I don't imagine that Apple has concerns one way or the other. Apple is likely at a point where they have in house capability and have licensed necessary IP to create their own proprietary ISA, while also large enough to create the design and validation tools needed to fab at TMSC, or whomever.
I would prefer that ARM reside in Japan or the UK, and not Taiwan, simply for National Security reasons.
You can't create any ARM designs without licensing from ARM Holdings. Even if it were possible somehow, Apple's existing line of processors - A, T, S, U, W, H - are all based on designs that they currently licensed from ARM. Creating 6 new lines of processors in a way that doesn't infringe on the MANY RISC-based CPU patents - and there are tons as RISC has been around since the early 1980s - would take years, and one would have no idea about such real world issues as performance, heat and scalability. Speaking of real world issues, Apple would be responsible for things like creating a new instruction set, architecture, microcode etc. as well as publishing all that stuff and securing patents for it. They also would need to build an entire application stack on top of the new architecture AND migrate their existing applications for their hardware to it, while still supporting the 2 billion iOS devices on the previous architecture for the 5-6 years that all those devices last.
Another thing: basic R&D like this isn't Apple's deal. It is amazing that so many people are convinced that it is. In fact, Apple doesn't do originality. Instead they take existing technology - stuff that has been around for awhile and has been proven - and incorporate them into their existing design language. At most, one could say that they excel at taking parts innovated or improved by others and using them to make new great products. But the truth is that nothing in Apple's present existence or their previous history indicates that they are capable of coming up with a "new" CPU design, or even a major advance on an existing design. Even their own CPUs, in addition to being based on the existing ARM design, were the result of acqui-hiring PA Semiconductor. Even something MUCH SIMPLER such as a fingerprint scanner, they had to buy a company that already had the tech, where Qualcomm and Samsung created their own using their own R&D departments (which is why they were able to make under-the-screen fingerprint scanners so quickly).
ERRRNNT! You don’t know what you’re talking about; Apple licenses the ARM64 instruction set from ARM, not chip designs. The Apple Silicon chips like the A-series are original designs produced by their in-house chip designers that we’ve been reading about for years.
Your other conclusion is a popular myth as well. Apple is good at incorporating existing tech, sure, but they’re also good at new tech. There are plenty of hardware inventions, display tech layers, and countless other inventions they create and implement across their line of devices. The claim that they just take work by others is laughable. Try again, son.
I don't imagine that Apple has concerns one way or the other. Apple is likely at a point where they have in house capability and have licensed necessary IP to create their own proprietary ISA, while also large enough to create the design and validation tools needed to fab at TMSC, or whomever.
I would prefer that ARM reside in Japan or the UK, and not Taiwan, simply for National Security reasons.
You can't create any ARM designs without licensing from ARM Holdings. Even if it were possible somehow, Apple's existing line of processors - A, T, S, U, W, H - are all based on designs that they currently licensed from ARM. Creating 6 new lines of processors in a way that doesn't infringe on the MANY RISC-based CPU patents - and there are tons as RISC has been around since the early 1980s - would take years, and one would have no idea about such real world issues as performance, heat and scalability. Speaking of real world issues, Apple would be responsible for things like creating a new instruction set, architecture, microcode etc. as well as publishing all that stuff and securing patents for it. They also would need to build an entire application stack on top of the new architecture AND migrate their existing applications for their hardware to it, while still supporting the 2 billion iOS devices on the previous architecture for the 5-6 years that all those devices last.
Another thing: basic R&D like this isn't Apple's deal. It is amazing that so many people are convinced that it is. In fact, Apple doesn't do originality. Instead they take existing technology - stuff that has been around for awhile and has been proven - and incorporate them into their existing design language. At most, one could say that they excel at taking parts innovated or improved by others and using them to make new great products. But the truth is that nothing in Apple's present existence or their previous history indicates that they are capable of coming up with a "new" CPU design, or even a major advance on an existing design. Even their own CPUs, in addition to being based on the existing ARM design, were the result of acqui-hiring PA Semiconductor. Even something MUCH SIMPLER such as a fingerprint scanner, they had to buy a company that already had the tech, where Qualcomm and Samsung created their own using their own R&D departments (which is why they were able to make under-the-screen fingerprint scanners so quickly).
