Why can't ARM just exist as a stand-alone company? I don't get the "ownership" issue. In a significant way, it's just a standards organization, like the RFCs defined the protocols for the Internet, or the standards for relational databases, or Java, or CSS.
Why can't ARM just exist as a stand-alone company? I don't get the "ownership" issue. In a significant way, it's just a standards organization, like the RFCs defined the protocols for the Internet, or the standards for relational databases, or Java, or CSS.
Arm is on it’s way to being a Troll company....
It most certainly is not. ARM actively designs and develops its own technology. It's not a manufacturer or retailer, but neither of those are necessary to not be a troll.
I predict that Apple is already working on their own instruction-set
At the current time with Apple's A14/M1, what is the benefit to Apple to continue to follow the ARM ISA? Could Apple just take what is current and then build off of it (creating Apple's own proprietary branch)? I assume a TON of effort/thought went into the ARM ISA, but Apple are now very competent with the A-series/M1 (and I doubt Apple will ever sell their chips to anyone).
I've suspected for some time and wouldn't be surprised that this is already done. As well as optimizing machine level instructions in microcode for Swift, it would take just one Apple Silicon proprietary instruction to freeze any regular ARM based processor and kill any Hackintosh ambitions or any direct iOS emulations for that matter.
Is it possible that their license precludes them from doing that even if they wanted to?
I predict that Apple is already working on their own instruction-set
At the current time with Apple's A14/M1, what is the benefit to Apple to continue to follow the ARM ISA? Could Apple just take what is current and then build off of it (creating Apple's own proprietary branch)? I assume a TON of effort/thought went into the ARM ISA, but Apple are now very competent with the A-series/M1 (and I doubt Apple will ever sell their chips to anyone).
I've suspected for some time and wouldn't be surprised that this is already done. As well as optimizing machine level instructions in microcode for Swift, it would take just one Apple Silicon proprietary instruction to freeze any regular ARM based processor and kill any Hackintosh ambitions or any direct iOS emulations for that matter.
Is it possible that their license precludes them from doing that even if they wanted to?
Well I would have to say that it is always possible I guess, I am not privy to this kind of licensing, but since Apple has no intention of selling them out in the wild I can't see why it would be any of ARM's business or concern and I just can't see Apple agreeing to such a limitation. Then again there's the lawyers …
Why can't ARM just exist as a stand-alone company? I don't get the "ownership" issue. In a significant way, it's just a standards organization, like the RFCs defined the protocols for the Internet, or the standards for relational databases, or Java, or CSS.
It did until a few years ago. Really the U.K. government should have classified it as a strategic asset and blocked SoftBanks purchase of it. Best thing would be for it to be divested and floated on the LSE as a public company.
The article glaringly omits the fact that among the companies listed, Apple is the only one that doesn't license the actual core designs from ARM. Because Apple has a perpetual architectural license from ARM, they can design their own completely customized core designs while licensing only the instruction sets. Apple has only used their own custom core designs since the A6. Because Apple is one of the original ARM founding partners, I would assume that they have layers upon layers of safeguards built into their licensing terms before they spun off their stakes.
Qualcomm also has an ARM architectural license. But, as their in-house core designs became less competitive compared to ARM's Cortex reference core designs, Qualcomm abandoned designing their own custom cores and began incorporating modified versions of the Cortex cores into their Snapdragon SoCs instead. Qualcomm's reliance on the ARM reference cores, makes them way more vulnerable to any changes that might occur under Nvidia ownership.
Of course, unfair licensing terms and abusive monopolist practices is something that Qualcomm is well versed in. They know well what it's like to dish it out, and probably don't want to find out what the receiving end tastes like.
Apple's only vulnerability would be if the ARM reference designs begin to surpass the performance of their custom cores, and they're forced to consider licensing ARM's reference core designs to remain competitive. But, that seems unlikely to happen for a while considering how Apple can tweak both the OS and the CPU design to meet specific performance goals that might differ significantly from the rest of the market.
The days of having a standalone cpu without a in house OS design are over, note it was always the best way, except for the fact that the tech computer world lost it’s way for thirty years because of Wintel. The SGI, DEC, Sun, Amiga, combo’s were always the long term way forward for computers (how does the future AI disruption happen without OS software/hardware being designed under one roof), Apple’s need cause them to roll up their sleeves and (go back to the 1980’s) the iPhone/iPad/Mac in house cpu was the result and the introduction of the M1x, M2 in June 2021 will put the final nail in the coffin, which is why all these companies are in a panic.
