Qualcomm opposed to Nvidia's $40B takeover of Arm

Posted:
in General Discussion edited February 2021
U.S. chipmaker Qualcomm has told regulators across the globe that it opposes Nvidia's $40 billion acquisition of chip design company ARM.

Credit: Qualcomm
Credit: Qualcomm


As the two firms near a deal, it has come under increasing scrutiny. Qualcomm, for example, has registered objections to the Federal Trade Commission, the European Commission, and similar agencies in the U.K. and China, CNBC reports.

The San Diego-based chipmaker is said to oppose Nvidia buying Arm because it fears the former company could become a gatekeeper of ARM's chip technology. Qualcomm doesn't believe Nvidia can capitalize on the deal without crossing lines that people are worried about, sources said.

Currently, the FTC's investigation of the acquisition has entered a "second phase," which entails the agency asking Nvidia, ARM, and current ARM owner SoftBank for more information on the deal. That process could take months, since it involves producing a number of lengthy documents.

According to CBNC, industry sources believe the deal has a high chance of being blocked by one or more regulator. Nvidia, however, is confident that regulators will give the deal a green light.

Qualcomm believes its opposition will play a significant role in whether the deal can continue. Other companies that have publicly opposed the Nvidia takeover include China-based Huawei and AI startup Graphcore.

Arm licenses its chip designs to more than 500 companies, including Apple. The Cupertino tech giant's A-series chips, as well as its new M1 Mac chip, are based on Arm chip instructions.

There's significant concern in the chip industry that Nvidia could prevent its rivals and licensees, like Apple and AMD, from using ARM chip designs.

Nvidia and Arm have said that the merger would create the world's "premier computing company for the age of AI." Both companies have pledged to keep ARM's headquarters in the U.K.

SoftBank, the current Japanese owner of ARM, was said to have approached Apple to discuss a takeover of the chip design firm in 2020. Apple, reportedly, wasn't interested in the acquisition due to antitrust concerns -- despite the reliance of Apple Silicon on Arm technology.

«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    U.S. chipmaker Qualcomm has told regulators across the globe that it opposes Nvidia's $40 billion acquisition of chip design company ARM.
    I'm sure it does. :D

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 46
    Why does not Apple by ARM?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 46
    XedXed Posts: 2,546member
    iOS_Guy80 said:
    Why does not Apple by ARM?
    I don't see a benefit for Apple.
    ronnwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 46
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,123member
    iOS_Guy80 said:
    Why does not Apple by ARM?
    Because Apple already holds a perpetual license to use the architecture, that license cost a lot less than $40 billion, and Apple is not in the business of licencing technology to its competitors.  And Apple already has enough antitrust issues without adding an allegation that Apple is unfairly licensing technology or excluding competitors from using ARM tech.
    edited February 2021 williamlondonmwhiteGG1gregoriusmJWSCRayz2016CloudTalkinviclauyycseanjrevenant
  • Reply 5 of 46
    XedXed Posts: 2,546member
    flydog said:
    iOS_Guy80 said:
    Why does not Apple by ARM?
    Because Apple already holds a perpetual license to use the architecture, that license cost a lot less than $40 billion, and Apple is not in the business of licencing technology to its competitors.  And Apple already has enough antitrust issues without adding an allegation that Apple is unfairly licensing technology or excluding competitors from using ARM tech.
    If Qualcomm opposed NVIDIA of buying it, they would shit themselves if Apple tried.
    mwhitekelemorGabyseanjronnd_2watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 46
    tjwolftjwolf Posts: 424member
    I think the article incorrectly characterizes Apple’s relationship to ARM: I don’t think Apple is reliant on ARM in any way at this point.  They haven’t used ARM designed chips in a long time - I’m guessing by now only the instruction set is common.  As another poster suggested, Apple doesn’t need ARM.  Certainly not enough to pay a premium for it.  And, as the article suggested, it would probably not pass antitrust muster if the biggest ARM user in the world tries to buy the architecture its competitors depend on.  Since many just buy the stock ARM chips for their devices, imagine how frequently Apple would update those chips - lol 
    Rayz2016viclauyycwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 46
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 1,031member
    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. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 46
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,093member
    Xed said:
    If Qualcomm opposed NVIDIA of buying it, they would shit themselves if Apple tried.
    Apple won't "try" because Apple doesn't need to.  It would be a complete waste of money as they have a perpetual license to ARM's instruction set.  They don't need to spend billions to acquire something they technically already have.
    MacProwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 46
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,673member
    iOS_Guy80 said:
    Why does not Apple by ARM?

    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?
    edited February 2021 cornchipjdb8167watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 46
    Sensing some heavy projection from Qualcomm with “Qualcomm doesn't believe Nvidia can capitalize on the deal without crossing lines that people are worried about”.
    Qualcomm knows all about that...
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 46
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,668member
    I would imagine that, technically, Apple has an Architectural licence, which is higher than a pertupetual licence. 
  • Reply 12 of 46
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 1,037member
    It seems that it is in the broad interest of the market for ARM to be independent.

    What would make sense is an IPO of ARM by SoftBank.

    Another possibility would be selling the company to a group of companies that agree to leave it as an independent entity.

    edited February 2021 watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 46
    davgreg said:
    It seems that it is in the broad interest of the market for ARM to be independent.

    What would make sense is an IPO of ARM by SoftBank.

    Another possibility would be selling the company to a group of companies that agree to leave it as an independent entity.


    I doubt that Softbank is considering anything other than which 11 digits get assigned to their return.
    argonautronnwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 46
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    larryjw said:
    Why can't ARM just exist as a stand-alone company? I don't get the "ownership" issue.
    Because it’s owned by SoftBank. To become a standalone company someone or someone’s would still have to buy it off of SoftBank.
  • Reply 15 of 46
    I predict that Apple is already working on their own instruction-set
    Gabyhydrogencornchip
  • Reply 16 of 46
    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.


    edited February 2021 bloggerblogargonautviclauyychydrogenjdb8167d_2watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 46
    GG1GG1 Posts: 483member
    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).
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 46
    I hope Nvidia gets it and makes amends with Apple.  I really miss the duo.
    elijahgwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 46
    jony0jony0 Posts: 378member
    GG1 said:
    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.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 46
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 2,000member
    avon b7 said:
    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. 
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.