5 ms·

There is also a response from ARM, The Case for Licensed Instruction Sets. https://web.archive.org/web/20140926222155/http://www.linleygroup.com/mpr/article.ph

There is also a response from ARM, The Case for Licensed Instruction Sets. https://web.archive.org/web/20140926222155/http://www.linleygroup.com/mpr/article.php?id=11268 https://web.archive.org/web/20140926222155/http://www.linley...

snvzz 2y ago
It is appalling how stupid whoever at ARM must have been, to respond and thus bring attention to RISC-V. Back then, RISC-V was not anywhere as well-known as it is today.
- pavlov 2y ago
  Sort of like when Ballmer-era Microsoft declared war on Linux and GPL.
- gregw2 2y ago
  Stupid?! The type of reader paying $500/year for the Microprocessor Report (where this response article appeared) already knew. (Similarly if they were motivated to get it free or took time to read it through their university, company, pirate it, etc.) And the ARM response you'll didn't mention RISC-V by name specifically. The notion of an open source entity building an open or semi-open ecosystem cannibalizing even a low-end player was already happening in phone operating systems (Android/Linux vs Windows); a parallel dynamic wasn't lost on anyone looking at the hardware/ISA side, phone or non-phone. I don't see this as any more foolish than Bill Gates making the case for software licensing vs free software at the dawn of the PC revolution. You may disagree with one party or the other, but each laying out their case is a marketing must. If you want to compete at the low end, you have to explain your value proposition vs "free".
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    And 40 years later, after FOSS folks thought to have won, everyone is going with open core, finally realising why businesses don't want anything to do with GPL like licensing. So anyone that thinks RISC-V isn't going to trail a similar path, is fooling themselves.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - snvzz 2y ago
      >everyone For some definition of everyone.
      - brucehoult 2y ago
        I'm not even sure what side he thinks he is on. RISC-V isn't an open core, it's an open specification of the interface (only) between hardware and software. And it's not GPL, it's CC-BY-4.0 (BSD/MIT-like).
- amelius 2y ago
  It's also a decent thing to do. In science it is actually expected behavior.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
phkahler 2y ago
None of those arguments have held up over the last 10 years. RISC-V has all of the things they say you need.
- musicale 2y ago
  Apple has a licensing deal with ARM through 2040, but they might get tired of the license fees at some point.
  - snvzz 2y ago
    Source?
    - bigyikes 2y ago
      GPT-4o retrieved this for me: https://www.macrumors.com/2023/09/06/apple-inks-new-deal-arm-chip-designer/ https://www.macrumors.com/2023/09/06/apple-inks-new-deal-arm...
      - snvzz 2y ago
        So, not a source. There's some claims in this article and in the routers article they use as source, but they're unrelated.
        klelatti 2y ago
        err... > ... we have entered into a new long-term agreement with Apple that extends beyond 2040, continuing our longstanding relationship of collaboration with Apple and Apple’s access to the Arm architecture. Arm's IPO F-1/A. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1973239/000119312523228059/d393891df1a.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1973239/000119312523... Which was linked in the MacRumors link.
        snvzz 2y ago
        Yes, I had seen that. >agreement and >access to the Arm architecture. Is vague language that could mean about anything. E.g. it could mean RAND ("reasonable" and "non-discriminatory"). Namely, the parent specifically claimed: >Apple has a licensing deal with ARM through 2040 The vague language is insufficient to support the claim.
calf 2y ago
Here's the 2014 conference debate between industry and academics that probably precipitated the exchange: "Proprietary versus Open Instruction Sets" https://www.ele.uri.edu/faculty/sendag/papers/micro2016_2.pdf https://www.ele.uri.edu/faculty/sendag/papers/micro2016_2.pd... (pdf) --4th Workshop on Computer Architecture Research Directions, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7542457 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7542457 Mark D. Hill; Dave Christie; David Patterson; Joshua J. Yi; Derek Chiou; Resit Sendag And 2015 full video recording of the debate between Patterson and Christie: "CARD 2015 Mini-Panel #1: Open Source versus Proprietary ISAs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=novCbl4Wq3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=novCbl4Wq3I
zik 2y ago
It's such an obvious hit piece by a competitor where many of the arguments boil down to essentially "they did it differently to us and hence they're wrong".
- musicale 2y ago
  The main argument may be "we want to keep making money."