You do realize that Apple created the first 64 bit ARM implementation before ARM actually provided its own ARM 64 bit implementation.
"Apple doesn't do originality" is a bullshit meme.
What are you talking about?
1. That is still an iteration of the original ARM Holdings design. It is just a better one than Qualcomm and Samsung's. 2. It is ALSO the result of Apple BUYING the PA Semiconductor company. Not Apple's own unique design. So your rejoinder only confirmed my original comment. I repeat ... there is NOTHING that indicates Apple having the ability to create its own original ARM CPU design, especially a design that maintains the power and performance advantages that the ARM Holdings and PA Semiconductor designs have.
Attempting to backpeddle by claiming Apple employees who were acquired via a corporate purchase 12 fucking years ago aren’t real employees producing real things today is about one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read...especially when that company only existed for 5 years. Well done.
I don't imagine that Apple has concerns one way or the other. Apple is likely at a point where they have in house capability and have licensed necessary IP to create their own proprietary ISA, while also large enough to create the design and validation tools needed to fab at TMSC, or whomever.
I would prefer that ARM reside in Japan or the UK, and not Taiwan, simply for National Security reasons.
You can't create any ARM designs without licensing from ARM Holdings. Even if it were possible somehow, Apple's existing line of processors - A, T, S, U, W, H - are all based on designs that they currently licensed from ARM. Creating 6 new lines of processors in a way that doesn't infringe on the MANY RISC-based CPU patents - and there are tons as RISC has been around since the early 1980s - would take years, and one would have no idea about such real world issues as performance, heat and scalability. Speaking of real world issues, Apple would be responsible for things like creating a new instruction set, architecture, microcode etc. as well as publishing all that stuff and securing patents for it. They also would need to build an entire application stack on top of the new architecture AND migrate their existing applications for their hardware to it, while still supporting the 2 billion iOS devices on the previous architecture for the 5-6 years that all those devices last.
Another thing: basic R&D like this isn't Apple's deal. It is amazing that so many people are convinced that it is. In fact, Apple doesn't do originality. Instead they take existing technology - stuff that has been around for awhile and has been proven - and incorporate them into their existing design language. At most, one could say that they excel at taking parts innovated or improved by others and using them to make new great products. But the truth is that nothing in Apple's present existence or their previous history indicates that they are capable of coming up with a "new" CPU design, or even a major advance on an existing design. Even their own CPUs, in addition to being based on the existing ARM design, were the result of acqui-hiring PA Semiconductor. Even something MUCH SIMPLER such as a fingerprint scanner, they had to buy a company that already had the tech, where Qualcomm and Samsung created their own using their own R&D departments (which is why they were able to make under-the-screen fingerprint scanners so quickly).
ARM was originally founded November, 1990 as a joint venture between Apple, Acorn, and VLSI Technology to develop a chip for the Apple Newton, now widely regarded as the world’s first decent mobile device. Apple held a share in the company until it was sold to SoftBank in 2016.
Apple now holds a perpetual multi-use architectural ARM license, which basically means it can build whatever it wants our of it, modify and extend it, which is exactly what they've been doing. What it comes down to is that ARM is just an instruction set, not a processor design, which is why they bought PA Semiconductor with the patents and expertise to produce RISC processors, in addition to the patents Apple already holds from previous RISC ventures with IBM, Motorola, etc,.
As for originality, check out this list of innovators...
Companies with a 64-bit ARMv8-A architectural licence include Applied Micro, Broadcom, Cavium, Huawei (HiSilicon), Nvidia, AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung, and Apple.
“NOT TO BE REPUBLISHED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM ARM”
Very good info. But at the same time I’m hoping you haven’t violated any proprietary information agreements.
