3 ms·

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

by ksec 2y ago

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.

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

by 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.