to OEM's though, ARM would likely be looking at higher license fees. It would also mean less fragmentation in ARM hardware.

Could just be that ARM sees a path forward by being smaller by volume, but extracting more revenue out of what it keeps?

I don't know. It's complicated. All I know is I support an open source ISA. Preferably one with license requirements that prevent so many changes that it breaks compatibility. I don't know the specifics of RISC-V licensing, but I hope they have something in there to protect it from becoming too fragmented, broken and faux-proprietary.
The RISC-V ISA is free and open with a permissive license for use by anyone in all types of implementations. Designers are free to develop proprietary or open source implementations for commercial or other exploitations as they see fit. RISC-V International encourages all implementations that are compliant to the specifications.

Note that the use of the RISC-V trademark requires a license which is granted to members of RISC-V International for use with compliant implementations. The RISC-V specification is based around a structure which allows flexibility with modular extensions and additional custom instructions/extensions. If an implementation was based on the RISC-V specification but includes modifications beyond this framework, then it cannot be referenced as RISC-V.

https://riscv.org/about/faq/
 
Anyways, one of the things that have come up in the lawsuit is apparently ARM will stop licensing its CPU designs after 2024 and will instead require OEMs to directly license their chips from ARM cutting out the middlemen, Qualcomm, MediaTek, Samsung, etc...
They are also supposedly adopting a "Take it or leave it" approach to the architecture and no longer allowing modifications such as the Samsung/AMD, or Mediatek/Imagination, furthermore, none of these partners will be allowed to use their in-house ISP or NPU regardless if it is better or not.
Seems PowerPC and MIPS are back on the menu.
In short, it seems ARM in its struggles to find a path to being profitable is doing all the things the regulators feared Nvidia would do if they had been allowed to make that purchase.
What did people think ARM would do to become profitable? The problem is the licensing deals they've made, which aren't paying enough. So of course ARM changed the deal, pray they don't alter it any further.
This is why it is insanity to keep bouncing from one proprietary ISA to another proprietary ISA.

The world should have learned its lesson from the fiasco of how Intel enforced and sued everyone over the x86 ISA.
Keep in mind that x86 does have another other providers of the ISA. The problem is that Intel doesn't share their design with those who license it, so performance can be a lot worse. I don't just mean AMD either.
The chances are probably remote, but maybe, just maybe RISC-V benefits from this.
RISC-V could but I can't imagine the industry switching to it and not running into worse problems. RISC-V isn't fast, and the design can be altered to the point where code written for one design may not work for another design. ARM is here to stay because I can't imagine the Apple and Android market forcing their end users to once again deal with an architecture change. Imagine a Rosetta 3 from Apple when they had already asked their users to switch to ARM.
 
Just waiting for Apple's switch to RISC-V. I am actually sure it will come. Might take a long while, but it will come.

Depending on companies that can go crazy at any point in time (combined with an acquisition or not) is just not a winning business model anymore.
 
Just waiting for Apple's switch to RISC-V. I am actually sure it will come. Might take a long while, but it will come.

Depending on companies that can go crazy at any point in time (combined with an acquisition or not) is just not a winning business model anymore.

Pretty sure apples license is iron clad, there is nothing ARM could do to stop Apple from doing anything they want with ISA. Their deal with ARM is akin to AMDs deal with Intel. There is nothing Intel can ever do about AMD x86... Apple has the exact same type of deal with ARM as they are the co developer of the initial ARM ISA and Apple of the day ensured they forever more have access to ARM in any form.

Honestly ARM breaking down and falling apart with in fighting is the best thing that could ever happen for Apple. Apple is cheering this on. Apple would love nothing more then for the non Apple world to go RiscV. This ARM move to cut out the QualC, Samsungs of the ARM world ensures Apple supremacy for years. ARM can't hold Apple over a barrel. Apples agreements are iron clad and history of the world long.