I would imagine that, technically, Apple has an Architectural licence, which is higher than a pertupetual licence.
No. Perpetual refers to the length of the license. Architectural refers to what sort of license (the material being licensed). The terms are not related in the way you mention. I believe what Apple has is a perpetual architecture license. One that has no end and is not cancellable.
Well, I'm speaking from memory and from what ARM itself stated a few years back and using ARM's own naming conventions.
There were seven types of distinct ARM licences. The perpetual licence was one and the architectural licence was another.
The architectural licence was the very top licence and the perpetual licence was in third place. Sandwiched between the two was a another licence (subscription licence?).
There was no such thing as a 'perpetual architectural licence' although I believe the architectural licence is perpetual in nature. The perpetual licence is not an architectural licence, however.
I predict that Apple is already working on their own instruction-set
At the current time with Apple's A14/M1, what is the benefit to Apple to continue to follow the ARM ISA? Could Apple just take what is current and then build off of it (creating Apple's own proprietary branch)? I assume a TON of effort/thought went into the ARM ISA, but Apple are now very competent with the A-series/M1 (and I doubt Apple will ever sell their chips to anyone).
Apple gets a whole lot of IP protection out of the ARM license. If they go it alone everyone including ARM will go after them for even the slightest claim of patent infringement in the area.
I would imagine that, technically, Apple has an Architectural licence, which is higher than a pertupetual licence.
No. Perpetual refers to the length of the license. Architectural refers to what sort of license (the material being licensed). The terms are not related in the way you mention. I believe what Apple has is a perpetual architecture license. One that has no end and is not cancellable.
Well, I'm speaking from memory and from what ARM itself stated a few years back and using ARM's own naming conventions.
There were seven types of distinct ARM licences. The perpetual licence was one and the architectural licence was another.
The architectural licence was the very top licence and the perpetual licence was in third place. Sandwiched between the two was a another licence (subscription licence?).
There was no such thing as a 'perpetual architectural licence' although I believe the architectural licence is perpetual in nature. The perpetual licence is not an architectural licence, however.
That is why I said 'technically' above.
It is an architectural license, not a perpetual one. It’s the most expensive license and all Apple gets is a spec for the instruction set and a test suite to make sure the instruction set they’re using is full ARM compatible.
Apple is not building ARM chips. They’re building chips that use the same instruction set.
I predict that Apple is already working on their own instruction-set
At the current time with Apple's A14/M1, what is the benefit to Apple to continue to follow the ARM ISA? Could Apple just take what is current and then build off of it (creating Apple's own proprietary branch)? I assume a TON of effort/thought went into the ARM ISA, but Apple are now very competent with the A-series/M1 (and I doubt Apple will ever sell their chips to anyone).
I've suspected for some time and wouldn't be surprised that this is already done. As well as optimizing machine level instructions in microcode for Swift, it would take just one Apple Silicon proprietary instruction to freeze any regular ARM based processor and kill any Hackintosh ambitions or any direct iOS emulations for that matter.
Is it possible that their license precludes them from doing that even if they wanted to?
Nope.
It’s pretty much a given that Apple will have optimised the instruction set for its own code. What they won’t do us change it in such a way that would break compatibility. If they did that then they could no longer call the chips ARM compatible, and companies making virtualisation software and container applications would immediately drop support for the Mac.
I would imagine that, technically, Apple has an Architectural licence, which is higher than a pertupetual licence.
No. Perpetual refers to the length of the license. Architectural refers to what sort of license (the material being licensed). The terms are not related in the way you mention. I believe what Apple has is a perpetual architecture license. One that has no end and is not cancellable.
Well, I'm speaking from memory and from what ARM itself stated a few years back and using ARM's own naming conventions.
There were seven types of distinct ARM licences. The perpetual licence was one and the architectural licence was another.
The architectural licence was the very top licence and the perpetual licence was in third place. Sandwiched between the two was a another licence (subscription licence?).
There was no such thing as a 'perpetual architectural licence' although I believe the architectural licence is perpetual in nature. The perpetual licence is not an architectural licence, however.
That is why I said 'technically' above.
