Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Report: ARM is for sale and Nvidia’s interested, Apple isn’t

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 184 posts

Re: Report: ARM is for sale and Nvidia’s interested, Apple isn’t

#31

Post by Alupis »

tmaly wrote: post #23

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.

> I am surprised that Intel in not in talks as a bidder

I'm surprised too, but can't help thinking Intel would be the worst possible steward of the ARM ecosystem. Back to the same-old anti-competitive Intel practices of the 2000's...

For what it's worth, I kind of have the same feeling about Nvidia too. I think the best stewards of ARM IP would be an organization that is fully invested in seeing ARM dominate... not an organization that's just looking to add ARM patents to it's warchest.

Re: Report: ARM is for sale and Nvidia’s interested, Apple isn’t

#32

Post by daxelrod »

derefr wrote: post #27
Kipters wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why exactly does one need to license an ISA? AMD doesn't license x86 from Intel, AFAIK. What's the IP that Apple would otherwise be infringing upon if they didn't license? The "ARM" trademark?

AMD created x86_64 and holds patents on it. They and Intel have a cross-licensing agreement for various patents covering x86 and x86_64.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Licensing

Re: Report: ARM is for sale and Nvidia’s interested, Apple isn’t

#33

Post by bryanlarsen »

derefr wrote: post #27
Kipters wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why exactly does one need to license an ISA? AMD doesn't license x86 from Intel, AFAIK. What's the IP that Apple would otherwise be infringing upon if they didn't license? The "ARM" trademark?

AFAICT, ISA's are heavily patent protected. The patents are usually on implementation details, but it's difficult to implement without stepping on the patents, so...

Intel & AMD have a cross license, x86-64 was actually created by AMD. And before then, (ie, in the 70s & 80s) Intel was forced to license to third parties to qualify for defense & government contracts.

Re: Report: ARM is for sale and Nvidia’s interested, Apple isn’t

#34

Post by lliamander »

jupp0r wrote: post #30

Just keep in mind that the major use case for ARM is embedded systems: washing machines, smart refrigerators, car electronics, barbecue thermometers, medical devices, lawn mowers, you get the idea. Mobile phone or computer companies would not be interested in dealing with that part of the business.

True, but x86 also got it's start in (relatively) low-end systems (PCs) and eventually overtook high-end CPUs from the bottom. ARM looks to be in a position to do that.

Re: Report: ARM is for sale and Nvidia’s interested, Apple isn’t

#35

Post by ivalm »

derefr wrote: post #27
Kipters wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why exactly does one need to license an ISA? AMD doesn't license x86 from Intel, AFAIK. What's the IP that Apple would otherwise be infringing upon if they didn't license? The "ARM" trademark?

Base x86 is partially open partially owned by Intel. X86-64 has components owned by AMD. AMD and Intel cross-license. You can’t start a new x86 chip company without paying amd/intel (if you want to use modern isa)

Re: Report: ARM is for sale and Nvidia’s interested, Apple isn’t

#36

Post by [deleted] »

sitkack wrote: post #17
starfallg wrote: post #2

The antitrust implications of an ARM sale to any one of the tech giant is massive and may drag on for a while. It would be probably be quicker if Softbank floats ARM through an IPO.

There has been no meaningful antitrust action in over a decade. I wouldn't bank on it.

[deleted]

Re: Report: ARM is for sale and Nvidia’s interested, Apple isn’t

#37

Post by chvid »

chvid wrote: post #13

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?

Or let me ask in different way: why use ARM if you control and build the whole stack from electronics to operating system to the software running on it?

The core instruction set is from the 80es. Surely you can come up with some better today were you to design it from scratch?

Re: Report: ARM is for sale and Nvidia’s interested, Apple isn’t

#38

Post by znpy »

lliamander wrote: post #34
jupp0r wrote: post #30

Just keep in mind that the major use case for ARM is embedded systems: washing machines, smart refrigerators, car electronics, barbecue thermometers, medical devices, lawn mowers, you get the idea. Mobile phone or computer companies would not be interested in dealing with that part of the business.

True, but x86 also got it's start in (relatively) low-end systems (PCs) and eventually overtook high-end CPUs from the bottom. ARM looks to be in a position to do that.

one might argue that a long time has passed and the world, the industry and the market are all very different, though.

Re: Report: ARM is for sale and Nvidia’s interested, Apple isn’t

#39

Post by snapetom »

starfallg wrote: post #2

The antitrust implications of an ARM sale to any one of the tech giant is massive and may drag on for a while. It would be probably be quicker if Softbank floats ARM through an IPO.

Yep. They call it out.

"ARM is so widespread that buying it will be a regulatory nightmare, and even the most lenient rubber-stamp regulators around the world must shudder at the idea of an existing ARM licensee buying ARM. "

Practically all of Apple's product line will be powered by ARM in the near future. Buying ARM would put them at a huge advantage while heavily influencing the chip IP of competitors. I can't imagine regulators in the US and EU not raising an eyebrow at this.

Re: Report: ARM is for sale and Nvidia’s interested, Apple isn’t

#40

Post by derefr »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #33
derefr wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly does one need to license an ISA? AMD doesn't license x86 from Intel, AFAIK. What's the IP that Apple would otherwise be infringing upon if they didn't license? The "ARM" trademark?

AFAICT, ISA's are heavily patent protected. The patents are usually on implementation details, but it's difficult to implement without stepping on the patents, so... Intel & AMD have a cross license, x86-64 was actually created by AMD. And before then, (ie, in the 70s & 80s) Intel was forced to license to third parties to qualify for defense & government contracts.

I assume the "forced to license to third parties" part applies in the case of the Zilog Z80?

But re: patents, in the case of Cyrix:

> Focused on removing potential competitors, Intel spent many years in legal battles with Cyrix, consuming Cyrix financial resources, claiming that the Cyrix 486 violated Intel's patents, when in reality the design was proven independent.

[And this is despite Cyrix having white-box reverse-engineered Intel's chips to figure out how to be software- and socket-compatible with them! That seemingly didn't matter, as long as in the end the design they actually put in their own chip wasn't encumbered by Intel's patents.]

> Intel lost the Cyrix case, which included multiple lawsuits in both federal and state courts in Texas. Some of the matters were settled out-of-court and some of the matters were settled by the court. In the end after all appeals, the courts ruled that Cyrix had the right to produce their own x86 designs in any foundry that held an Intel license. Cyrix was found to never have infringed any patent held by Intel.

With that case-law in place, it sounds like anyone demanding that third-parties license their ISA these days is effectively bluffing.

Post reply on HN