Time for ImgTech to go Linux/Mesa friendly maybe? With an open source graphic stack they could become a great choice for projects like Raspberry Pi and other hw manifacturers: imagine a Vulkan-ready linux laptop that combines a rpi Compute module with the graphic potential from their GPUs... Hope they would be this brave.
Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement
11–20 of 201 posts
Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement
#12> Further, Imagination believes that it would be extremely challenging to design a brand new GPU architecture from basics without infringing its intellectual property rights, accordingly Imagination does not accept Apple’s assertions. I know that designing new GPU from scratch isn't an easy task - but is it THAT hard that they don't trust that one of the richest companies in the world is capable of doing it?
The keyword is without infringing its intellectual property rights. Sure, they certainly can design a GPU, but design it in a way that does not step on the toes of others? Especially when you learned from them? That's the difficult part.
Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement
#13This is interesting: "Imagination believes that it would be extremely challenging to design a brand new GPU architecture from basics without infringing its intellectual property rights, accordingly Imagination does not accept Apple’s assertions." Could Apple not be using someone else's IP, for example from NVidia or AMD?
AMD does not license to third parties, neither does Intel. Options (ignoring acquisition and design from scratch) are:
* NVidia's Tegra graphics cores, possibly (not clear whether they block-license let alone architecture-license to third parties)
* ARM's Mali, definitely licensable
* Broadcom's VideoCore, possibly
* Vivante, definitely licensable
* Qualcomm's Adreno, formerly Imageon, unlikely
Also note that at least two dozen Imagination employees left for Apple between 2015 and 2016 http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/10/13/apple-poaching-gpu...
Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement
#14Looks like Apple was nearly half their business/revenue. The company's market cap (after this morning's crash) is only $275M, which is less than 5 years worth of royalties...
Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement
#15I love how passive aggressive this is – it shifts from "it's a shame Apple is leaving" to "we could sue them over it" pretty quickly towards the end. They imply it's difficult to do, but also that it's basically already complete... bizarre post to make public.
Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement
#16That was a rather oddly worded press release. Much more defensive than I would have expected and quite arrogant towards the end. They make it sound as if no other company on earth could do what they do which as we know does not usually work out well for those who claim such a thing.
Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement
#17This doesn't come very surprising to me, as Apple has been in talks to acquire Imagination Technologies but has decided not to:
https://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/03/apple-acquire-imaginat...
I don't know the reason, but I suppose it is the same reason why they decided to build their own gpu independently. Apple also already own(s/ed?) a part of Imagination Technologies.
Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement
#18> Further, Imagination believes that it would be extremely challenging to design a brand new GPU architecture from basics without infringing its intellectual property rights, accordingly Imagination does not accept Apple’s assertions. I know that designing new GPU from scratch isn't an easy task - but is it THAT hard that they don't trust that one of the richest companies in the world is capable of doing it?
My understanding of the matter is the Apple GPU has had much of it developed in house for quite a while anyway (both on the SW and HW side). The only reason they didn't let go of Imagination earlier was presumably because they relied too much on their IP and patents.
Now I guess Apple have judged they no longer need Imagination and patents or more likely they are able to navigate the legal consequences successfully and the likely fines are less than the savings made (or worth it for the control Apple gains).
This announcement has been a long time coming and isn't particularly surprising.
Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement
#19This is interesting: "Imagination believes that it would be extremely challenging to design a brand new GPU architecture from basics without infringing its intellectual property rights, accordingly Imagination does not accept Apple’s assertions." Could Apple not be using someone else's IP, for example from NVidia or AMD?
From further down, "The company’s...IP...includes the key processing blocks needed to create the SoCs...that power all mobile, consumer and embedded electronics."
I've never heard of the company but my assumption is that they've patented some critical part of the assembly process which means Apple is relying on them.
Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement
#20That was a rather oddly worded press release. Much more defensive than I would have expected and quite arrogant towards the end. They make it sound as if no other company on earth could do what they do which as we know does not usually work out well for those who claim such a thing.
It may be more understandable when you know that two dozen of their employees have left for Apple since 2015 (some highly placed), they're basically saying they believe Apple's internal GPU effort piggyback on Imagination's tech.