![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The translation layer is from Rosetta 2, not the M1 CPU itself.
So Mac OS will recompile for the processor in use? If it can?
Apparently it is not that far:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)
Not entirely.
Na no legal issues. I mean a decade ago Transmeta translated x86 instructions in a software layer. Apple isn't doing anything different.
Maybe? The legality of emulation has always been tricky, but nobody has implemented hardware into their hardware in order to emulate better. They straight up implemented some of Intel's design in order to emulate x86 better. So at what point is the M1 a x86 CPU and a ARM CPU? How many more x86 features can Apple incorporate into their silicon before it's considered x86? One could argue that without Rosetta 2 the x86 hardware in the M1 is useless and therefore not considered an x86 CPU. One things for certain is that Intel is preparing their lawyers to look into this.
I seem to remember Transmeta suing Intel over longrun and.... Intel settling by paying TM 150 million or so and yearly payments of 20 million or something like that for 5 or 6 years. Intel ignored power efficiency and by the time they realized it might be at least somewhat important they just cribbed Transmetas design. Probably realizing they could force them out of business in other ways... and that they would hand the patents over in exchange for Intel not forcing them into a court for a decade. I really don't think Intel could have won that fight.... however they could easily have punished them with years of high end legal fees. Instead Intel got longrun for free.... from a company they would kill with simple sales channel pressure, and better to get the patents they wanted through the front door then deal with whatever patent troll might end up with the patents later.
Eh. Intel minus well keep their legal team busy if they can't advance elsewhere. If apple crosses a line im sure a legal battle will take place and such will have a minimal impact on either of the behemoths.
![Zarathustra[H]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/9/9298.jpg?1707758471){kind=avatar}
Would the natural entry for an Nvidia ARM solution be an gaming console ?
![[Spectre]](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/89/89728.jpg?1455675927){kind=avatar}
Because developing Consoles would require a company to work WITH Sony and Microsoft, freely sharing knowledge and technology so all parties can reap the benefits. A kick ass APU helps too.
Not enough of a market yet. Microsoft has been disinclined to work with them for some reason, so the surface is out so far. Phones- most of the vendors have a preferred arm provider or make their own.,. The car guys need more and more horsepower though, as those systems are doing a lot more than multimedia now.
Is that a big difference than working with Nintendo ? I guess so, Nintendo you get do it with last gen affair (instead of the new one) ?
Nintendo is like 80s arcade games. Potato platform. Not exactly cutting edge development. Hardly believe that Nvidia's relationship with Nintendo is as deep as AMD is with MS and Sony. Just look how the co-operative technology has rolled out. Close DX12 development, custom APUs for both MS and Sony from AMD. VRS VRR, The list goes on. I don't really think that the Nintendo<->Nvidia side brings much to the table comparatively.
Using X86 makes it far easier to port to PC after, and they get to use the huge libraries of development tools available. To switch to ARM console developers would need an all-new toolset as well as have to learn the ins and outs of a completely different architecture. The Tegra X1 was out for a while and very well documented when it came to the switch and it wasn't too dissimilar to the chips used in the DS. NVidia would have to make one hell of a presentation to score that contract, not impossible but certainly a hard sell.
Not unexpected at all, I’m sure NVidia has been preparing for this. But if this deal fails ARM’s in trouble, soft bank isn’t going to keep throwing money at something they loose money on. Eventually they will find a buyer and it’s likely going to be a hedge fund patent troll based out of Brazil.
softbank already lost a lot on it's wework bet
They have been loosing money on all their tech ventures.
Because they make Trillions, and those losses are easy tax write offs. But even they can’t keep loosing money hand over fist, it’s not good for business.
proof?
It’s better to say they move trillions they put the various tech investments into a managed portfolio along with a bunch of higher performing stocks. They balance each other out investors make money the business losses are covered they write off the losses on their taxes it’s a pretty neat little setup the banks have. But yes their losses are piling up they have been making poor and desperate tech investments trying to make up for their other failed tech investments.
are they offloading the losses to bad shell companies they created to white-wash SoftBank's balance sheets every quarter or what?
Basically yes. Lots of banks do it. But if they do it too long regulators and investors give them the stink eye, and SoftBank is getting attention so they want to offload the assets write off the losses for good and move on. Pair the write down with a few high profile “retirements” and overall their stock prices will probably go up for it.
Isn’t that how Enron went bankrupt though through JEDI contracts, LJM and the Raptors special purpose entities companies that Andy Fastow (CFO) setup?
Enron went bankrupt sure but some key investors made some serious scratch on its way out. But this isn’t quite the same, it was explained way better on how it works on a Bloomberg or NYTimes article or something like that that I read back when the sale was first announced but before NVidia got publically involved. So I am doing a bad job at regurgitating that story.
i don't understand how modern companies like SoftBank can get away with practices that were seemingly once criminal activities?