6 ms·

Qualcomm RISCs, Arm Pulls: The Legal Battle for the Future of Client Computing

55 points by chmaynard 2y ago

ksec 2y ago
I doubt HN is interested in reading this. Especially half of the post are materials against Qualcomm.
- bunnie 2y ago
  I found it useful, so I'm glad I found it here.
- vkazanov 2y ago
  This is a great article explaining the reasoning of both sides of the battle. And it is a very important turning point: riscv getting traction, desktop and mobile arms everywhere, x86 crisis in general.
- aleph_minus_one 2y ago
  > I doubt HN is interested in reading this. Especially half of the post are materials against Qualcomm. Considering Qualcomm's business practices of the past, I would rather consider the material against Qualcomm to be beloved by a significant fraction of the HN readers. :-)
  - ksec 2y ago
    You would expect that. Except 99% of comments on the subject has been practically speaking "ARM is dead". ARM shouldn't sue Qualcomm.
    - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
      Of course it seems that this hardball behaviour from ARM is likely a bad idea concerning its long-term business perspective, but I guess there is a significant group of people on HN which wouldn't be too sad about that because they hope this way RISC-V (which they love) becomes more widely used.
      - snvzz 2y ago
        This is not wrong. If it helps RISC-V, it really is for the greater good.
        wqaatwt 2y ago
        And if it helps RISC-V it helps China so.. even greater, greater good.
- kjs3 2y ago
  Speak for yourself. If 'HN' doesn't want to read it, that's what downvoting is for. What makes Qualcomm somehow sacrosanct and immune from analysis or critique?
  - ksec 2y ago
    >What makes Qualcomm somehow sacrosanct and immune from analysis or critique? None of what was written is new. And it is not Qualcomm is immune to analysis. It is the other way around. Any evidence that benefits ARM and harm Qualcomm in this case has been completely ignored on HN.
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      > Any evidence that benefits ARM and harm Qualcomm in this case has been completely ignored on HN. This feels like beating around the bush. Can you give examples or citations of “evidence that benefits ARM and harm[s] Qualcomm,” so that we on HN may avoid completely ignoring it? Otherwise it feels like we’re doomed to tilt at windmills in your view, but we have no way of knowing how to disabuse ourselves of notions you only vaguely gesture at.
hiatus 2y ago
Only half of this article is free, the other is paid.
mrandish 2y ago
So the ARM v. Qualcomm litigation and the business moves preceding it seem to basically be hardball license contract negotiation via lawsuit. Qualcomm is by far ARM's largest customer and the ARM license is fundamental to Qualcomm's CPUs. Neither can really afford to live without the other but for both, significant business and strategic value is tied to getting more per core (ARM) or paying less per core (Qualcomm). I suspect that eventually they'll end up settling with each other once the court case gets to a point that narrows the probable range of the outcome (thus creating the approximate upper and lower boundaries to negotiate within).
- klelatti 2y ago
  I think I would rather characterise it as hardball action by Qualcomm that got an expected response from Arm. The fact that Qualcomm told everyone except Arm in advance of the Nuvia deal is a tell. I think settlement is unlikely - we are two years into the lawsuit. Arm really doesn’t want Oryon cores dominating - I think independent of price - and Qualcomm probably feels it has little to lose. (I’m the author of this post)
- dmitrygr 2y ago
  > Neither can really afford to live without the other I imagine that ARM without QCOM will be totally fine. Rockchip is happy to take the low end, MTK will take the middle, AAPL already owns the high end.
  - snvzz 2y ago
    Which "end" is taken by whom does little to explain how ARM will be alright after losing its largest client. Particularly, as it would mean that client would likely switch to RISC-V entirely, thus further accelerating that ecosystem. Which no doubt would hurt ARM.
    - wqaatwt 2y ago
      It would take years for Qualcomm to catch up. They’d be in a much worse than for example Intel is in now. By the time they had a competitive RISC-V core (just look at how lo no it took them to ship Oryon and it would be much harder) Qualcomm would be either bankrupt of sold for parts.

