4 ms·

> They've got 15 years experience and essentially full control on ARM. Do they? ARM made it very clear that they consider all ARM cores their own[1] [1]: http

> They've got 15 years experience and essentially full control on ARM. Do they? ARM made it very clear that they consider all ARM cores their own[1] [1]: https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/07/opinion_qualcomm_vs_arm/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/07/opinion_qualcomm_vs_a...

nicoburns 4y ago
Apple is in a somewhat different position to Qualcomm in that they were a founding member of ARM. I've also heard rumours that aarch64 was designed by apple and donated to ARM (hence why apple was so early to release an aarch64 processor). So I somewhat doubt ARM will be a position to sue them any time soon.
danaris 4y ago
The Qualcomm situation is based on breaches of a specific agreement that ARM had with Nuvia, which Qualcomm has now bought. It's not a generalizable "ARM thinks everything they license belongs to them fully in perpetuity" deal.
masklinn 4y ago
> Do they? They do, yes. They were one of the founding 3 members of ARM itself, and the primary monetary contributor. Through this they acquired privileges which remain extant: they can literally add custom instructions to the ISA (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29798744 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29798744), something there is no available license for. > ARM made it very clear that they consider all ARM cores their own[1] The Qualcomm situation is a breach of contract issue wrt Nuvia, it's a very different issue, and by an actor with very different privileges.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  Is there a real source for this claim? It gets parroted a lot on HN and elsewhere, but I've also heard it's greatly exagerated. I don't think Apple engineers get to read the licences, and even if they did, how do we know they understood it corretly and that it got repeated correctlty? I've never seen a valid source for this claim.
  - masklinn 4y ago
    For what claim? They they co-founded ARM? That’s historical record. That they extended the ISA? That’s literally observed from decompilations. That they can do so? They’ve been doing it for at least 2 years and ARM has yet to sue. > I've never seen a valid source for this claim. What is “a valid source”? The linked comment is from Hector Martin, the founder and lead of Asahi, who worked on and assisted with reversing various facets of Apple silicon, including the capabilities and extensions of the ISA.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      >For what claim? that they have "essentially full control on ARM" Having an ALA + some extras doesn't mean "full control." he also says: >And apparently in Apple's case, they get to be a little bit incompatible So he doesn't seem to actually know the full extent to which Apple has more rights, even using the phrase "a little bit" — far from your claim. And he (and certainly you) has not read the license. Perhaps they have to pay for each core they release on the market that breaks compatabilty? Do you know? Of course not. A valid source would be a statement from someone who read the license or one of the companies. There is more to a core than just the ISA. If not, why is Apple porring cores to RISC-V? If they have so much control ?
  - ksherlock 4y ago
    Why does it need a "real source"? ARM sells architecture licenses, Apple has a custom ARM architecture. 1 + 1 = 2. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-seen-as-likely-new-arm-licensee/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-seen-as-likely... "ARM Chief Executive Warren East revealed on an earnings conference call on Wednesday that "a leading handset OEM," or original equipment manufacturer, has signed an architectural license with the company, forming ARM's most far-reaching license for its processor cores. East declined to elaborate on ARM's new partner, but EETimes' Peter Clarke could think of only one smartphone maker who would be that interested in shaping and controlling the direction of the silicon inside its phones: Apple." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Apple_silicon#Processor_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Apple_silico... "In 2008, Apple bought processor company P.A. Semi for US$278 million.[28][29] At the time, it was reported that Apple bought P.A. Semi for its intellectual property and engineering talent.[30] CEO Steve Jobs later claimed that P.A. Semi would develop system-on-chips for Apple's iPods and iPhones.[6] Following the acquisition, Apple signed a rare "Architecture license" with ARM, allowing the company to design its own core, using the ARM instruction set.[31] The first Apple-designed chip was the A4, released in 2010, which debuted in the first-generation iPad, then in the iPhone 4. Apple subsequently released a number of products with its own processors." https://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries-part-1-how-arms-business-model-works/3 https://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries-part-1-h... "Finally at the top of the pyramid is an ARM architecture license. Marvell, Apple and Qualcomm are some examples of the 15 companies that have this license."

