5 ms·

I wonder if it would be possible for a consortium of companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Google to swoop in and outbid Nvidia? All of them rely on customizatio

by mikece 6y ago

I wonder if it would be possible for a consortium of companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Google to swoop in and outbid Nvidia? All of them rely on customization agreements with ARM and Nvidia, being a chip maker, would be competition. And a consortium like that would allow the consortium members to keep their changes to themselves so whatever Qualcomm and Microsoft are doing with the SQ1 or Apple with their Silicon stuff wouldn't have to be shared will all consortium members -- or a competing chip maker like Nvidia.

Zenst 6y ago
So much like a shared patent pool, which in effect does partially describe ARM. But when those companies can get access to those patents for more accountant friendly costs without balancing out risk/asset/management aspects of owning part of that slice, then the motivation, corporate culture that would be needed to drive such an investment is just not there.
- mikece 6y ago
  That's why having at least three "heavies" as part of the consortium will enforce good behavior or at least keep it from getting out of control. Well-armed (legal teams) companies are polite companies... (except Oracle, but they are mainly a litigation firm that also sells databases).
  - Zenst 6y ago
    True, yet the incentive is just not there business wise over what they have now and be a hard sell to the board as what advantages does it give them? It actually makes more sense for some governments to buy ARM than many companies, so at least we can be thankful (so far) that avenue has not transpired. Might even be best overall if ARM was partially IPO'd. If SOftbank sold 50% stake via IPO, I dare say that way of selling the company would yield the best and also quick return and best of both Worlds and that option I'd still not rule out. Indeed, mooted interest from many large companies sniffing as a prelude to an IPO may not be unheard of. I too share your aversion towards Oracle's business practices.
  - vlovich123 6y ago
    I think you'd have significant regulatory back-pressure preventing Microsoft, Google, and Apple - between them they effectively own all the operating systems and app stores of the world. There's a real problem here that will prevent competition from outside (QCOM & Samsung are two massive ARM chip designers for mobile, there's a bunch more in the embedded space). It's important to look at the risks and not just the upsides as there are both.
bitxbit 6y ago
I think it would make even more sense for such a consortium to buyout AMD at this point.
- Vogtinator 6y ago
  Which would make the x86 licensing deal void IIRC.
parsimo2010 6y ago
Nvidia might a chip maker, but they aren't really a competing chip maker. The only real competitor to Nvidia is AMD, which does not use ARM IP in any significant amount that I know of. Nvidia might be tempted to block ARM customers if they had competing designs to push them to, but they don't. So they would be sacrificing revenue without any other sales to make up for it. It doesn't seem like a good idea to me. This would be a different story if a company like Apple were buying ARM. They could definitely benefit by gouging Samsung and Google on license fees but they've got to balance that with the chance of getting fined for anti-competitive practices.
- erinnh 6y ago
  The PSP in every AMD CPU is an ARM CPU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processo...
  - cmrdporcupine 6y ago
    Sounds like a great candidate for a switch to RISC-V
    - paulmd 6y ago
      why though? the PSP is basically a derivative of TrustZone, "switching to RISC-V" would basically be re-engineering the whole PSP stack from scratch.
burnte 6y ago
Apple has a perpetual license on the ARM instruction set, so they just pay a royalty per chip. Apple owning ARM would be a massive problem for regulators, as they'd be the sole source of chips to their competition. MS and Google don't make chips, and MS doesn't even license any ARM tech (I don't think, they just make software and buy CPUs, they don't make any). They're a bad fit. Google's dipping their toes in it, but I don't think they're doing fully custom silicon. Most companies buy the rights and layouts, and tweak those layouts. NVidia makes chips, but they don't make many mobile chips, and virtually no chips for phones compared to Samsung and Qualcomm. They're a better fit.
- ejdyksen 6y ago
  Microsoft has had an architectural license for quite some time: https://www.eetimes.com/microsoft-takes-arm-architectural-license/ https://www.eetimes.com/microsoft-takes-arm-architectural-li...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tambre 6y ago
  > MS and Google don't make chips MS designed and produced custom silicon for HoloLens 2 (the Holographic Processing Unit 2.0) [0][1]. The Microsoft SQ1 in Surface Pro X is probably also produced by them, though the design is in collaboration with Qualcomm. [0] https://www.hotchips.org/hc31/HC31_2.14_Terry_Microsoft_Aug20.pdf https://www.hotchips.org/hc31/HC31_2.14_Terry_Microsoft_Aug2... [1] https://youtu.be/IjxpMZUqu6c?t=3814 https://youtu.be/IjxpMZUqu6c?t=3814
- kevingadd 6y ago
  The chipset in the Nintendo Switch is a mobile chipset by NVidia.
  - burnte 6y ago
    Yes yes, there are outliers which is why I didn't make a blanket statement NVidia doesn't make anything mobile.
duxup 6y ago
Apple has never shown much interested in a lot of B2B type licensing companies that aren't 100% apple, and potentially owning something their competitors need and all the legal complications that brings. Meanwhile Apple's home grown chip initiatives are mature, not sure they need much from ARM.

