JWSC

commentzilla said:

cloudguy said:

tmay said:

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.

scampercom said:

Makes sense for retail (not that anyone goes to stores anymore). Personally, I like opacity in my own mask. Plus a hat and glasses, and no one can see anything, which is ideal! I'd wear a burqa if it didn't draw attention.

anantksundaram said:

Magnificent company, magnificent valuation, led by an incredible CEO. A massive achievement, so kudos to all at Apple for producing world-beating products and services, in the process creating outsized value for both consumers and shareholders. 

But a hard-nosed investor has to assume that expected returns will be lower going forward. Which is ok. 

geekmee said:

This goes to the heart of ‘meeting of the minds’ concept in contracts:
‘If we don’t like the deal, we may change the laws after the fact, and then retroactively make you pay for it.’ 

rain22 said:

Would be the most interesting innovation since Jobs died.