People forget how ARM came to be. It was a joint venture between Acorn, Apple, and VLSI. Apple was the money behind the founding of ARM. ARM only exists because Apple likes to use third parties to create hardware. Had the newton not failed ARM likely would have never been anything but an Apple chip supplier. I have read lots of silly rumors about Apple considering RISCV.... and I have no doubt they have looked at RISCV, but I don't assume they would be looking at it for iphone and mac chips. There are many uses for RISCV in things like controllers and ultra low power on storage things (Such as what WD is doing). Apple likes to have 100% integration no doubt they have looked at RISCV to possibly be used in such ways. They want an apple solution to match things like WD RISCV storage chips. Nothing more. People hear RISCV and start thinking about CPUs. That coolest thing about RISCV is how it can be used for just about anything as its 100% free... no one would license an entire CPU level Arch to build a fast controller chip for a SSD. RISCV can do the job better for free. Its the design flexibility RISCV opens that makes it interesting. (they could even be vetting RiscV for use in things like Apple GPU controllers for mac pro type hardware with potentially a 100% apple discrete GPU... it would need a controller just like Nvidias RiscV controller)
 
I'm thinking RISC-V is going to attract a lot of development now.
 
I pulled a quote from the article. But probably missed your response.

Apple in theory does need to have updates (v9, V10, etc) for the future. Not sure how far their permanent licensing goes. I also don't know how much they contribute to ARM either. Of course we all hope the contribute because that helps everyone, but I have no idea.
Apple is by far ARMs biggest customer. No one else comes close. It would be suicide for ARM to try and bully Apple.
 
I'm thinking RISC-V is going to attract a lot of development now.
It has been, AMD, Intel, Samsung, Apple, the lot of them. RISC-V is a beast when it comes to IO operations and a few vendors have started making SBC RISC-V devices available much like the Raspberry PI units. StarV is the most notable one but I do know there are others. I look forward to what the stuff brings over the next 10 years.

But ARMs not going to die I don’t think anyways, it will possibly make Qualcomm, Rockchip, and the likes go the way of Huawei. But it won’t go away, at this stage it’s too needed.
 
In regards to monopolies (though slightly off-topic), are there any modern motherboards with built-in audio not powered by Realtek? My god, their sound drivers are an absolute mess now that we have "premium" audio solutions like Nahimic from SteelSeries (which is absolute garbage and makes sound worse) and other similar "solutions". Realtek is the only player left in terms of built-in motherboard sound offerings, right?

I miss Pre 2017 Realtek drivers that came with Loudness Equalization and an Equalizer in the "Enhancement" tab. Now, you have to use these premium apps, and the sound is broken in Windows 10 / 11, and they're blaming it on the video games (like not being able to tell directional sound in PUBG) when the old drivers worked just fine and I could pinpoint everything in PUBG.

Just built a new rig coming from an x370 chipset to an x670 chipset, and the sound on my new PC is abysmal compared to my old one where I was able to use the old Realtek drivers from 2017 with the old Realtek Audio Control Panel application that actually didn't suck compared to these "premium" addon garbage applications like Nahimic.

So many things wrong with today's world. We've gone from perfect built-in audio to a mess of Realtek licensing functionality to "premium" apps. Made everything worse... /rant

Including Microsoft's BS push towards smaller driver packages. I'd rather have a 500 MB audio driver that has the full Realtek Control Panel rather than a 30MB package that downloads Realtek Audio Console from the Windows Store which is a slimmed down and worse version than their old fully functional panel that was rich with features they've since removed or passed onto premium apps that are broken.

Nahimic makes everything sound worse... even their equalizer doesn't work properly. It seriously messes up sound in every sense for every application. It's an abomination. Same old same old from all these companies. Monopolies are alive and well. Don't let them fool you.
 
Apple is by far ARMs biggest customer. No one else comes close. It would be suicide for ARM to try and bully Apple.
ARM is broke, so why would bullying Apple be a bad idea? Apple is probably the worst at not paying ARM a reasonable license. It wouldn't be fair for ARM to go after Qualcomm and not include Apple.
 
ARM is broke, so why would bullying Apple be a bad idea? Apple is probably the worst at not paying ARM a reasonable license. It wouldn't be fair for ARM to go after Qualcomm and not include Apple.
Because Apple has shown Time and again, they are not afraid of taking their business elsewhere even if it means moving to a completely different processor and rewriting their OS. They did it to IBM, they did it to Intel and they’ll do it to ARM if they [ARM] gives them a reason.
 