I don't imagine that Apple has concerns one way or the other. Apple is likely at a point where they have in house capability and have licensed necessary IP to create their own proprietary ISA, while also large enough to create the design and validation tools needed to fab at TMSC, or whomever.
I would prefer that ARM reside in Japan or the UK, and not Taiwan, simply for National Security reasons.
You can't create any ARM designs without licensing from ARM Holdings. Even if it were possible somehow, Apple's existing line of processors - A, T, S, U, W, H - are all based on designs that they currently licensed from ARM. Creating 6 new lines of processors in a way that doesn't infringe on the MANY RISC-based CPU patents - and there are tons as RISC has been around since the early 1980s - would take years, and one would have no idea about such real world issues as performance, heat and scalability. Speaking of real world issues, Apple would be responsible for things like creating a new instruction set, architecture, microcode etc. as well as publishing all that stuff and securing patents for it. They also would need to build an entire application stack on top of the new architecture AND migrate their existing applications for their hardware to it, while still supporting the 2 billion iOS devices on the previous architecture for the 5-6 years that all those devices last.
Another thing: basic R&D like this isn't Apple's deal. It is amazing that so many people are convinced that it is. In fact, Apple doesn't do originality. Instead they take existing technology - stuff that has been around for awhile and has been proven - and incorporate them into their existing design language. At most, one could say that they excel at taking parts innovated or improved by others and using them to make new great products. But the truth is that nothing in Apple's present existence or their previous history indicates that they are capable of coming up with a "new" CPU design, or even a major advance on an existing design. Even their own CPUs, in addition to being based on the existing ARM design, were the result of acqui-hiring PA Semiconductor. Even something MUCH SIMPLER such as a fingerprint scanner, they had to buy a company that already had the tech, where Qualcomm and Samsung created their own using their own R&D departments (which is why they were able to make under-the-screen fingerprint scanners so quickly).
"In 1972, Intel launched the, the first 8-bit microprocessor. It implemented an instruction set designed by Datapoint corporation"
So basically INTEL isn't original either since they bought the instruction set for their first processor from Datapoint.
Let's not even get into Microsoft who bought and stole like thieves to develop their first products.
Almost all work is built on prior art because it very rarely pops out of thin air, except by mistake.
"First, things that many people think are "original" usually aren't very original at all. They tend to be derivative in some way or another -- a point that we've made here many times. And yet, many people seem to think that there's some sort of objective standard for originality, and that something that involves a direct copy of something else as part of the process can't count as original (though, they conveniently ignore it when "the greats" like Mozart or Shakespeare did a direct cut-and-paste type of copying in their own works). "
I don't imagine that Apple has concerns one way or the other. Apple is likely at a point where they have in house capability and have licensed necessary IP to create their own proprietary ISA, while also large enough to create the design and validation tools needed to fab at TMSC, or whomever.
I would prefer that ARM reside in Japan or the UK, and not Taiwan, simply for National Security reasons.
You can't create any ARM designs without licensing from ARM Holdings. Even if it were possible somehow, Apple's existing line of processors - A, T, S, U, W, H - are all based on designs that they currently licensed from ARM. Creating 6 new lines of processors in a way that doesn't infringe on the MANY RISC-based CPU patents - and there are tons as RISC has been around since the early 1980s - would take years, and one would have no idea about such real world issues as performance, heat and scalability. Speaking of real world issues, Apple would be responsible for things like creating a new instruction set, architecture, microcode etc. as well as publishing all that stuff and securing patents for it. They also would need to build an entire application stack on top of the new architecture AND migrate their existing applications for their hardware to it, while still supporting the 2 billion iOS devices on the previous architecture for the 5-6 years that all those devices last.
