Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they ever want to enable their competitors?
To spite nVidia.
If Larry David has taught me anything, it is that spite stores are not good business.
Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B
21–30 of 784 posts
Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B
#22This seems fair, as long as it stays true(regarding open licensing and neutrality). I've mentioned before, I think this will ultimately be a good thing. NVidia has the gpu chops to really amp up the reference implementation, which is a good thing for competition in the mobile, settop, and perhaps even desktop space.
Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B
#23This is not good
I have heard numerous arguments but they arguments don't feel that compelling, what are reasons why this is bad?
An independent ARM that did not manufacture processors was the best outcome for everyone in the industry.
ARM being owned by an organisation deeply embedded in processor design and manufacturing, will now be licensing designs to competitors, as well as getting a lot of intel on its competitors.
ARM supercomputers were poised to take on Nvidia. Now its all one and the same.
As others have said, this will do wonders for RISC-V.
Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B
#24This sort of stuff really isn’t going to produce long term benefits for humanity is it.
Does anyone know if or how Apple will be affected by this? What are the licensing agreements on the ISA?
Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B
#25> Immediately accretive to NVIDIA’s non-GAAP gross margin and EPS Can someone explain this? (From the bullet points of the article) I looked up the definition of accretive: "characterized by gradual growth or increase." So it seems like they expect this to increase their margins. Does that mean ARM had better margins than NVIDIA? Edit: I don't know what non-GAAP and EPS stand for
GAAP is an accounting set of rules, EPS is Earning per Share. Basically means they think it will increase their gross margin and EPS but you can't sue them if it does not.
Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B
#26> Immediately accretive to NVIDIA’s non-GAAP gross margin and EPS Can someone explain this? (From the bullet points of the article) I looked up the definition of accretive: "characterized by gradual growth or increase." So it seems like they expect this to increase their margins. Does that mean ARM had better margins than NVIDIA? Edit: I don't know what non-GAAP and EPS stand for
EPS -> earnings per share
Non-GAAP -> doesn’t follow generaly accepted accounting practices. There are alternative accounting methods. GAAP is very US-centric (not good or bad, just stating a fact).
Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B
#27This is not good
I have heard numerous arguments but they arguments don't feel that compelling, what are reasons why this is bad?
Consider one of NVidia's rivals: AMD, who uses an ARM chip in their EPYC line of chips as a security co-processor. Does anyone expect NVidia to "play fair" with such a rival?
ARM as an independent company, has been profoundly "neutral", allowing many companies to benefit from the ARM instruction set. It has been run very well: slightly profitable and an incremental value to all parties involved (be you Apple's iPhone, NVidia's Tegra (aka Nintendo Switch chip), AMD's EPYC, Qualcomm's Snapdragon, numerous hard drive companies, etc. etc.). All in all, ARM's reach has been because of its well-made business decisions that have been fair to all parties involved.
NVidia, despite all their technical achievements, is known to play hardball from a business perspective. I don't think anyone expects NVidia to remain "neutral" or "fair".
Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B
#28The British should never have allowed foreign ownership of their core tech
Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B
#29I still think the real reason was just to spite Apple :)
How does this spite Apple?
Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B
#30Eeek.
My gut reaction to think is.. could we have less powerful conglomerates.. please?