• mako@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    137
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 天前

    This will get RISC-V probably a big boost. Maybe this was not the smartest move for ARMs long term future. But slapping Qualcomm is always a good idea, its just such a shitty company.

    • dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      10 天前

      True, I just wished RISCV laptops were slightly more developed and available. As of now, the specs aren’t there yet in those devices that are available. (8core@2Ghz, but only 16GB Ram, too little for me)

      Kind of a bummer, was coming up to a work laptop upgrade soon and was carefully watching the Linux support for Snapdragon X because I can’t bring myself to deal with Apple shenanigans, but like the idea of performance and efficiency. The caution with which I approached it stems from my “I don’t really believe a fucking thing Qualcomm Marketing says” mentality, and it seems holding off and watching was the right call. Oh well, x86 for another cycle, I guess.

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 天前

      You are overestimating RISC-V. It cannot save the planet alone.

      ARM provides complete chip designs.

      RISC-V is more like an API, and then you still need to design your chips behind it.

      • ilmagico@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        10 天前

        I could be wrong, but I think Qualcomm designs its own chips and only licenses the “API”, so it would be no difference for them.

        • falkerie71@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          10 天前

          If they use Cortex cores, they are ARM designs. Oryon cores are in house based on Nuvia designs, and I assume it would still require a complete chip redesign if they decide to switch to RISC-V.

        • LiPoly@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          10 天前

          From my understanding, most companies take the reference design from Arm and then alter it to fit their needs.

          • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            10 天前

            That’s a big part of what’s going on. ARM is trying to move into Qualcomm’s traditional business while Qualcomm is trying to move in ARM’s traditional business.

            "Under Chief Executive Officer Rene Haas, Arm has shifted to offering more complete designs — ones that companies can take directly to contract manufacturers. Haas believes that his company, still majority owned by Japan’s SoftBank Group Corp., should be rewarded more for the engineering work it does. That shift encroaches on the business of Arm’s traditional customers, like Qualcomm, who use Arm’s technology in their own final chip designs.

            Meanwhile, under CEO Cristiano Amon, Qualcomm is moving away from using Arm designs and is prioritizing its own work, something that potentially makes it a less lucrative customer for Arm. He’s also expanding into new areas, most notably computing, where Arm is making its own push. But the two companies’ technologies remain intertwined, and Qualcomm isn’t yet in a position to make a clean break from Arm."

            https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/arm-to-cancel-qualcomm-chip-design-license-in-escalation-of-feud/ar-AA1sK49J

            • LiPoly@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              10 天前

              Interesting. So essentially Arm is butthurt that Qualcomm doesn’t want to send them a shitload of money and instead tries to do their own thing, so Arm is trying to force them into buying their product regardless?

      • mako@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 天前

        Of course i will still take RISC-V a long time to be even relevant. But in the future there could be multiple Companies that offer finished chip designs to use. As you said not every company wants and can create a design themself.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 天前

      I’ll wait and see. RISC-V is a nice idea, but there are way too many different “standards” to make it a viable ecosystem.

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 天前

    With the understanding that both of these are publicly traded multi-billion-dollar corporations and therefore neither should be trusted (albeit Arm Holdings has about 1/10 of the net assets), I feel like I distrust Arm less on this one than whatever Qualcomm is doing on their coke-fueled race to capitalize on the AI bubble.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 天前

      What does trust have to do with anything? I mean, they seem to be arguing because Qualcomm bought a separate licensor and ARM argues that requires a contract renegotiation. This is the least take sides-y legal dispute in the history of legal disputes.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 天前

        What does trust have to do with anything?

        The fact that I’m not a legal expert who’s read the relevant portion of the existing contract? Like what Arm says seems reasonable, but at the end of the day, I have nothing definitive to go on.

        • MudMan@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 天前

          Oh, no, I agree, what I’m saying is you don’t need to trust anybody here. Not everything is a sport, you can see this happen and not root for anybody. It’s a complex legal problem that likely flies over everybody’s heads without reading all the relevant communications. It’s not a take sides, trust-based thing.

      • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        10 天前

        the fact that you know they fucked up but don’t know how they fixed it says it all.

        even if they did “fix” it, public opinion has been settled and nobody will trust them for awhile.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 天前

        Yeah, iirc, at first they tried to downplay the change, then they paused it, then they walked it back entirely. I think that last step happened relatively recently, even.

        But IMO the damage was done from just trying to alter the deal like that.

