4 ms·

It should also be noted that ARM has multiple types of licences. Most manufacturers only license cores and adjacent IPs, with no possible "tweaks" or the licens

It should also be noted that ARM has multiple types of licences. Most manufacturers only license cores and adjacent IPs, with no possible "tweaks" or the license with minimal "tweaks". However, my understanding is that apple has an "ISA" architecture, where they basically can do whatever they want, since they can build a custom CPU that uses the ARM ISA, whereas Samsung for example, can only "tweak" the cores. Basically, Apple doesn't use core IP and "only" licenses the ISA (which is far more expensive if my memory is not lying) and so they can do whatever they want.

bombcar 6y ago
I would think that Apple is quite in a position to strongARM them and get what they want; even with Jobs gone I doubt they want to repeat the PowerPC fiasco.
robert_foss 6y ago
Apple does indeed have an architcture license, which grants them the rights to modify&ship ARM IP.
- rrss 6y ago
  Standard architecture licenses require the custom microarchitecture to comply with ARMs architectural specifications, but M1 apparently does not. An architecture license is not usually a free pass to modify the architecture and fragment ARM's ecosystem at will.
  - evgen 6y ago
    Apple is effectively a co-founder of ARM. I am absolutely certain they have a 'do whatever the hell you want with it, and have most-favoured on licensing' agreement in a drawer somewhere in Cupertino.
  - barkingcat 6y ago
    Apple was one of the codevelopers of the arm6 and at that time Acorn spun out ARM holdings to create the ARM of today - so while architectural licences might come with restrictions, Apple most very likely have even deeper rights into the ARM ecosystem, up and including - "if you don't let us make the M1, we will deep 6 the entire arm ecosystem and use our "cocreator" patents offensively" It's easy to forget that Apple is/was one of the original computer companies, and had a founding hand in two ISA/architectures: PowerPC and ARM. They also used the Motorola 68000 and x86 (32+64), but in those cases they were relying on the manufacturer for the chips and architectural direction.
    - gumby 6y ago
      > "if you don't let us make the M1, we will deep 6 the entire arm ecosystem and use our "cocreator" patents offensively" I think those patents would have expired by now.
protomyth 6y ago
It's likely that Apple has a special contract given ARM's origin.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
rrss 6y ago
Right, none of this matters for companies just using ARM core IP. The broadest and rarest type of ARM license that is publicly documented is an ARM architecture license, which allows the licensee to implement one of the ARM ISAs with their own microarchitecture. Apple and Samsung both have architecture licenses, though IIRC Samsung recently closed down their CPU design team and so is no longer making use of their architecture license. The normal terms of architectural licenses do not permit the licensees to do whatever they want, they are typically bound by the ARM ISA specification. Normal architecture licenses don't allow the licensee to add custom instructions.
p_l 6y ago
Samsung and Apple have, afaik, same license and did fully custom implementation of ARM spec (short story - Apple A-series and Samsung's Exynos have common ancestry). But even if you have full license, it doesn't necessarily mean you have time and resources to do full custom implementations all the time.
- GeekyBear 6y ago
  They were designed to the same spec, and had to pass the same suite of compatibility tests. However, they handled the implementation details differently. >Architectural licensees get a set of specs and a testing suite that they have to pass, the rest is up to them. If they want to make a processor that is faster, slower, more efficient, smaller, or anything else than the one ARM supplies, this is what they have to do. https://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/07/a-long-look-at-how-arm-licenses-chips/ https://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/07/a-long-look-at-how-arm-l...
  - p_l 6y ago
    Hummingbird and A4 were co-developed originally by Samsung and Apple, but the companies parted ways before finishing either one. That's why I mention common ancestry (which they don't share with Qualcomm's custom design, for example)
    - GeekyBear 6y ago
      Apple did use the Hummingbird part (which was developed by Samsung and optimized by Intrinsity using their custom EDA software) and Apple did later buy Intrinsity. However, neither Apple or Intrinsity had any IP rights over Samsung's core, as far as I ever saw.
      - p_l 6y ago
        My understanding of the event chain is that originally there was a common project, and both parties had rights to use the IP from it, but without any rights to further changes after the split. Didn't know the part about Intrinsity, thanks for that :)
gjsman-1000 6y ago
It would make sense that Apple is exempt from some of the rules. After all, Apple co-founded ARM.