55 points by chmaynard 2y ago

ksec 2y ago

I doubt HN is interested in reading this. Especially half of the post are materials against Qualcomm.

bunnie 2y ago
I found it useful, so I'm glad I found it here.
vkazanov 2y ago
This is a great article explaining the reasoning of both sides of the battle. And it is a very important turning point: riscv getting traction, desktop and mobile arms everywhere, x86 crisis in general.
aleph_minus_one 2y ago
> I doubt HN is interested in reading this. Especially half of the post are materials against Qualcomm. Considering Qualcomm's business practices of the past, I would rather consider the material against Qualcomm to be beloved by a significant fraction of the HN readers. :-)
- ksec 2y ago
  You would expect that. Except 99% of comments on the subject has been practically speaking "ARM is dead". ARM shouldn't sue Qualcomm.
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    Of course it seems that this hardball behaviour from ARM is likely a bad idea concerning its long-term business perspective, but I guess there is a significant group of people on HN which wouldn't be too sad about that because they hope this way RISC-V (which they love) becomes more widely used.
    - snvzz 2y ago
      This is not wrong. If it helps RISC-V, it really is for the greater good.
      - wqaatwt 2y ago
        And if it helps RISC-V it helps China so.. even greater, greater good.
kjs3 2y ago
Speak for yourself. If 'HN' doesn't want to read it, that's what downvoting is for. What makes Qualcomm somehow sacrosanct and immune from analysis or critique?
- ksec 2y ago
  >What makes Qualcomm somehow sacrosanct and immune from analysis or critique? None of what was written is new. And it is not Qualcomm is immune to analysis. It is the other way around. Any evidence that benefits ARM and harm Qualcomm in this case has been completely ignored on HN.
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    > Any evidence that benefits ARM and harm Qualcomm in this case has been completely ignored on HN. This feels like beating around the bush. Can you give examples or citations of “evidence that benefits ARM and harm[s] Qualcomm,” so that we on HN may avoid completely ignoring it? Otherwise it feels like we’re doomed to tilt at windmills in your view, but we have no way of knowing how to disabuse ourselves of notions you only vaguely gesture at.

hiatus 2y ago

Only half of this article is free, the other is paid.

mrandish 2y ago

So the ARM v. Qualcomm litigation and the business moves preceding it seem to basically be hardball license contract negotiation via lawsuit. Qualcomm is by far ARM's largest customer and the ARM license is fundamental to Qualcomm's CPUs. Neither can really afford to live without the other but for both, significant business and strategic value is tied to getting more per core (ARM) or paying less per core (Qualcomm). I suspect that eventually they'll end up settling with each other once the court case gets to a point that narrows the probable range of the outcome (thus creating the approximate upper and lower boundaries to negotiate within).

klelatti 2y ago
I think I would rather characterise it as hardball action by Qualcomm that got an expected response from Arm. The fact that Qualcomm told everyone except Arm in advance of the Nuvia deal is a tell. I think settlement is unlikely - we are two years into the lawsuit. Arm really doesn’t want Oryon cores dominating - I think independent of price - and Qualcomm probably feels it has little to lose. (I’m the author of this post)
dmitrygr 2y ago
> Neither can really afford to live without the other I imagine that ARM without QCOM will be totally fine. Rockchip is happy to take the low end, MTK will take the middle, AAPL already owns the high end.
- snvzz 2y ago
  Which "end" is taken by whom does little to explain how ARM will be alright after losing its largest client. Particularly, as it would mean that client would likely switch to RISC-V entirely, thus further accelerating that ecosystem. Which no doubt would hurt ARM.
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    It would take years for Qualcomm to catch up. They’d be in a much worse than for example Intel is in now. By the time they had a competitive RISC-V core (just look at how lo no it took them to ship Oryon and it would be much harder) Qualcomm would be either bankrupt of sold for parts.