21–30 of 184 posts
How relevant is ARM in the long run if Apple is pursuing its own design / CPU architecture ("Apple Silicon") and the Chinese lead by Huawei are forced by US sanctions also to create their own design / architecture?
How relevant is ARM in the long run if Apple is pursuing its own design / CPU architecture ("Apple Silicon") and the Chinese lead by Huawei are forced by US sanctions also to create their own design / architecture?
I am surprised that Intel in not in talks as a bidder.
How relevant is ARM in the long run if Apple is pursuing its own design / CPU architecture ("Apple Silicon") and the Chinese lead by Huawei are forced by US sanctions also to create their own design / architecture?
Even your toaster and fridge probably have ARM licensed designs in them. Your Smartwatch certainly does, and the billions of non-Apple smartphones too.
> Chinese lead by Huawei are forced by US sanctions also to create their own design
Pretty sure they were heading that way even without US sanctions. Steal the IP, then make a competing product while paying zero licensing fees to ARM.
Is regulation really that big of an issue? I realize all the tech companies in the running and ARM are global brands. Recently T-Mobile and Sprint were allowed to merge in the US. Is it really that certain that Apple or another giant purchasing ARM wouldn’t be allowed?
can someone explain how ARM as a business works? My understanding is, they design the specification of the ARM assembly language, and the design of the hardware (not individual chip fab but like... abstractly, somehow?) But if they specify the design of the hardware, why would one chipmaker have faster/better CPUs if they are using the same spec as another chipmaker with slower/worse CPUs? What's the business model?…
I don't know exactly how compensation works, but they have basically two products: - The ARM ISA (the "specification") - A series of chip designs implementing such ISA (the Cortex series) Customers can either license the Cortex design to implement in their own silicon or license the ISA and design their own CPU (like Apple did). There isn't one single Cortex core, but many of them at different performance/price point…
What's the IP that Apple would otherwise be infringing upon if they didn't license? The "ARM" trademark?
How relevant is ARM in the long run if Apple is pursuing its own design / CPU architecture ("Apple Silicon") and the Chinese lead by Huawei are forced by US sanctions also to create their own design / architecture?
ARM will continue to be relevant for embedded stuff for a long time.
Western Digital for instance already announced since last year that it will use RISC-V chips for its drives. Nvidia also announced that it will use a RISC-V controller for its GPUs.
If ARM is so important, surely the government would give consideration to have an American company own it. I am surprised that Intel in not in talks as a bidder.