It is an architectural license, not a perpetual one. It’s the most expensive license and all Apple gets is a spec for the instruction set and a test suite to make sure the instruction set they’re using is full ARM compatible.
Apple is not building ARM chips. They’re building chips that use the same instruction set.
Yes, that's my thinking.
In fact, back then I'm pretty sure that, of the Architectural licensees, ARM actually named Apple as one of them.
Trouble is my memory isn't as pin sharp as it was so I can't be 100% on that point.
US government... "Companies that design chips should not be allowed to make devices that use them."
Seriously surprised that Microsoft isn't being investigated for unfairly being able to use their OS on their computers while at the same time licensing the same OS to competitors... Doesn't that give Microsoft an unfair advantage?
I would imagine that, technically, Apple has an Architectural licence, which is higher than a pertupetual licence.
No. Perpetual refers to the length of the license. Architectural refers to what sort of license (the material being licensed). The terms are not related in the way you mention. I believe what Apple has is a perpetual architecture license. One that has no end and is not cancellable.
Well, I'm speaking from memory and from what ARM itself stated a few years back and using ARM's own naming conventions.
There were seven types of distinct ARM licences. The perpetual licence was one and the architectural licence was another.
The architectural licence was the very top licence and the perpetual licence was in third place. Sandwiched between the two was a another licence (subscription licence?).
There was no such thing as a 'perpetual architectural licence' although I believe the architectural licence is perpetual in nature. The perpetual licence is not an architectural licence, however.
I would imagine that, technically, Apple has an Architectural licence, which is higher than a pertupetual licence.
No. Perpetual refers to the length of the license. Architectural refers to what sort of license (the material being licensed). The terms are not related in the way you mention. I believe what Apple has is a perpetual architecture license. One that has no end and is not cancellable.
Well, I'm speaking from memory and from what ARM itself stated a few years back and using ARM's own naming conventions.
There were seven types of distinct ARM licences. The perpetual licence was one and the architectural licence was another.
The architectural licence was the very top licence and the perpetual licence was in third place. Sandwiched between the two was a another licence (subscription licence?).
There was no such thing as a 'perpetual architectural licence' although I believe the architectural licence is perpetual in nature. The perpetual licence is not an architectural licence, however.
Apple’s need cause them to roll up their sleeves and (go back to the 1980’s) the iPhone/iPad/Mac in house cpu was the result and the introduction of the M1x, M2 in June 2021 will put the final nail in the coffin, which is why all these companies are in a panic.
Apple has 35% of the tablet market, 15% of the smartphone market and 8% of the PC market. Please end your delusions.
Apple’s need cause them to roll up their sleeves and (go back to the 1980’s) the iPhone/iPad/Mac in house cpu was the result and the introduction of the M1x, M2 in June 2021 will put the final nail in the coffin, which is why all these companies are in a panic.
Apple has 35% of the tablet market, 15% of the smartphone market and 8% of the PC market. Please end your delusions.
It's odd how you don't see 35%, 15%, and 8& from a single device manufacturer as a considerable amount. If these are so pathetically low as to not warrant concern then why is Intel, MS, Samsung, and countless others always attacking Apple in their ads.
It's odd how you don't see 35%, 15%, and 8& from a single device manufacturer as a considerable amount. If these are so pathetically low as to not warrant concern then why is Intel, MS, Samsung, and countless others always attacking Apple in their ads.
The only thing pathetic is why you guys are fine with Apple attacking Wintel, Google, Samsung and everyone else in their ads - either explicitly or implicitly - but go stark raving mad when the other companies fight back. Can dish it out but can't take it ... it is like you all are kindergartners or something. Apple's recent PR campaigns have bashed the Android ecosystem on privacy, Wintel on performance and have used a ton of self-serving obfuscations each time. Why on earth shouldn't the competition fight back?
And there is a huge difference between "considerable amount" - which it is - and claiming that the guys responsible for the 65%, 85% and 92% being doomed: they aren't. Apple could quadruple their PC market share and there would still be plenty of money left for Wintel. The only market where Apple has so much profit share that its competitors are in real trouble is the smartwatch one. And even there, Samsung, Garmin, Fossil and the rest are doing fine because smartwatches aren't the only thing they sell (leaving FitBit as the only one losing money and they were just bought by Google).