bombcar 6y ago

I would think that Apple is quite in a position to strongARM them and get what they want; even with Jobs gone I doubt they want to repeat the PowerPC fiasco.

robert_foss 6y ago

Apple does indeed have an architcture license, which grants them the rights to modify&ship ARM IP.

rrss 6y ago
Standard architecture licenses require the custom microarchitecture to comply with ARMs architectural specifications, but M1 apparently does not. An architecture license is not usually a free pass to modify the architecture and fragment ARM's ecosystem at will.
- evgen 6y ago
  Apple is effectively a co-founder of ARM. I am absolutely certain they have a 'do whatever the hell you want with it, and have most-favoured on licensing' agreement in a drawer somewhere in Cupertino.
- barkingcat 6y ago
  Apple was one of the codevelopers of the arm6 and at that time Acorn spun out ARM holdings to create the ARM of today - so while architectural licences might come with restrictions, Apple most very likely have even deeper rights into the ARM ecosystem, up and including - "if you don't let us make the M1, we will deep 6 the entire arm ecosystem and use our "cocreator" patents offensively" It's easy to forget that Apple is/was one of the original computer companies, and had a founding hand in two ISA/architectures: PowerPC and ARM. They also used the Motorola 68000 and x86 (32+64), but in those cases they were relying on the manufacturer for the chips and architectural direction.
  - gumby 6y ago
    > "if you don't let us make the M1, we will deep 6 the entire arm ecosystem and use our "cocreator" patents offensively" I think those patents would have expired by now.

protomyth 6y ago

It's likely that Apple has a special contract given ARM's origin.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

rrss 6y ago

Right, none of this matters for companies just using ARM core IP. The broadest and rarest type of ARM license that is publicly documented is an ARM architecture license, which allows the licensee to implement one of the ARM ISAs with their own microarchitecture. Apple and Samsung both have architecture licenses, though IIRC Samsung recently closed down their CPU design team and so is no longer making use of their architecture license. The normal terms of architectural licenses do not permit the licensees to do whatever they want, they are typically bound by the ARM ISA specification. Normal architecture licenses don't allow the licensee to add custom instructions.

p_l 6y ago

Samsung and Apple have, afaik, same license and did fully custom implementation of ARM spec (short story - Apple A-series and Samsung's Exynos have common ancestry). But even if you have full license, it doesn't necessarily mean you have time and resources to do full custom implementations all the time.

GeekyBear 6y ago
They were designed to the same spec, and had to pass the same suite of compatibility tests. However, they handled the implementation details differently. >Architectural licensees get a set of specs and a testing suite that they have to pass, the rest is up to them. If they want to make a processor that is faster, slower, more efficient, smaller, or anything else than the one ARM supplies, this is what they have to do. https://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/07/a-long-look-at-how-arm-licenses-chips/ https://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/07/a-long-look-at-how-arm-l...
- p_l 6y ago
  Hummingbird and A4 were co-developed originally by Samsung and Apple, but the companies parted ways before finishing either one. That's why I mention common ancestry (which they don't share with Qualcomm's custom design, for example)
  - GeekyBear 6y ago
    Apple did use the Hummingbird part (which was developed by Samsung and optimized by Intrinsity using their custom EDA software) and Apple did later buy Intrinsity. However, neither Apple or Intrinsity had any IP rights over Samsung's core, as far as I ever saw.
    - p_l 6y ago
      My understanding of the event chain is that originally there was a common project, and both parties had rights to use the IP from it, but without any rights to further changes after the split. Didn't know the part about Intrinsity, thanks for that :)

gjsman-1000 6y ago

It would make sense that Apple is exempt from some of the rules. After all, Apple co-founded ARM.