        And, for me personally, I (naively) thought that ARM was an open standard. I opposed the Nvidia purchase because I thought they would do their corporate bullshit to kill off competition or for greed and thought that it getting blocked meant it would be free of corporate bullshit. This action makes it clear that it’s already got some of that going on and ARM has been mentally re-filed to a spot beside x86 and its derivatives.

        Though now I’m wondering if that’s the whole point. Do some shitty corporate stuff so that the next time someone wants to buy them out, there isn’t as much opposition and the current owners and C-suite can cash out.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 天前

    The amount of IP money grubbing in the IT industry is able to literally make millions out of sand, this is just more of it.

  • irotsoma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 天前

    Tech patents are ridiculous. Let’s end them or reduce them to 1-3 years with no renewal. Then all that’s left is the specific copyright to the technology, not lingering webs of patents that don’t make any sense anyway to anyone with detailed knowledge of the tech. All they’re good for is big companies using legal methods to stop innovation and competition. Tech moves too fast for long patents and is too complex for patent examiners or courts to understand what is really patentable. So it comes down to who has the most money for lawyers.

    • cordlesslamp@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 天前

      Seeing things like “slide to unlock”, “rounded corners”, and “scroll bouncing” are all patentable is ridiculous.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 天前

      Yeah, but another big issue is that big companies can afford to bribe or buy out the patent holders in the first place. Ideally, the patent holders would benefit the most from everyone making their tech, but instead they benefit the most from one company being the exclusive manufacturer and highest bidder.

      The act of an agreement asking a patent holder not to sell to other manufacturers in itself should be illegal.

      • irotsoma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 天前

        Yeah, making patents nontransferable would solve that. Ultimately, getting rid of most would be good, but if we have to keep them, then they should be dissolved if a company fails or is bought out because obviously the patent itself wasn’t enough to make a product that was viable. So everyone should get the chance to use the patent. The whole purpose of a patent vs keeping tech proprietary until the product is released was to benefit society once the patent expires. Otherwise, it makes more sense for companies to keep inventions secret if they aren’t just stockpiling them like they do now.

  • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    10 天前

    Part of the reason why when people were saying they wanted competition to unseat x86, I didn’t want it to be ARM based, because I knew 100% that ARM would jump in and do some shit to rake in more profit and negate all the potential cost savings to the consumer. As long as theres a single(or in the case of x86, essentially (but technically not) duopoly) that controls all the options for one of the options, then it’s not a good form of competition.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    10 天前

    We shall break into the desktop and laptop market! Let’s start by severing ties with one of the most successful companies to do that so far.

    • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 天前

      Nailed it. They know they have a leading chip in these designs now, the market is expanding, and whatever licensing fee was negotiated in the past needs to be revisited.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 天前

      ARM is mad because Qualcomm bought Nuvia (which had their own ARM license) and then started using Nuvia’s designs. ARM says that Qualcomm needs to renegotiate the license in order to use those designs.

      Normally ARM and Qualcomm would handle this fairly smoothly, the reason its not happening this time is because ARM and Qualcomm both have growth plans that are increasingly making them direct competitors.

  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 天前

    I wonder if their recent bid to take over Intel, is related.

    The irony would be very thik as Qualcomm played a big role in killing Intel’s 2010er efforts to enter the mobile sector.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      10 天前

      Qualcomm is not trying to take over Intel.

      Not only has it been denied by both parties, it would 100% not go ahead. Additionally, it would invalidate the x86 cross-licence that AMD and Intel have, meaning Intel would no longer be able to make modern x86 CPUs. Frankly it’s also somewhat doubtful Qualcomm wants to take Intel on.

      The rumour was likely someone trying to pump up the stock and sell.

      • Toes♀@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        10 天前

        I’m just being a little pedantic. But I believe you meant x64?

        Edit: x86_64 thanks guys

        • woelkchen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          10 天前

          X64 doesn’t exist. Microsoft used the label for Windows for a while to distinguish from IA64 (Itanium) and 32bit x86 editions of Windows but these days Microsoft moved mostly away from those labels and only uses them when talking about ARM.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            10 天前

            The x86 license itself doesn’t matter much anymore. Those patents expired a long time ago. Early x86_64 is held by AMD, but those patents are also expiring soon.

            There’s more advancements past that which are held by both Intel and AMD. You still can’t make a modern x86 CPU on your own. Soon, you’ll be able to make a CPU with an instruction set compatible with the first Athlon 64-bit processors, but that’s as far as it goes.