4 ms·

> Is this why the US administration sees the Risc-5 architecture as a potential threat? > and now finally it can have that thanks to an open architecture that'

by re-thc 2y ago

> Is this why the US administration sees the Risc-5 architecture as a potential threat? > and now finally it can have that thanks to an open architecture that's not monopolized by a single player It's a threat because there's a lot of shady things going on behind the scenes. E.g. with x86 there was Via who fronted for China to make x86 chips. With ARM there was the whole ARM China fiasco and then the same group moving on to RISC-V. It's not so simple.

cr125rider 2y ago
Do you have a good reference I should check out about this? This is all new to me.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  There's no single source but plenty of articles and famous youtubers have covered the VIA - Intel shenanigans over the years which you can look up yourself if you search online, but that's pretty much dead and buried now since Intel kept suing and then buying out all of VIA's X86 spin-off teams. Here's a recent video on the topic of newish Chinese X86 clones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQAgOe9i6Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQAgOe9i6Y
- RetroTechie 2y ago
  It's a recurring pattern across industries: 1. Chinese firm enters partnership with a firm from abroad. Like manufacture X companies' product(s) on Chinese soil for its internal market. Of course this involves technology transfer in some form. And licensing deals / royalties, investments or personnel exchange back & forth, whatever. 2. Disagreement happens between the firms involved. 3. Chinese partner / subsidiary pulls out. But -crucially- 4. Continues making those products, or products employing the tech that was transferred. Can't un-learn what was learned, can you? 5. Legal conflict drags on for many years. Possibly without ever getting resolved (intentional, I'd guess). ARM, or the Intel <-> VIA saga are just some well known examples.
  - re-thc 2y ago
    > It's a recurring pattern across industries: Great summary. > ARM, or the Intel <-> VIA saga are just some well known examples. They are well known because of the intent, not so much the saga. With almost everyone having had manufacturing in China disputes were bound to happen. There are government backed entities that aren't for business. From day 1 their intent was to "steal" technology. They weren't investing in the industry. Via and by extension HTC were victims rather than culprits.

by re-thc 2y ago

cr125rider 2y ago

Do you have a good reference I should check out about this? This is all new to me.

Rinzler89 2y ago
There's no single source but plenty of articles and famous youtubers have covered the VIA - Intel shenanigans over the years which you can look up yourself if you search online, but that's pretty much dead and buried now since Intel kept suing and then buying out all of VIA's X86 spin-off teams. Here's a recent video on the topic of newish Chinese X86 clones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQAgOe9i6Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEQAgOe9i6Y
RetroTechie 2y ago
It's a recurring pattern across industries: 1. Chinese firm enters partnership with a firm from abroad. Like manufacture X companies' product(s) on Chinese soil for its internal market. Of course this involves technology transfer in some form. And licensing deals / royalties, investments or personnel exchange back & forth, whatever. 2. Disagreement happens between the firms involved. 3. Chinese partner / subsidiary pulls out. But -crucially- 4. Continues making those products, or products employing the tech that was transferred. Can't un-learn what was learned, can you? 5. Legal conflict drags on for many years. Possibly without ever getting resolved (intentional, I'd guess). ARM, or the Intel <-> VIA saga are just some well known examples.
- re-thc 2y ago
  > It's a recurring pattern across industries: Great summary. > ARM, or the Intel <-> VIA saga are just some well known examples. They are well known because of the intent, not so much the saga. With almost everyone having had manufacturing in China disputes were bound to happen. There are government backed entities that aren't for business. From day 1 their intent was to "steal" technology. They weren't investing in the industry. Via and by extension HTC were victims rather than culprits.