ARM is broke, so why would bullying Apple be a bad idea? Apple is probably the worst at not paying ARM a reasonable license. It wouldn't be fair for ARM to go after Qualcomm and not include Apple.
Apple is not technically an ARM customer, they have a permanent non-revocable license and they pay something along the lines of $0.02 for every chip they sell Apple is untouchable by ARM. Nvidia, Broadcom, and a few others have agreements with ARM that still have multiple decades left before they expire. Saying Apple is an ARM customer is like saying AMD is an Intel customer at this stage, if I understand what ARM is doing they appear to be simply not renegotiating licensing with chip manufacturers as their licenses expire, they expire and ARM is instead going to their OEM's directly and cutting them out.
 
Because Apple has shown Time and again, they are not afraid of taking their business elsewhere even if it means moving to a completely different processor and rewriting their OS. They did it to IBM, they did it to Intel and they’ll do it to ARM if they [ARM] gives them a reason.
I wonder when their customers will get sick of them changes architectures? You can only do that so many times before even the most hardware Apple users leave.
Apple is not technically an ARM customer, they have a permanent non-revocable license and they pay something along the lines of $0.02 for every chip they sell Apple is untouchable by ARM. Nvidia, Broadcom, and a few others have agreements with ARM that still have multiple decades left before they expire. Saying Apple is an ARM customer is like saying AMD is an Intel customer at this stage, if I understand what ARM is doing they appear to be simply not renegotiating licensing with chip manufacturers as their licenses expire, they expire and ARM is instead going to their OEM's directly and cutting them out.
If Nvidia bought ARM, you know they would challenge that. I'm not sure if ARM will ever have the balls to challenge Apple, but it would be the best way to fix their financial situation. As much as you'd like to believe Apple isn't an ARM customer, they really are. If anything I could see the rest of the industry moving away from ARM because of Apple's special treatment.
 
I wonder when their customers will get sick of them changes architectures? You can only do that so many times before even the most hardware Apple users leave.

If Nvidia bought ARM, you know they would challenge that. I'm not sure if ARM will ever have the balls to challenge Apple, but it would be the best way to fix their financial situation. As much as you'd like to believe Apple isn't an ARM customer, they really are. If anything I could see the rest of the industry moving away from ARM because of Apple's special treatment.
Well they’ve already done it several times and they aren’t any smaller. Just like nvidia has raised prices on all their cards and people still buying. Customers don’t appear to be nearly as fickle as you might imagine.
 
If Nvidia bought ARM, you know they would challenge that. I'm not sure if ARM will ever have the balls to challenge Apple, but it would be the best way to fix their financial situation. As much as you'd like to believe Apple isn't an ARM customer, they really are. If anything I could see the rest of the industry moving away from ARM because of Apple's special treatment.
Apple has been a developer and designer of ARM since 2001 and owns a crapload of patents there that it actually licenses back to ARM. If ARM wants to pick that fight they are welcome to but it would be a death sentence. It’s more likely that ARM and Apple are tag teaming Qualcomm, ARM is pissed they messed up the sale to Nvidia sand Apple is pissed that their purchase of Qualcomm failed.

Nvidia had already done the work and there was no legal way for them to invalidate or modify the Apple agreement either, so that a dead horse issue unless Apple initiated the process but even if they do the original agreement stands.

Honestly the OEM route is the best plan, but those remaining agreements that have some 20-30 years left on them is going to be painful.

Apple though is known for its lack of loyalty to hardware partners and they do hold a RISC-V license and spend a few $B there a year so, they have options.
 
wonder when their customers will get sick of them changes architectures? You can only do that so many times before even the most hardware Apple users leave.
What changed for the customers though? Better battery life, faster performance, lower temperatures better interoperability between Mac and iOS? Customers saw no difference, on the development side we had to update out compiler check maybe a dozen checkboxes and recompile and resubmit. The custom programs we use may be small but update to upload was maybe 2h, and 99% unattended.

On the customer side the transition was basically seamless.
 
Back
Top