Apple’s need cause them to roll up their sleeves and (go back to the 1980’s) the iPhone/iPad/Mac in house cpu was the result and the introduction of the M1x, M2 in June 2021 will put the final nail in the coffin, which is why all these companies are in a panic.
Apple has 35% of the tablet market, 15% of the smartphone market and 8% of the PC market. Please end your delusions.
What is Apple’s total marketshare profit in the PC market?, what is their mindshare? Both are greater than the total number of devices sold percentage wise. Why is the M1 disruptive far beyond it’s marketshare? What of the soon to be released M1X, and M2 both of which will hit the market this year and disrupt the market even further, once again having no In house OS to pair with your own in house cpu (SOC) will leave you in the tech backwater. And that is why panic has ensued in the cpu PC/Mobile world.
And the GPU world might be in for a disruption this year too, at the Apple developers conference in June.
The intro of the M1, M1x, and the M2 are a screaming buying opportunity for Apple shares. Thank You, Apple like taking candy from a well you know....
Why can't ARM just exist as a stand-alone company? I don't get the "ownership" issue. In a significant way, it's just a standards organization, like the RFCs defined the protocols for the Internet, or the standards for relational databases, or Java, or CSS.
Arm is on it’s way to being a Troll company....
It most certainly is not. ARM actively designs and develops its own technology. It's not a manufacturer or retailer, but neither of those are necessary to not be a troll.
NIVIDA gets control equals a Troll company. A 40 billion mortgage will do that to you.....
Apple’s need cause them to roll up their sleeves and (go back to the 1980’s) the iPhone/iPad/Mac in house cpu was the result and the introduction of the M1x, M2 in June 2021 will put the final nail in the coffin, which is why all these companies are in a panic.
Apple has 35% of the tablet market, 15% of the smartphone market and 8% of the PC market. Please end your delusions.
So what you are saying is that Apple doesn't have a monopoly in any market? I believe that is what Apple has contended for years when being accused of monopoly power.
Comments
The days of having a standalone cpu without a in house OS design are over, note it was always the best way, except for the fact that the tech computer world lost it’s way for thirty years because of Wintel. The SGI, DEC, Sun, Amiga, combo’s were always the long term way forward for computers (how does the future AI disruption happen without OS software/hardware being designed under one roof), Apple’s need cause them to roll up their sleeves and (go back to the 1980’s) the iPhone/iPad/Mac in house cpu was the result and the introduction of the M1x, M2 in June 2021 will put the final nail in the coffin, which is why all these companies are in a panic.
There were seven types of distinct ARM licences. The perpetual licence was one and the architectural licence was another.
The architectural licence was the very top licence and the perpetual licence was in third place. Sandwiched between the two was a another licence (subscription licence?).
There was no such thing as a 'perpetual architectural licence' although I believe the architectural licence is perpetual in nature. The perpetual licence is not an architectural licence, however.
That is why I said 'technically' above.
Nope.
In fact, back then I'm pretty sure that, of the Architectural licensees, ARM actually named Apple as one of them.
Trouble is my memory isn't as pin sharp as it was so I can't be 100% on that point.
And there is a huge difference between "considerable amount" - which it is - and claiming that the guys responsible for the 65%, 85% and 92% being doomed: they aren't. Apple could quadruple their PC market share and there would still be plenty of money left for Wintel. The only market where Apple has so much profit share that its competitors are in real trouble is the smartwatch one. And even there, Samsung, Garmin, Fossil and the rest are doing fine because smartwatches aren't the only thing they sell (leaving FitBit as the only one losing money and they were just bought by Google).
What is Apple’s total marketshare profit in the PC market?, what is their mindshare? Both are greater than the total number of devices sold percentage wise. Why is the M1 disruptive far beyond it’s marketshare? What of the soon to be released M1X, and M2 both of which will hit the market this year and disrupt the market even further, once again having no In house OS to pair with your own in house cpu (SOC) will leave you in the tech backwater. And that is why panic has ensued in the cpu PC/Mobile world.
And the GPU world might be in for a disruption this year too, at the Apple developers conference in June.
The intro of the M1, M1x, and the M2 are a screaming buying opportunity for Apple shares. Thank You, Apple like taking candy from a well you know....
NIVIDA gets control equals a Troll company. A 40 billion mortgage will do that to you.....
See Oracle with Google.