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

Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

imgtec.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 201 posts

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#21

Post by H4CK3RM4N »

nottorp wrote: post #7
golergka wrote: post #4

> 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?

Intellectual property is complicated - there must be some patent that Apple would infringe anyway. Perhaps the one on breathing...

Would is be possible to patent some "biological respiration and oxygen replenishment" process and start suing babies?

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#22

Post by tooltalk »

pavlov wrote: post #5

This 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?

nVidia made similar claims against Samsung (and Qualcomm) a couple of years ago. A lot of folks speculated that Samsung would lose not only because nVidia is a leader in GPU business, but also because Samsung is a foreign company.

Long story short, nVidia lost. (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/01/07/nvidia_and_samsung_...)

Samsung initially asked Qualcomm to deal with it since nVidia was really going after Qualcomm's Adreno GPU used in Samsung's smartphones in the US. Qualcomm instead decided to sit back and twiddle their thumbs as nVidia filed lawsuits against Samsung (and Qualcomm). Many predicted Samsung would end up like Apple vs Samsung considering Qualcomm's political clout and jury bias in the US, but the USITC quickly put an end to Qualcomm's misadventure. Samsung countersued and won, and Obama couldn't be bothered to reverse USITC's opinion, impending import ban, against Qualcomm.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#23

Post by masklinn »

_gfrc wrote: post #17

This 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.

The rumors about Apple working on GPU cores internally long predate the Imagination "talks" (which were apparently rather shallow). In fact significant Imagination employees started leaving for Apple since at least 2015: Dave Roberts (senior design manager) left in October 2015[0] and Jonathan Redshaw (VP hardware engineering) left in November 2015[1]

[0] https://www.linkedin.com/in/dave-roberts-9ba859a6

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-redshaw-30400990

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#24

Post by raverbashing »

neuromancer85 wrote: post #11

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.

I think they're too attached to their "precious IP" to allow that.

It seems their closed source drivers are full of bugs and incomplete functionality

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#25

Post by raverbashing »

vosper wrote: post #6

> Apple license fees and royalties, as disclosed in Imagination’s Annual Report, represented revenue of £60.7 million for the year ended 30 April 2016 and are expected to be approximately £65 million for the year ending 30 April 2017 > Imagination believes that it would be extremely challenging to design a brand new GPU architecture from basics without infringing its intellectual property rights. Well Apple has a ~$7…

And they better not infringe on any Apple IP as well (or IP that was acquired)...

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#26

Post by _gfrc »

masklinn wrote: post #23
_gfrc wrote: post #17

This 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.

The rumors about Apple working on GPU cores internally long predate the Imagination "talks" (which were apparently rather shallow). In fact significant Imagination employees started leaving for Apple since at least 2015: Dave Roberts (senior design manager) left in October 2015[0] and Jonathan Redshaw (VP hardware engineering) left in November 2015[1] [0] https://www.linkedin.com/in/dave-roberts-9ba859a6 [1] https://…

Exactly. Maybe they figured that they already hired the key personnel, so there was no need to buy the whole company any longer.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#27

Post by boogersandstuff »

trendnet wrote: post #3

Judging by the tone used in that press release, they are in deep trouble. It does not even matter that £60.7 million is a small portion of their business. It could be the opposite of what happened to ARM when Apple decided to put their chips into Newton.

Their 2016 annual report notes £120.0m revenue (90 from IP/royalties) and £136.5m in operating expenses with an operating loss of £87.0m. Their new CEO mentions refocusing the company on IP and royalty income. Now Apple, which pays 60% of that income, is ducking out. Ouch.

In the same report, they mention "There are no parties with whom the Group has contractual or other arrangements which are essential to the business of the Group except the contract with Apple Inc." All your eggs in one basket...

What's funny is in their financial risk assessment they focus on bullshit like investment shifts and outside IP threats, but gloss over the whole "what if that huge contract our company depends on happens to fall apart?"

The discussion between Apple and these guys must've really gone south for a nasty and desperate press release like this

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#28

Post by dottrap »

ajw wrote: post #14

Looks 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...

Interesting that Apple was that much of their revenue. Reminds me a little of PortalPlayer from the iPod days, though it was much more dependent on Apple (90% of its revenue). But I remember the rumor mill echoed Apple was unhappy with them. Eventually, Apple decided to switch MP3 chip suppliers and the PortalPlayer imploded.

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1160843

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#29

Post by TheAceOfHearts »

masklinn wrote: post #13
pavlov wrote: post #5

This 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 leas…

I was under the impression all the big modern consoles were using customized AMD GPUs. For example, according to the PS4's Wikipedia entry [0], its GPU is a "Semi-custom AMD GCN Radeon (integrated into APU)". Are those customizations made by AMD for Sony, instead of licensing the technology?

I found an article claiming Intel is licensing AMD GPU technology [1]. If that's the case, would it be surprising to see Apple do the same?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4

[1] https://seekingalpha.com/article/4042977-new-details-intels-...

Post reply on HN