3 ms·

Software and hardware IP companies are indeed not the same, so we should be more precise about the ways in which they are similar. * Their work is in both case

by yccs27 5y ago

Software and hardware IP companies are indeed not the same, so we should be more precise about the ways in which they are similar. * Their work is in both cases a mix of design and engineering. * Both produce goods that are reproducible at zero cost, and are protected (only) by intellectual property laws. So while ARM definitely does not produce software, their work is somewhat comparable.

ChuckNorris89 5y ago
> Their work is in both cases a mix of design and engineering. > Both produce goods that are reproducible at zero cost, and are protected (only) by intellectual property laws. You forgot fabrication. Unlike SW IP where as long as it compiles it's ready to ship but stays virtual, ARM's IP must be manufacturable into physical things you can touch by the major fabs therefore must be grounded in the processes and cell libraries that those fabs can manufacture. Unlike a SW company, they can't just freely innovate whatever shiny new IP they want without concern for the silicon manufacturing processes, therefore it's closer to HW than SW, as all their IP is eventually manufactured into real things you can touch and therefore must follow the manufacturing constrains. If you follow their news announcements, they constantly talk about their partnership with Samsung and TSMC to adapt their IP to each of their upcoming process nodes, so their their customer like Apple or Qualcomm can just buy the IP and plop it into their design knowing it's already been validated for Samsung/TSMC and can reliably be sent to the fab. So ARM is still very much a HW IP company.
spookthesunset 5y ago
> Both produce goods that are reproducible at zero cost I mean the blueprint is zero cost but building your own fab costs tens of billions of dollars these days.
- criddell 5y ago
  That's true, but ARM only sells the blueprints. I would guess there are a lot more ARM licensees than there are fabricators. Most licensees probably pay somebody else to manufacture their designs.

by yccs27 5y ago

ChuckNorris89 5y ago

> Their work is in both cases a mix of design and engineering. > Both produce goods that are reproducible at zero cost, and are protected (only) by intellectual property laws. You forgot fabrication. Unlike SW IP where as long as it compiles it's ready to ship but stays virtual, ARM's IP must be manufacturable into physical things you can touch by the major fabs therefore must be grounded in the processes and cell libraries that those fabs can manufacture. Unlike a SW company, they can't just freely innovate whatever shiny new IP they want without concern for the silicon manufacturing processes, therefore it's closer to HW than SW, as all their IP is eventually manufactured into real things you can touch and therefore must follow the manufacturing constrains. If you follow their news announcements, they constantly talk about their partnership with Samsung and TSMC to adapt their IP to each of their upcoming process nodes, so their their customer like Apple or Qualcomm can just buy the IP and plop it into their design knowing it's already been validated for Samsung/TSMC and can reliably be sent to the fab. So ARM is still very much a HW IP company.

spookthesunset 5y ago

> Both produce goods that are reproducible at zero cost I mean the blueprint is zero cost but building your own fab costs tens of billions of dollars these days.

criddell 5y ago
That's true, but ARM only sells the blueprints. I would guess there are a lot more ARM licensees than there are fabricators. Most licensees probably pay somebody else to manufacture their designs.