[HN Gopher] Qualcomm wants to buy ARM and it may need Samsung's ...
___________________________________________________________________
Qualcomm wants to buy ARM and it may need Samsung's help
Author : walterbell
Score : 45 points
Date : 2022-06-05 03:26 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.sammobile.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.sammobile.com)
| raverbashing wrote:
| So is this going to be like the Java purchase where nobody sees
| the value in the thing until someone comes and turns it into a
| cash cow?
| bcit-cst wrote:
| Is Java a cash cow for oracle?
| hirako2000 wrote:
| It won't last long but yes. Recent anecdote, we purchases 1
| or 2 years of licenses for the oracle JVM across thousands of
| hosts to give us time to migrate "properly and safely" to
| openJDK. Migration has very high man power and risks costs,
| Oracle knew it very well before their purchase of Sun.
| diogenescynic wrote:
| Qualcomm is a glorified patent troll, so this would not be great.
| newsclues wrote:
| Seems like a good candidate for an international consortium of
| industry and government to acquire ARM .
| rektide wrote:
| I'd prefer Nvidia, were I forced to pick a torture to endure.
|
| See: "Qualcomm shook down the cell phone industry for almost 20
| years"[1] (and then the 9th District let em them away with it,
| the dogs!).
|
| [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/how-qualcomm-
| sho... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31557324 (251 points,
| 3 days ago, 125 comments)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20055517 (528points, 3 years
| ago, 300 comments).
| amelius wrote:
| Does it matter which company, though, given that they are run
| by humans who might change jobs or retire?
|
| And isn't greed what drives most non-technical upper-management
| folks, because "greed" is what they are hired for?
| stormbrew wrote:
| "All companies are greedy so all choices are pointless" is a
| pretty nihilistic perspective. Do you really think every
| company engages in all the same practices that are
| identically detrimental to the commons? I'm almost as far
| from a fan of capitalism as you can get and even I don't
| think that.
| sfe22 wrote:
| You somehow believe that having only one corporation will
| yield better results for the society, instead of many
| companies competing in a free market? (Where you can also
| compete if you think your better)
| stormbrew wrote:
| I'm having trouble seeing how you got from my post to
| this question, so I'm really not sure how to answer it.
| sfe22 wrote:
| You said you are far from being fan of capitalism. Free
| market means as many companies as needed. The opposite is
| one company only controlling everything, most commonly
| irl in form of communism.
| stormbrew wrote:
| The opposite of a vacuum is the center of a black hole,
| and yet we manage to live in neither.
|
| At any rate a deeper conversation about this would go
| pretty far off topic, so I'm going to leave your strawmen
| and conflation of several different ideas and axes into
| one binary choice alone.
| sfe22 wrote:
| Yeah that's why i said believe in. Whether you tend to
| believe if fewer is better, or more is better. To me it
| seemed like you belong to the former, and thats why i
| made a specific question which you are actively avoiding
| answering.
| hirako2000 wrote:
| His point is rather that given competition allows certain
| for profit enterprises to do more right than others hence
| giving us choice we better make use of to let/get the
| greedy fringe (or majority of them) out.
| sfe22 wrote:
| I have no problem with that. My response was in his
| statement that he does not believe in free markets.
| stormbrew wrote:
| Not a he or him, thanks.
| sfe22 wrote:
| Sure thing. You are just as welcome.
| mlyle wrote:
| > Does it matter which company, though, given that they are
| run by humans who might change jobs or retire?
|
| Eh, if you have an existing big organizational apparatus
| built around IP extortion... you may be more of a danger than
| someone else who'd need to tool up.
| akira2501 wrote:
| Yes, because companies can "own" property. The fact that
| humans change jobs or retire inside one has no impact on
| this.
|
| Greed may be what they are selected for, but I don't think
| it's necessarily obvious that's what drives them. It's also
| not necessarily obvious that this is the most robust
| mechanism to achieving sustained success.
| smoldesu wrote:
| FWIW, greed is what drives ARM right now anyways. People seem
| to forget that ARM is not a community-owned endeavor.
| mlyle wrote:
| There's different business models behind greed, though.
|
| You can be an innovator running a license business, with a
| "friendly" stance towards licensees as you work to grow a
| massive market. ARM's mostly played this game.
|
| Or, you can be a rent-seeking, litigation-happy shop that
| seeks to acquire many types of IP to force all market
| participants to license from you; unilaterally determine
| payments based on ability to pay; and threaten to tie up
| indefinitely in litigation anyone who doesn't pay the
| extortion. This has been Qualcomm's bread and butter.
|
| Or, anywhere inbetween.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I don't really think there's much of a difference,
| contextually. ARM still collects rent, and most of their
| "innovation" is contributed by their licencees. Pretty
| much the only thing ARM can peddle at this point is their
| core designs and ISA, and both of those things are
| starting to show their age now. Maybe 10 years ago ARM
| had a "friendly" stance towards their customer base, but
| nowadays they're frankly no better than Qualcomm. If you
| want to make a usable ARM computer today, you need to
| have ISA extensions out-of-the-box and _probably_ design
| your own cores unless you want to saddle your customers
| with 8x M53 's.