nicoburns 4y ago

Apple is in a somewhat different position to Qualcomm in that they were a founding member of ARM. I've also heard rumours that aarch64 was designed by apple and donated to ARM (hence why apple was so early to release an aarch64 processor). So I somewhat doubt ARM will be a position to sue them any time soon.

danaris 4y ago

The Qualcomm situation is based on breaches of a specific agreement that ARM had with Nuvia, which Qualcomm has now bought. It's not a generalizable "ARM thinks everything they license belongs to them fully in perpetuity" deal.

masklinn 4y ago

> Do they? They do, yes. They were one of the founding 3 members of ARM itself, and the primary monetary contributor. Through this they acquired privileges which remain extant: they can literally add custom instructions to the ISA (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29798744 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29798744), something there is no available license for. > ARM made it very clear that they consider all ARM cores their own[1] The Qualcomm situation is a breach of contract issue wrt Nuvia, it's a very different issue, and by an actor with very different privileges.

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
Is there a real source for this claim? It gets parroted a lot on HN and elsewhere, but I've also heard it's greatly exagerated. I don't think Apple engineers get to read the licences, and even if they did, how do we know they understood it corretly and that it got repeated correctlty? I've never seen a valid source for this claim.
- masklinn 4y ago
  For what claim? They they co-founded ARM? That’s historical record. That they extended the ISA? That’s literally observed from decompilations. That they can do so? They’ve been doing it for at least 2 years and ARM has yet to sue. > I've never seen a valid source for this claim. What is “a valid source”? The linked comment is from Hector Martin, the founder and lead of Asahi, who worked on and assisted with reversing various facets of Apple silicon, including the capabilities and extensions of the ISA.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    >For what claim? that they have "essentially full control on ARM" Having an ALA + some extras doesn't mean "full control." he also says: >And apparently in Apple's case, they get to be a little bit incompatible So he doesn't seem to actually know the full extent to which Apple has more rights, even using the phrase "a little bit" — far from your claim. And he (and certainly you) has not read the license. Perhaps they have to pay for each core they release on the market that breaks compatabilty? Do you know? Of course not. A valid source would be a statement from someone who read the license or one of the companies. There is more to a core than just the ISA. If not, why is Apple porring cores to RISC-V? If they have so much control ?
- ksherlock 4y ago
  Why does it need a "real source"? ARM sells architecture licenses, Apple has a custom ARM architecture. 1 + 1 = 2. https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-seen-as-likely-new-arm-licensee/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-seen-as-likely... "ARM Chief Executive Warren East revealed on an earnings conference call on Wednesday that "a leading handset OEM," or original equipment manufacturer, has signed an architectural license with the company, forming ARM's most far-reaching license for its processor cores. East declined to elaborate on ARM's new partner, but EETimes' Peter Clarke could think of only one smartphone maker who would be that interested in shaping and controlling the direction of the silicon inside its phones: Apple." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Apple_silicon#Processor_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_transition_to_Apple_silico... "In 2008, Apple bought processor company P.A. Semi for US$278 million.[28][29] At the time, it was reported that Apple bought P.A. Semi for its intellectual property and engineering talent.[30] CEO Steve Jobs later claimed that P.A. Semi would develop system-on-chips for Apple's iPods and iPhones.[6] Following the acquisition, Apple signed a rare "Architecture license" with ARM, allowing the company to design its own core, using the ARM instruction set.[31] The first Apple-designed chip was the A4, released in 2010, which debuted in the first-generation iPad, then in the iPhone 4. Apple subsequently released a number of products with its own processors." https://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries-part-1-how-arms-business-model-works/3 https://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries-part-1-h... "Finally at the top of the pyramid is an ARM architecture license. Marvell, Apple and Qualcomm are some examples of the 15 companies that have this license."