4 ms·
To add to what you said, I don't see any big issues with high-end prosessors and licenses. Anyone who spends $200 million to develop a completely new high-end
by u1hcw9nx 2mo ago
To add to what you said, I don't see any big issues with high-end prosessors and licenses.
Anyone who spends $200 million to develop a completely new high-end processor microarchitecture every 3 to 5 years is not going to complain about an ARM license too much. You get freedom with $$.
- LeFantome 2mo agoIf you got “freedom with $$”, there would have been no ARM/Qualcomm lawsuit.
- phire 2mo agoSoftbank and ARM managed to burn a lot of good-will with that bullshit (it is a bad sign when I'm siding with Qualcomm), and all for nothing as they lost that lawsuit. But is generally true that the $$ buys architecture licensees quite a bit of freedom. Not as much freedom as they would get with something open like RISC-V, as ARM have strict rules around private ISA extensions (like how Apple doesn't publicly document AMX). But that extra control is generally a good thing for the health of the wider ARM ecosystem.
- adgjlsfhk1 2mo agoThe really big problem is that $$ don't buy freedom, they buy freedom for your lawyers to talk with ARM's lawyers about what features you are allowed to build.
- lawyersuni 2mo ago[flagged]