|
| I agree that not all of these companies are equal, but
| ARM right now reminds me of Intel in 2016. You can only
| rest on your laurels for so long, sufficiently motivated
| competitors will be sure to remind you again and again.
| mlyle wrote:
| > Maybe 10 years ago ARM had a "friendly" stance towards
| their customer base, but nowadays they're frankly no
| better than Qualcomm.
|
| I'm sick of this kind of comparison, like I detail here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31578523
|
| Qualcomm systematically shook down everyone in entire
| industries with a web of technologies, threatening "well,
| even if you didn't use ____, you'll also violate ____ and
| ____. And, we'll cut off your access to important chips
| in ___, ___ ,and ___."
|
| Between the two, ARM is an _absolute pleasure to work
| with_.
|
| > If you want to make a usable ARM computer today, you
| need to have ISA extensions out-of-the-box and probably
| design your own cores
|
| Samsung just moved from proprietary cores in flagships to
| Cortex-X + A710 + A510. Ditto for Snapdragon 8. Graviton
| is using ARM Neoverse-N1/N2. Actual cores from ARM proper
| are a bigger share of usage than almost anytime before,
| with Apple being the main remaining exception.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I think we'll have to agree to disagree, then. I don't
| think your other comment was right either: people
| typically give Apple more scrutiny because
|
| A. they are the larger company
|
| and
|
| B. they have much more of our personal data than Meta
| does
|
| In this case, I think the comparison is apt because the
| only thing that matters is if the current IP owners are
| abusing their power. In this case, I think ARM and
| Qualcomm would wind up to be about equally as tyrannical.
| If you think ARM's slate is clean, you should read into
| the neverending drama that is ARM China. Nobody is
| necessarily good here.
| mlyle wrote:
| > If you think ARM's slate is clean, you should read into
| the neverending drama that is ARM China. Nobody is
| necessarily good here.
|
| I don't understand how having a regional subsidiary going
| off the rails on their own has anything to do with the
| typical experience of a licensee.
| klelatti wrote:
| > Pretty much the only thing ARM can peddle at this point
| is their core designs and ISA, and both of those things
| are starting to show their age now.
|
| Not sure what else you expect Arm to be 'peddling' given
| this is and basically always has been their business.
| Shadonototra wrote:
| I hope not, Qualcomm's strategy is to stagnate with inefficient
| chips
|
| I was hoping Apple would buy them or AMD
|
| With Qualcomm, ARM will die
| wyldfire wrote:
| > Qualcomm's strategy is to stagnate with inefficient chips
|
| What do you mean? Seems like they're constantly trying to catch
| up with Apple's chips.
| Shadonototra wrote:
| countless number of chips, no significant improvements over
| the generations and expensive af
|
| and since Apple M1 came out 2 years ago, they are still
| unable to offer equivalent
| Moral_ wrote:
| Well they just purchased Nuvia and are expected to ship
| Nuvia based cores in 2023 so we should see if they've
| caught up.
| wyldfire wrote:
| > and since Apple M1 came out 2 years ago, they are still
| unable to offer equivalent
|
| The fact that they can't keep up with their big competitor
| doesn't seem like evidence that they deliberately want
| things to stagnate.
|
| IIRC Apple is an architectural licensee but Qualcomm is not
| (though they were ~6 years ago). Back in the day,
| Qualcomm's designs were probably more competitive than the
| reference ones are today.
|
| Disclosure: I'm a Qualcomm employee.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > I was hoping Apple would buy them
|
| God I hope not. Apple would try to prevent everyone else in the
| industry from using ARM IP and would lead to either a schism in
| ARM architectures or everyone jumping on something else (maybe
| that's what would get RISC-V to take off?).
| petre wrote:
| > maybe that's what would get RISC-V to take off?
|
| Export controls to China alone will do it.
| Shadonototra wrote:
| Why would they? they would face backslash and probably an
| investigation
|
| I'd hope they contribute for a better ARM ecosystem for
| everyone using their experience crafting M1
| samwillis wrote:
| Apple have a perpetual architecture license from ARM, and
| having significantly expanded from it they have no reason to
| purchase ARM (other than to be anticompetitive)
| tester756 wrote:
| Why ARM company is this important?
| dcchambers wrote:
| ELI5: After the Nvidia deal fell through, why does Qualcomm think
| they have a shot? What makes them different in the eyes of US
| regulators? I'd argue they're business is more monopolistic than
| Nvidia.
| [deleted]
| panda88888 wrote:
| Don't think this will ever fly. According to [^0] Qualcomm has
| 38% of the Mobile AP (application processor) market including
| apple, which is mostly if not all ARM. Exclude apple (they don't
| sell chips), and it is 50%.
|
| [^0] https://news.strategyanalytics.com/press-releases/press-
| rele...
