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

Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

nvidianews.nvidia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 784 posts

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#481

Post by yyyk »

dragontamer wrote: post #159
paulmd wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Yes, absolutely. NVIDIA's not going to burn the ARM ecosystem to the ground. They just paid $40 billion for it. And they only had $11b of cash on hand, they really overpaid for it (because SoftBank desperately needed a big win to cover for the…

When Oracle purchased Sun Microsystems for $7.4 Billion, did you expect Oracle to burn Solaris to the ground, and turn their back on MySQL's open source philosophy? Then sue Google for billions of dollars over the Java / Android thing? Or more recently, when Facebook bought Oculus for $2 Billion, did you expect Facebook to betraying the customer's trust and start pushing Facebook logins? The Oculus / Facebook login t…

>When Oracle purchased Sun Microsystems for $7.4 Billion, did you expect Oracle

Yes, yes, and yes. This is Oracle we're talking about. Of course they'll invest more in lawyers than tech. The only reason they still invest in Java is the lawsuit potential. If only Google had the smarts to buy Sun instead...

As for NVidia, their play probably is integration and datacenters. At the moment, going after other ARM licencees will hinder NVidia more than help (they're going after x86, no time to waste on bad PR and legal issues with small time ARM datacenter licencees; Qualcomm and Apple are in a different segment altogether). Of course, we can't guarantee it stays that way.

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#482

Post by selectodude »

ksec wrote: post #477
soapdog wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARM was launched as a joint venture between Acorn, Apple, and VLSI. I believe that since day 0 Apple had perpetual access to the IP.

They sold all of the ARM shares in mid 90s to prevent themselves from going bankruptcy. Not to mention starting a JV has nothing to do with perpetual IP access. You will still have to pay for it.

They can certainly have a contract with Arm that allows them to renew their arch license in perpetuity that nvidia won't be able to void.

I obviously don't know that for sure but the idea that Apple would stake their future on something they don't have a legal ironclad position seems unlikely.

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#483

Post by lumberingjack »

fluffything wrote: post #441
bencollier49 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That feels like giving up, to me. We should have the confidence that British industry can development and flourish on its own merits without being sold off to foreign interests.

What have confidence when we can just look at ARM financials? There are more ARM chips sold each year than those of all its competitors together. Yet ARM's revenue is 300 million $. Why? Because ARM lives from the ISA royalties, and their revenue on the cores they license is actually small. With RISC-V on the rise, and west sanctions against china, RISC-V competition against ARM will only increase, and it is very har…

Apple mobile beating arm mobile is pretty irrelevant considering they can barely run the same type of tasks it's a miracle they both have the same benchmarks since they're operating systems are totally different. Beyond that it doesn't even really matter which one's faster because you got all that overhead of the os's that are so different. I would also like to say that Apple users are going to buy the newer chip whether it's faster or not. Because of planned obstinance at a software level. I've never heard an Apple user talk about speed or The benchmark of the phones because that marketing segment is clueless to that. My guess is that Nvidia needs arm for their self-driving stuff.

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#484

Post by sjg007 »

mikhailfranco wrote: post #167
sjg007 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt they will move all of the talent to the USA. I mean California is nice and all but I think a lot of Brits are happy to stay in Cambridge.

Cambridge is one of the most beautiful cities on the planet.

Agree!

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#485

Post by lumberingjack »

bencollier49 wrote: post #413
oxfordmale wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK government never learns. Kraft made similar promises when buying Cadbury regarding jobs,but quietly reneged on them over time. The Kraft CEO was asked to show up before an UK parliament committee, but of course declined, and that was the end of the story.

It absolutely outrages me. I've posted elsewhere on the thread about this, but I want to do something to prevent this sort of thing in future. Setting up a think tank seems like a viable idea. See my other response in the thread if you are interested and want to get in contact.

Welcome to vulture capitalism it's been gutting American industry for about 10 20 years used to be four or five paper mills around here but now they're all in China and everyone who worked there is on drugs now

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#486

Post by als0 »

fluffything wrote: post #441
bencollier49 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That feels like giving up, to me. We should have the confidence that British industry can development and flourish on its own merits without being sold off to foreign interests.

What have confidence when we can just look at ARM financials? There are more ARM chips sold each year than those of all its competitors together. Yet ARM's revenue is 300 million $. Why? Because ARM lives from the ISA royalties, and their revenue on the cores they license is actually small. With RISC-V on the rise, and west sanctions against china, RISC-V competition against ARM will only increase, and it is very har…

> If they want a world-class CPU team for the data-center, ARM isn't that (Graviton

Graviton uses Neoverse CPU cores, which are designed by ARM. To say that ARM is not a world-class CPU team is unfair. Especially as Ampere just announced an 80 core datacenter SoC using Neoverse cores.

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#487

Post by bogomipz »

fluffything wrote: post #441
bencollier49 wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That feels like giving up, to me. We should have the confidence that British industry can development and flourish on its own merits without being sold off to foreign interests.

What have confidence when we can just look at ARM financials? There are more ARM chips sold each year than those of all its competitors together. Yet ARM's revenue is 300 million $. Why? Because ARM lives from the ISA royalties, and their revenue on the cores they license is actually small. With RISC-V on the rise, and west sanctions against china, RISC-V competition against ARM will only increase, and it is very har…

>" If they want a world-class CPU team for the data-center, ARM isn't that (Graviton, Apple Silicon, Fujitsu, etc. are built and designed by better teams)."

The latest Fujitsus HPC offering the A64FX is also ARM based though.[1][2] And it sounds as though this is replacing their SPARC64 in this role .

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujitsu_A64FX

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugaku_(supercomputer)

Re: Nvidia to Acquire Arm for $40B

#489

Post by fortran77 »

siberianbear wrote: post #333
pathseeker wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also, to first order, when a company issues stock to purchase another corporation, that cost is essentially "free" since the value of the corporation increases. This isn't correct. If investors thing Nvidia overpaid, its share price will decline. There are many examples of acquiring companies losing significant value on announcements to buy other companies even in pure stock deals.

In addition, it's not even a valid argument if the cost was entirely in cash. One would be making the argument, "the cost is essentially free because although we spent $40B, we acquired a company worth $40B". Obviously, that's not any more correct than the case of paying in stock.

I pay the car dealer $20,000, I get a car worth $20,000. Was the car free?
Post reply on HN