snvzz 2y ago

It is appalling how stupid whoever at ARM must have been, to respond and thus bring attention to RISC-V. Back then, RISC-V was not anywhere as well-known as it is today.

pavlov 2y ago
Sort of like when Ballmer-era Microsoft declared war on Linux and GPL.
gregw2 2y ago
Stupid?! The type of reader paying $500/year for the Microprocessor Report (where this response article appeared) already knew. (Similarly if they were motivated to get it free or took time to read it through their university, company, pirate it, etc.) And the ARM response you'll didn't mention RISC-V by name specifically. The notion of an open source entity building an open or semi-open ecosystem cannibalizing even a low-end player was already happening in phone operating systems (Android/Linux vs Windows); a parallel dynamic wasn't lost on anyone looking at the hardware/ISA side, phone or non-phone. I don't see this as any more foolish than Bill Gates making the case for software licensing vs free software at the dawn of the PC revolution. You may disagree with one party or the other, but each laying out their case is a marketing must. If you want to compete at the low end, you have to explain your value proposition vs "free".
- pjmlp 2y ago
  And 40 years later, after FOSS folks thought to have won, everyone is going with open core, finally realising why businesses don't want anything to do with GPL like licensing. So anyone that thinks RISC-V isn't going to trail a similar path, is fooling themselves.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - snvzz 2y ago
    >everyone For some definition of everyone.
    - brucehoult 2y ago
      I'm not even sure what side he thinks he is on. RISC-V isn't an open core, it's an open specification of the interface (only) between hardware and software. And it's not GPL, it's CC-BY-4.0 (BSD/MIT-like).
amelius 2y ago
It's also a decent thing to do. In science it is actually expected behavior.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

phkahler 2y ago

None of those arguments have held up over the last 10 years. RISC-V has all of the things they say you need.

musicale 2y ago
Apple has a licensing deal with ARM through 2040, but they might get tired of the license fees at some point.
- snvzz 2y ago
  Source?
  - bigyikes 2y ago
    GPT-4o retrieved this for me: https://www.macrumors.com/2023/09/06/apple-inks-new-deal-arm-chip-designer/ https://www.macrumors.com/2023/09/06/apple-inks-new-deal-arm...
    - snvzz 2y ago
      So, not a source. There's some claims in this article and in the routers article they use as source, but they're unrelated.
      - klelatti 2y ago
        err... > ... we have entered into a new long-term agreement with Apple that extends beyond 2040, continuing our longstanding relationship of collaboration with Apple and Apple’s access to the Arm architecture. Arm's IPO F-1/A. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1973239/000119312523228059/d393891df1a.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1973239/000119312523... Which was linked in the MacRumors link.
        snvzz 2y ago
        Yes, I had seen that. >agreement and >access to the Arm architecture. Is vague language that could mean about anything. E.g. it could mean RAND ("reasonable" and "non-discriminatory"). Namely, the parent specifically claimed: >Apple has a licensing deal with ARM through 2040 The vague language is insufficient to support the claim.

calf 2y ago

Here's the 2014 conference debate between industry and academics that probably precipitated the exchange: "Proprietary versus Open Instruction Sets" https://www.ele.uri.edu/faculty/sendag/papers/micro2016_2.pdf https://www.ele.uri.edu/faculty/sendag/papers/micro2016_2.pd... (pdf) --4th Workshop on Computer Architecture Research Directions, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7542457 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7542457 Mark D. Hill; Dave Christie; David Patterson; Joshua J. Yi; Derek Chiou; Resit Sendag And 2015 full video recording of the debate between Patterson and Christie: "CARD 2015 Mini-Panel #1: Open Source versus Proprietary ISAs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=novCbl4Wq3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=novCbl4Wq3I

zik 2y ago

It's such an obvious hit piece by a competitor where many of the arguments boil down to essentially "they did it differently to us and hence they're wrong".

musicale 2y ago
The main argument may be "we want to keep making money."