| ksec wrote:
| ARM's IP is much broader than just Mobile AP.
|
| It is also worth pointing out the percentage you quote is
| Revenue Share, not unit volume. Qualcomm's AP business isn't
| exactly in as good position as many think it is.
| bediger4000 wrote:
| The current antitrust doctrine is immediate harm to consumers.
| Apparently only 1 quarter of lower prices is enough to decide
| no harm. I don't think antitrust prevents this.
| ljhsiung wrote:
| Title is pretty out of context. From TFA
|
| > Qualcomm would be interested in forming a consortium of sorts
| to acquire ARM. "We're an interested party in investing,"
|
| Relatedly, the CEO has mentioned that ARM going public would make
| him buy a bunch of shares, given his faith in the continued
| success of ARM. As is the case of any "bull case".
|
| Forming a consortium or buying public shares is not, as the title
| implies, a singular company buying ARM.
| Juicyy wrote:
| Why dont they go public? after the nvidia fell through i cant
| imagine qualcomm acquiring them. It seems like ARM is in a
| really strong position for the next decade or two. Would be an
| instant BUY rating by most brokers IMO.
| kd913 wrote:
| >It seems like ARM is in a really strong position for the
| next decade or two.
|
| What? They just had a massive layoff which culled 15% of
| their staff?
|
| In this climate, no way in hell they would be rated as an
| instant buy.
|
| Their revenue growth and revenues in general are tiny what
| $2.8 billion, and mostly restricted to licensing/royalties.
|
| They were gonna be bought by nvidia for what 40-60 billion
| dollars?
|
| They are also competing in the space with massive players a
| la Nvidia, AMD, Intel who are looking to eat their lunch.
|
| The landscape is shifting by adopting the Big Little
| structure, adding more core counts, and a much bigger
| prioritization towards dedicated accelerator offload cards.
| Not to mention an increase in prioritization to RISC V.
|
| I wouldn't put them as an instant BUY.
| infinityio wrote:
| Definitely for the next few years, but who knows - RISC-V is
| catching up scarily fast from what I can tell
| iainmerrick wrote:
| Where is RISC-V being used? Do they have some notable
| recent design wins?
| mlyle wrote:
| For the most part, RISC-V is being crammed into SOCs for
| low-end functionality where you'd have to pay ARM a
| license fee. There's a massive technical alliance with
| thousands of members and many such SOCs being made.
|
| Wins in SOCs are things like Google's Titan M2 in Pixel
| 6, or inside various Seagate storage ASICs-- or NVIDIA's
| stated intent to replace the Falcon controller CPU in all
| of their products with RISC-V.
|
| Yes, it's just a few percent of the embedded processor
| market, and all the current microcontroller use is very
| low end right now.
| xxpor wrote:
| Isn't NVIDIA's new firmware controller chip on their
| cards (the one that allows you to use the new open source
| linux drivers) RISC-V as well?
| mlyle wrote:
| Yes-- that's the Falcon / now NV-RISCV.
| https://www.techpowerup.com/291088/nvidia-unlocks-gpu-
| system...
|
| Of course, if NVIDIA ever does actually acquire ARM, that
| might change architectures again.
| nazgulsenpai wrote:
| Not sure why you're being downvoted for asking a reasonable
| question but yes, I do think going public would probably be a
| bad end and shift focus toward immediate returns for
| shareholders.
| Sakos wrote:
| Please no. Publicly trading companies creates one of the
| worst incentives for poor long-term business decisions. ARM
| is the kind of company that we can't as a society afford to
| become short-term profit oriented.
| eqvinox wrote:
| Depending on the participants and mechanics, a consortium could
| actually be the best long-term outcome, in regards to ARM.
|
| (I'd still rather not have Qualcomm and their "business(tm)
| practices" involved...)
| pharmakom wrote:
| Can someone explain why instruction sets are not open and free to
| use?
|
| Feels like paying for a programming language (from a software
| guy's perspective)
| eshch wrote:
| once noone replies, i'll share my understanding, but i didn't
| have any experience with that i think because they can (demand
| money from anyone due to intellectual property).
|
| i'm not sure if anyone have challenged it. or i may be wrong
| and basically they can enforce their demands based on usage of
| their brand only. or noone really has needed that, because
| everyone is happy to collaborate with the arm company in some
| other areas besides licensing, so this very fee is nothing for
| them.
| adventured wrote:
| If you were ARM's competitors, and or otherwise wanted to see ARM
| weakened to open up supposed market opportunities, one of the
| best ways to do it would be to form a consortium ownership, in
| which ARM will suffocate. The added bureaucracy and distractions
| will damage ARM, it stands zero chance of coming back out of that
| arrangement as good of a company as it was going in (the group
| will endlessly bicker, as it erodes operationally they'll begin
| discussing changing the ownership arrangement, as some of the
| owners will want it to actually succeed - that move will come too
| late to matter much).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-05 23:02 UTC)