3 ms·

I'm not a CPU designer but if I were I'm not sure I'd agree that CPUs and the associated IP should be free. I think we all benefit from the effort of those who

I'm not a CPU designer but if I were I'm not sure I'd agree that CPUs and the associated IP should be free. I think we all benefit from the effort of those who push forward CPU design and they deserve to be paid for it. I'm with you if this means that CPUs should be a collaborative effort with shared overheads and common standards but ARM is pretty close to this already.

jacquesm 6y ago
Sure, but this stuff is two decades old by now and really should be a commodity. Newer and innovative designs are welcome to some protection. But at this level the main questions are can I have a toolchain that is unencumbered and how much power does a particular design consume. In a way that is where the battlefield is, extracting as much computation as possible from a given energy budget. Which led me to speculate the other day that mobile phones should be programmed in lower level languages for an immediate jump in battery life. Nothing my phone does requires gigahertz processors.
- klelatti 6y ago
  The reason why I'm supportive of the ARM business model is that the fees are really not that significant (eg compared to x86) and actually I think it's good to support a firm with a primary focus of getting the most performance per watt from a mobile chip. A few dollars in licensing fees is really a small price to pay.
  - Qwertious 6y ago
    I think there's "X should be free", and then there's "there should be a free implementation of X you have the option of using". The former is up for debate, but I doubt many people would disagree with the latter.
    - klelatti 6y ago
      If 'should be a free implementation' means that it undermines the business model of the firm that I rely on to develop X then I'd disagree on the latter. ARM has a business model that I think broadly works for the industry and consumers. I'd rather not throw that away.

jacquesm 6y ago

Sure, but this stuff is two decades old by now and really should be a commodity. Newer and innovative designs are welcome to some protection. But at this level the main questions are can I have a toolchain that is unencumbered and how much power does a particular design consume. In a way that is where the battlefield is, extracting as much computation as possible from a given energy budget. Which led me to speculate the other day that mobile phones should be programmed in lower level languages for an immediate jump in battery life. Nothing my phone does requires gigahertz processors.

klelatti 6y ago
The reason why I'm supportive of the ARM business model is that the fees are really not that significant (eg compared to x86) and actually I think it's good to support a firm with a primary focus of getting the most performance per watt from a mobile chip. A few dollars in licensing fees is really a small price to pay.
- Qwertious 6y ago
  I think there's "X should be free", and then there's "there should be a free implementation of X you have the option of using". The former is up for debate, but I doubt many people would disagree with the latter.
  - klelatti 6y ago
    If 'should be a free implementation' means that it undermines the business model of the firm that I rely on to develop X then I'd disagree on the latter. ARM has a business model that I think broadly works for the industry and consumers. I'd rather not throw that away.