Another thing: basic R&D like this isn't Apple's deal. It is amazing that so many people are convinced that it is. In fact, Apple doesn't do originality. Instead they take existing technology - stuff that has been around for awhile and has been proven - and incorporate them into their existing design language. At most, one could say that they excel at taking parts innovated or improved by others and using them to make new great products. But the truth is that nothing in Apple's present existence or their previous history indicates that they are capable of coming up with a "new" CPU design, or even a major advance on an existing design. Even their own CPUs, in addition to being based on the existing ARM design, were the result of acqui-hiring PA Semiconductor. Even something MUCH SIMPLER such as a fingerprint scanner, they had to buy a company that already had the tech, where Qualcomm and Samsung created their own using their own R&D departments (which is why they were able to make under-the-screen fingerprint scanners so quickly).
You do realize that Apple created the first 64 bit ARM implementation before ARM actually provided its own ARM 64 bit implementation.
"Apple doesn't do originality" is a bullshit meme.
What are you talking about?
1. That is still an iteration of the original ARM Holdings design. It is just a better one than Qualcomm and Samsung's. 2. It is ALSO the result of Apple BUYING the PA Semiconductor company. Not Apple's own unique design. So your rejoinder only confirmed my original comment. I repeat ... there is NOTHING that indicates Apple having the ability to create its own original ARM CPU design, especially a design that maintains the power and performance advantages that the ARM Holdings and PA Semiconductor designs have.
It demonstrates that Apple's processor at the time wasn't based on a design from ARM Holdings. ARM had not yet published a 64-bit reference core, only the aarch64 ISA. Apple implemented the ISA themselves.
P.A. Semi was founded in 2003 and Apple acquired them in 2008. That processor, the A7, debuted in 2013. They existed for five years separately, then five years within Apple by the time the A7 launched. Furthermore, their work when independent was on a POWER ISA core, not ARM. It's fair to call the A7 an Apple-originated design.
As for Nvidia potentially acquiring ARM Holdings, I suspect their interest is mostly in the high-performance computing world. Right now, Nvidia GPUs are peripherals of Intel or IBM processors. They're the main compute in six of the top ten supercomputers in the world as of June. Nvidia wants an Apple-like degree of control over their own fate (a big reason Apple doesn't use Nvidia cards anymore is Apple doesn't want other companies writing kernel-space code, and Nvidia doesn't want another company writing their low-level drivers). Earlier this year, they purchased Mellanox (which does InfiniBand and other high-performance interconnect chips), then a week later they also purchased Cumulus Networks (which does datacenter interconnect operating systems). Give a GPU a Mellanox transceiver instead of a PCIe transceiver, hook it up to a Mellanox switch managed by an ARM processor running Cumulus software, and Intel and IBM are no longer in the picture.
Having RISC server farms would change everything and it makes sense since they are far more power efficient but they already exist in the supercomputing space.
Comments
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2020/09/12/armvidia
Your other conclusion is a popular myth as well. Apple is good at incorporating existing tech, sure, but they’re also good at new tech. There are plenty of hardware inventions, display tech layers, and countless other inventions they create and implement across their line of devices. The claim that they just take work by others is laughable. Try again, son.
Attempting to backpeddle by claiming Apple employees who were acquired via a corporate purchase 12 fucking years ago aren’t real employees producing real things today is about one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read...especially when that company only existed for 5 years. Well done.
"In 1972, Intel launched the, the first 8-bit microprocessor. It implemented an instruction set designed by Datapoint corporation"
So basically INTEL isn't original either since they bought the instruction set for their first processor from Datapoint.
Let's not even get into Microsoft who bought and stole like thieves to develop their first products.
Almost all work is built on prior art because it very rarely pops out of thin air, except by mistake.
Everything Is A Remix
https://youtu.be/nJPERZDfyWc
The Myth Of Originality...
https://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20091229/1205217535&op=sharethis"First, things that many people think are "original" usually aren't very original at all. They tend to be derivative in some way or another -- a point that we've made here many times. And yet, many people seem to think that there's some sort of objective standard for originality, and that something that involves a direct copy of something else as part of the process can't count as original (though, they conveniently ignore it when "the greats" like Mozart or Shakespeare did a direct cut-and-paste type of copying in their own works). "
Having RISC server farms would change everything and it makes sense since they are far more power efficient but they already exist in the supercomputing space.