Oh no, not copilot!
Anyway…
Folks, grab your popcorn.
God, I know exactly the sketch
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.
Hopefully Qualcomm takes the hint and takes this opportunity to develop a high performance RISC V core. Don’t just give the extortionists more money, break free and use an open standard. Instruction sets shouldn’t even require licensing to begin with if APIs aren’t copyrightable. Why is it OK to make your own implentation of any software API (see Oracle vs. Google on the Java API, Wine implementing the Windows API, etc) but not OK to do the same thing with an instruction set (which is just a hardware API). Why is writing an ARM or x86 emulator fine but not making your own chip? Why are FPGA emulator systems legal if instruction sets are protected? It makes no sense.
The other acceptable outcome here is a Qualcomm vs. ARM lawsuit that sets a precedence that instruction sets are not protected. If they want to copyright their own cores and sell the core design fine, but Qualcomm is making their own in house designs here.
Saying an ISA is just a hardware API vastly oversimplifies what an architecture is. There is way more to it than just the instruction set, because you can’t have an instruction set without also defining the numbers and types of registers, the mapping of memory and how the CPU interacts with it, the input/output model for the system, and a bunch of other features like virtual memory, addressing modes etc. Just to give an idea, the ARM reference is 850 pages long.
APIs can be complex too. Look at how much stuff the Win32 API provides from all the kernel calls, defined data structures/types, libraries, etc. I would venture a guess that if you documented the Win32 API including all the needed system libraries to make something like Wine, it would also be 850 pages long. The fact remains that a documented prototype for a software implementation is free to reimplement but a documented prototype for a hardware implementation requires a license. This makes no sense from a fairness perspective. I’m fine with ARM not giving away their fully developed IP cores which are actual implementations of the ARM instruction set, but locking third parties from making their own compatible designs without a license is horribly anticompetitive. I wish standards organizations still had power. Letting corporations own de-facto “standards” is awful for everyone.
Simping for Qualcomm is definitely not a take i expected
In the mobile Linux scene, Qualcomm chips are some of the best supported ones. I don’t love everything Qualcomm does, but the Snapdragon 845 makes for a great Linux phone and has open source drivers for most of the stack (little thanks to Qualcomm themselves).
Qualcomm is one of the worst monopolists in any industry though. They are widely known to have a stranglehold on all mobile device development
takes this opportunity to develop a high performance RISC V core
They might. This would never be open sourced though. Best case scenario is the boost they would provide to the ISA as a whole by having a company as big as Qualcomm backing it.
RISC V is just an open standard set of instructions and their encodings. It is not expected nor required for implementations of RISC V to be open sourced, but if they do make a RISC V chip they don’t have to pay anyone to have that privilege and the chip will be compatible with other RISC V chips because it is an open and standardized instruction set. That’s the point. Qualcomm pays ARM to make their own chip designs that implement the ARM instruction set, they aren’t paying for off the shelf ARM designs like most ARM chip companies do.
The RISCV instruction set IS open source. What they’d do to ratfuck it is lock the bootloader or something.
BUT Imagine if it was open sourced. God, Gods, by the nine, would be heaven.
If Qualcomm released a FOSS RISC-V IP core that would’ve required spending multiple millions on hardware engineer salaries (no chance in hell), I would:
- Spontaneously ejaculate
- Pull out my FPGA
Don’t just give the extortionists more money
Or maybe they were just trying to pay a lot less money, and then they got caught at their little trick.
Do you know how much money you have to pay to make a RISC V chip? Even less than that, since it’s free
Development is never free, especially, if you have to build new knowhow and can not build upon the one they have built at development of ARM chips.
If it’s that’s easy / cheap then why have they not?
This is a big ol’ game of bluff from both sides. So, according to you, Qualcomm should call their bluff?
They would need a new core design
Wonder how long that’d take, hmm?
By that logic every company would just run on linux. Free to use ≠ free to implement and support.
You have not read the article.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is this somewhat related why qualcomm suddenly decided to bring oryon to smartphones?
Yes, absolutely related. This fight started because Qualcomm bought Nuvia and started using their designs (and their ARM license for those designs). This recent escalation is almost certainly because Qualcomm is about to bring Oryon, which was designed by Nuvia, to smartphones.
Read this article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/arm-to-cancel-qualcomm-chip-design-license-in-escalation-of-feud/ar-AA1sK49J
Geez, that is some stupid situation, I kinda got excited with oryon going on android since it is their only ip that is currently being opensourced.
IDK man but my tinfoil hat says that apple are the one who is pulling the strings on arm with regards to this.
And so the corporate wars have begun
I saw this documentary where taco bell won them.
KFC / Pizza Hut / Taco Bell – the only restaurant you need!
Only in the US. In Europe, Pizza Hut won.
Syndicate was fun but I didn’t want to LIVE inside of it…
Not enough miniguns yet.
I liked the puntastic writing. Qualcomm smh
I guess they will have to make x86 work
Qualcomm, x86-64?
Intel and AMD aren’t going to give them the go-ahead for that lol
They cannot veto it. The patents for x86-64 and SSE2 lapse next year. The only say they have is on extension newer than these two.
And we all wept.
Go RISC-V phones please!! Omg. I really hope RISC-V goes mainstream because of this.
Let’s wait and see how this develops…
RiscV! RiscV!
I’m hoping for a nice warm x86_64 phone.
IA64 phones would have been pretty hot too!
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.
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.
I’m just being a little pedantic. But I believe you meant x64?
They did, AMD holds the x64 license, Intel holds the x86.
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.
x86_64
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.
I hope this isn’t a cartoony scheme driven by Apple honeydicking Arm with the M-series processors to tank PC and Android.
Arm owner softbank wants more mulah, want line goes up.
Qualcomm thinks this is not allowed in their license contract.
Without having read the contract, I think Qualcomm has a strong case, seams arm wants this to be settled before court in December. Qualcomm also thinks they have a strong case, so they say let the courts begin.
But it doesn’t matter if it’s an American court, because Qualcomm is American, softbank is Asian, arm is European. So, you have home turf advantage
So typical capitalism horseshit.
thanks, proprietary licenses.
can we finally move to open standards now or will these fucks keep on losing money just to spite foss?
Laughs in OpenPOWER
