Arm reportedly changing licensing model to prohibit custom GPUs and TPUs
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: Arm reportedly changing licensing model to prohibit custom GPUs and TPUs
#2That seems like an incredibly dumb decision. They do realize that RISC-V is right around the corner, and could quickly end much of the ARM chip market if licensing deals are this onerous?
Re: Arm reportedly changing licensing model to prohibit custom GPUs and TPUs
#3That seems like an incredibly dumb decision. They do realize that RISC-V is right around the corner, and could quickly end much of the ARM chip market if licensing deals are this onerous?
It is a short term cash grab, which will accelerate investment in RISC-V.
Re: Arm reportedly changing licensing model to prohibit custom GPUs and TPUs
#4There's an IMHO better article[0] on the same subject.
0. https://www.semianalysis.com/p/arm-changes-business-model-oe...
Re: Arm reportedly changing licensing model to prohibit custom GPUs and TPUs
#5Wasn’t this whole thing a somewhat sketchy attempt by Qualcomm to change its licensing terms by acquiring a company with a different business model and therefore different Arm license?
Seems like Arm is trying to close licensing loopholes.
Re: Arm reportedly changing licensing model to prohibit custom GPUs and TPUs
#6That seems like an incredibly dumb decision. They do realize that RISC-V is right around the corner, and could quickly end much of the ARM chip market if licensing deals are this onerous?
It is a short term cash grab, which will accelerate investment in RISC-V.
RISC-V seems increasingly inevitable in much of ARM's former feeding grounds, something I doubt ARM is unaware of, so it makes sense from a business perspective to squeeze out every cent while you still can.
Re: Arm reportedly changing licensing model to prohibit custom GPUs and TPUs
#7Wasn’t this whole thing a somewhat sketchy attempt by Qualcomm to change its licensing terms by acquiring a company with a different business model and therefore different Arm license? Seems like Arm is trying to close licensing loopholes.
Yes I am wondering if those are specific to Qualcomm. And we wont know until all the details are given. But from the POV of ARM, Qualcomm got Nuvia's license which was favourable to Startup, and Server Market. Qualcomm intend to use it on PC and Smartphone. Obviously ARM think the terms would be different but Qualcomm disagree.
The original article and other media keeps painting it as some sort of revenge for not allowing Nvidia buying ARM. I dont even see how the two comes together when regulations and other parties are at play as well.
Re: Arm reportedly changing licensing model to prohibit custom GPUs and TPUs
#8This change would potentially lead to ARM licensees switching from integrated SoC models to more conventional split architecture designs where the CPU, GPU, and other significant processors are split into separate dies to maintain flexibility.
The main problem with this is going to be on mobile phones, where board space is at a steep premium. Other form factors that typically have multiple processors will probably be fine, though.
Re: Arm reportedly changing licensing model to prohibit custom GPUs and TPUs
#9So it begins.
RISC-V and Chinese chips are coming for ARMs lunch.
Re: Arm reportedly changing licensing model to prohibit custom GPUs and TPUs
#10Wasn’t this whole thing a somewhat sketchy attempt by Qualcomm to change its licensing terms by acquiring a company with a different business model and therefore different Arm license? Seems like Arm is trying to close licensing loopholes.
I doubt that there's any credible claim to the acquisition of a license from an acquired company being a loophole. If it was, it wasn't something ARM paid attention to for 20+ years. ARM didn't have a problem with Compaq/DEC transferring its StrongARM IP to Intel. Nor did ARM have a problem with Intel selling off part of the XScale line to Marvell. Even if Nuvia merely sold its architectural license in place of being acquired outright, Qualcomm would still have a strong case to claim that it does have architectural rights.