3 ms·

Slightly off topic but can't be the only one getting confused with Arm Cortex-M3's every time I read an Apple M3 headline. Why would they call a core the exact

Slightly off topic but can't be the only one getting confused with Arm Cortex-M3's every time I read an Apple M3 headline. Why would they call a core the exact same name as another companies product?

oblio 3y ago
Why would they: 1. Name their company after a common fruit 2. That common fruit being already word that was used as a company name when they were launched (by none other than the Beatles) 3. Then after they lost a lawsuit, settle with said company based on an agreement that they wouldn't enter that company's field 4. Then a bunch of years later enter that company's field anyway Long story short: because they can ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- acdha 3y ago
  It’s not like the Beatles invented the fruit, and at least the latter two trademark suits were the record company trying to alter the previous agreement when they saw how much money Apple Computing was making, first by arguing that adding a sound card constituted being in the music business and then hoping that the judge would let them change their preferred terms from the first lawsuit to drop the “physical media” qualifier. If there’s any lesson I’d draw from this, it’s that trademark law should have high barriers to claims for generic names. If you want total control, invent a new word.
- Findecanor 3y ago
  See also: "Mac OS 9" vs MicroWare "OS-9", and Apple A1152 vs Man&Machine.
traceroute66 3y ago
Some might argue that Apple's usage of it makes more sense. M-series for Macs and they are just incrementing numerically. Meanwhile Arm Cortex is semi-random, sometimes incrementing (M0,M1) sometimes with a "+" designation (M0+) and then just seemingly random jumps up to non-sequential double digits (M23,M35,M52 with or without a P designation. Its like "come on guys, make your mind up".
- DoingIsLearning 3y ago
  ARM at least has a clear reasoning for the letters: M (Microcontroller), R (Real-time), and A (Application) core profiles.
- oblio 3y ago
  What kind of logic is that? Politeness, if not trademarks, should have prevented them from doing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-M#Cortex-M3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-M#Cortex-M3 - 2004. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_M3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_M3 - 2023. > Some might argue that Apple's usage of it makes more sense. M-series for Macs and they are just incrementing numerically. By this logic if you name a project Y but I can argue my naming of a much newer project Y is "more logical", you should abandon Y? Chronology matters :-)
- fransje26 3y ago
  Linus Torvalds' take on how much sense the ARM nomenclature makes. A funny read. https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/15/133 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/15/133

Slightly off topic but can't be the only one getting confused with Arm Cortex-M3's every time I read an Apple M3 headline. Why would they call a core the exact same name as another companies product?

oblio 3y ago

Why would they: 1. Name their company after a common fruit 2. That common fruit being already word that was used as a company name when they were launched (by none other than the Beatles) 3. Then after they lost a lawsuit, settle with said company based on an agreement that they wouldn't enter that company's field 4. Then a bunch of years later enter that company's field anyway Long story short: because they can ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

acdha 3y ago
It’s not like the Beatles invented the fruit, and at least the latter two trademark suits were the record company trying to alter the previous agreement when they saw how much money Apple Computing was making, first by arguing that adding a sound card constituted being in the music business and then hoping that the judge would let them change their preferred terms from the first lawsuit to drop the “physical media” qualifier. If there’s any lesson I’d draw from this, it’s that trademark law should have high barriers to claims for generic names. If you want total control, invent a new word.
Findecanor 3y ago
See also: "Mac OS 9" vs MicroWare "OS-9", and Apple A1152 vs Man&Machine.

traceroute66 3y ago

Some might argue that Apple's usage of it makes more sense. M-series for Macs and they are just incrementing numerically. Meanwhile Arm Cortex is semi-random, sometimes incrementing (M0,M1) sometimes with a "+" designation (M0+) and then just seemingly random jumps up to non-sequential double digits (M23,M35,M52 with or without a P designation. Its like "come on guys, make your mind up".

DoingIsLearning 3y ago
ARM at least has a clear reasoning for the letters: M (Microcontroller), R (Real-time), and A (Application) core profiles.
oblio 3y ago
What kind of logic is that? Politeness, if not trademarks, should have prevented them from doing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-M#Cortex-M3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-M#Cortex-M3 - 2004. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_M3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_M3 - 2023. > Some might argue that Apple's usage of it makes more sense. M-series for Macs and they are just incrementing numerically. By this logic if you name a project Y but I can argue my naming of a much newer project Y is "more logical", you should abandon Y? Chronology matters :-)
fransje26 3y ago
Linus Torvalds' take on how much sense the ARM nomenclature makes. A funny read. https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/15/133 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/15/133