3 ms·

Could Apple hypothetically use their perpetual license to ARM to license the ISA to other manufacturers if they so desired? (not that they do now, but it could

by easton 6y ago

Could Apple hypothetically use their perpetual license to ARM to license the ISA to other manufacturers if they so desired? (not that they do now, but it could be a saving grace if Nvidia assimilated ARM fully).

pokot0 6y ago
Why would they ever want to enable their competitors?
- newsclues 6y ago
  To spite nVidia.
  - hndamien 6y ago
    If Larry David has taught me anything, it is that spite stores are not good business.
    - mumblerino 6y ago
      It depends on who you are. Are you a Larry David or are you a Mila Kunis?
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
I'm pretty sure they can't, but I also think there's no way in hell they'd do it if they could. It's not in Apple's DNA. Better for them if no one else has access to the instruction set. I bet they'd make a completely custom ISA if they could. Heck, maybe they plan to some day, and that's why they're calling the new Mac processors "Apple Silicon".
- pier25 6y ago
  > I bet they'd make a completely custom ISA if they could. Heck, maybe they plan to some day, and that's why they're calling the new Mac processors "Apple Silicon". That was my first thought. I'd be surprised if Apple wasn't already working on this.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  I could see apple being the next in line of basically failed VLIW ISAs - the cost/benefit doesn't really add up to completely redesign, prove, implement, and support a new ISA unless it was worth it technologically. If they could pull it off I would be very impressed.
- exikyut 6y ago
  Thinking about that though, from a technical perspective keeping the name but changing the function would only produce bad PR. - "We changed from the 68K to PPC" "Agh!...fine" - "We changed from PPC to x86" "What, again?" - "We changed from x86 to Apple Silicon" "...oooo...kay..." - "We changed from Apple Silicon to, uh, Apple Silicon - like it's still called Apple Silicon, but the architecture is different" "What's an architecture?" "The CPU ISA." "The CPU is a what?"

by easton 6y ago

pokot0 6y ago

Why would they ever want to enable their competitors?

newsclues 6y ago
To spite nVidia.
- hndamien 6y ago
  If Larry David has taught me anything, it is that spite stores are not good business.
  - mumblerino 6y ago
    It depends on who you are. Are you a Larry David or are you a Mila Kunis?

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

I'm pretty sure they can't, but I also think there's no way in hell they'd do it if they could. It's not in Apple's DNA. Better for them if no one else has access to the instruction set. I bet they'd make a completely custom ISA if they could. Heck, maybe they plan to some day, and that's why they're calling the new Mac processors "Apple Silicon".

pier25 6y ago
> I bet they'd make a completely custom ISA if they could. Heck, maybe they plan to some day, and that's why they're calling the new Mac processors "Apple Silicon". That was my first thought. I'd be surprised if Apple wasn't already working on this.
mhh__ 6y ago
I could see apple being the next in line of basically failed VLIW ISAs - the cost/benefit doesn't really add up to completely redesign, prove, implement, and support a new ISA unless it was worth it technologically. If they could pull it off I would be very impressed.
exikyut 6y ago
Thinking about that though, from a technical perspective keeping the name but changing the function would only produce bad PR. - "We changed from the 68K to PPC" "Agh!...fine" - "We changed from PPC to x86" "What, again?" - "We changed from x86 to Apple Silicon" "...oooo...kay..." - "We changed from Apple Silicon to, uh, Apple Silicon - like it's still called Apple Silicon, but the architecture is different" "What's an architecture?" "The CPU ISA." "The CPU is a what?"