3 ms·

Wouldn't the main indirect effect be that it's easier for new companies to enter the smartphone space due to reduced costs from the ISA being open? I'd expect t

Wouldn't the main indirect effect be that it's easier for new companies to enter the smartphone space due to reduced costs from the ISA being open? I'd expect that to take a while, but wouldn't that be the main benefit?

acdha 3y ago
The cost of developing a competitive CPU is high, and then you have to package the whole thing into a SoC and optimize for power usage, support it for years, etc. The ISA is not the limiting factor there.
- snvzz 3y ago
  >The cost of developing a competitive CPU is high It can be dodged by either licensing some of the hundreds of commercial core designs available, or by using one of the (several) available open source RISC-V implementations. Other competitive ISAs also have a few -albeit not anywhere as many- open source implementations, but there's no dodging the ISA royalty fee on these.
  - acdha 3y ago
    How many of those open source implementations have competitive performance?
- rockemsockem 3y ago
  As another commenter already pointed out, open source tends to build on open source, so I'd expect more and more complex chips to be built on the platform over time in the open. Maybe there's a future world where a viable open source smartphone can exist even.
  - baq 3y ago
    Actual designs of chips you’ll be able to buy will not be open source, with a couple of irrelevant exceptions by a foundation or an educational institution or something. It won’t do you any good, though: the feedback loop to get the open source gradual but exponential improvement engine working is too long and too expensive for hobbyists. It possibly could work with a community of companies, but my imagination stops there, can’t see how mbas could ever agree to giving away differentiators when fixed costs are so high, it’d destroy margins.

3 ms·

Wouldn't the main indirect effect be that it's easier for new companies to enter the smartphone space due to reduced costs from the ISA being open? I'd expect t

by rockemsockem 3y ago

acdha 3y ago
The cost of developing a competitive CPU is high, and then you have to package the whole thing into a SoC and optimize for power usage, support it for years, etc. The ISA is not the limiting factor there.
- snvzz 3y ago
  >The cost of developing a competitive CPU is high It can be dodged by either licensing some of the hundreds of commercial core designs available, or by using one of the (several) available open source RISC-V implementations. Other competitive ISAs also have a few -albeit not anywhere as many- open source implementations, but there's no dodging the ISA royalty fee on these.
  - acdha 3y ago
    How many of those open source implementations have competitive performance?
- rockemsockem 3y ago
  As another commenter already pointed out, open source tends to build on open source, so I'd expect more and more complex chips to be built on the platform over time in the open. Maybe there's a future world where a viable open source smartphone can exist even.
  - baq 3y ago
    Actual designs of chips you’ll be able to buy will not be open source, with a couple of irrelevant exceptions by a foundation or an educational institution or something. It won’t do you any good, though: the feedback loop to get the open source gradual but exponential improvement engine working is too long and too expensive for hobbyists. It possibly could work with a community of companies, but my imagination stops there, can’t see how mbas could ever agree to giving away differentiators when fixed costs are so high, it’d destroy margins.