4 ms·
Standard architecture licenses require the custom microarchitecture to comply with ARMs architectural specifications, but M1 apparently does not. An architectu
by 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 agoApple 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 agoApple 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.