by mikece 6y ago

Zenst 6y ago

So much like a shared patent pool, which in effect does partially describe ARM. But when those companies can get access to those patents for more accountant friendly costs without balancing out risk/asset/management aspects of owning part of that slice, then the motivation, corporate culture that would be needed to drive such an investment is just not there.

mikece 6y ago
That's why having at least three "heavies" as part of the consortium will enforce good behavior or at least keep it from getting out of control. Well-armed (legal teams) companies are polite companies... (except Oracle, but they are mainly a litigation firm that also sells databases).
- Zenst 6y ago
  True, yet the incentive is just not there business wise over what they have now and be a hard sell to the board as what advantages does it give them? It actually makes more sense for some governments to buy ARM than many companies, so at least we can be thankful (so far) that avenue has not transpired. Might even be best overall if ARM was partially IPO'd. If SOftbank sold 50% stake via IPO, I dare say that way of selling the company would yield the best and also quick return and best of both Worlds and that option I'd still not rule out. Indeed, mooted interest from many large companies sniffing as a prelude to an IPO may not be unheard of. I too share your aversion towards Oracle's business practices.
- vlovich123 6y ago
  I think you'd have significant regulatory back-pressure preventing Microsoft, Google, and Apple - between them they effectively own all the operating systems and app stores of the world. There's a real problem here that will prevent competition from outside (QCOM & Samsung are two massive ARM chip designers for mobile, there's a bunch more in the embedded space). It's important to look at the risks and not just the upsides as there are both.

bitxbit 6y ago

I think it would make even more sense for such a consortium to buyout AMD at this point.

Vogtinator 6y ago
Which would make the x86 licensing deal void IIRC.

parsimo2010 6y ago

Nvidia might a chip maker, but they aren't really a competing chip maker. The only real competitor to Nvidia is AMD, which does not use ARM IP in any significant amount that I know of. Nvidia might be tempted to block ARM customers if they had competing designs to push them to, but they don't. So they would be sacrificing revenue without any other sales to make up for it. It doesn't seem like a good idea to me. This would be a different story if a company like Apple were buying ARM. They could definitely benefit by gouging Samsung and Google on license fees but they've got to balance that with the chance of getting fined for anti-competitive practices.

erinnh 6y ago
The PSP in every AMD CPU is an ARM CPU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processo...
- cmrdporcupine 6y ago
  Sounds like a great candidate for a switch to RISC-V
  - paulmd 6y ago
    why though? the PSP is basically a derivative of TrustZone, "switching to RISC-V" would basically be re-engineering the whole PSP stack from scratch.

burnte 6y ago

Apple has a perpetual license on the ARM instruction set, so they just pay a royalty per chip. Apple owning ARM would be a massive problem for regulators, as they'd be the sole source of chips to their competition. MS and Google don't make chips, and MS doesn't even license any ARM tech (I don't think, they just make software and buy CPUs, they don't make any). They're a bad fit. Google's dipping their toes in it, but I don't think they're doing fully custom silicon. Most companies buy the rights and layouts, and tweak those layouts. NVidia makes chips, but they don't make many mobile chips, and virtually no chips for phones compared to Samsung and Qualcomm. They're a better fit.

ejdyksen 6y ago
Microsoft has had an architectural license for quite some time: https://www.eetimes.com/microsoft-takes-arm-architectural-license/ https://www.eetimes.com/microsoft-takes-arm-architectural-li...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tambre 6y ago
> MS and Google don't make chips MS designed and produced custom silicon for HoloLens 2 (the Holographic Processing Unit 2.0) [0][1]. The Microsoft SQ1 in Surface Pro X is probably also produced by them, though the design is in collaboration with Qualcomm. [0] https://www.hotchips.org/hc31/HC31_2.14_Terry_Microsoft_Aug20.pdf https://www.hotchips.org/hc31/HC31_2.14_Terry_Microsoft_Aug2... [1] https://youtu.be/IjxpMZUqu6c?t=3814 https://youtu.be/IjxpMZUqu6c?t=3814
kevingadd 6y ago
The chipset in the Nintendo Switch is a mobile chipset by NVidia.
- burnte 6y ago
  Yes yes, there are outliers which is why I didn't make a blanket statement NVidia doesn't make anything mobile.

duxup 6y ago

Apple has never shown much interested in a lot of B2B type licensing companies that aren't 100% apple, and potentially owning something their competitors need and all the legal complications that brings. Meanwhile Apple's home grown chip initiatives are mature, not sure they need much from ARM.