NVIDIA Arm Deal Said to be Over According to Bloomberg

[z1n0x]

Well, there has been a lot of unsubstantiated claims about their performance, especially in terms of energy efficiency, but no proof has been provided. A single graph has been provided, using Geekbench...
I thought the laptop thing was further into the future, since that's obviously a different design. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but beyond churning out the chips, Qualcomm is also going to have to deliver an OS that can run on these chips and utilise the to their full potential.

As for the news, no one should be surprised.

 

[Xaled]

Sounds like someone should check again what a patent troll is.

Really? Why do you think Nvidia is desperately interested in this deal? Innovation?

 

[Steevo]

Really? Why do you think Nvidia is desperately interested in this deal? Innovation?

"Their customers ARE their competition"

Very deep meta level of thinking.

"They pay us to use our designs but design their OWN, thus they aren't using our services, but they still pay us"

This release sounds like frat boys after smoking weed the first time and explaining how their family pays for their life but they deserve it.

What's also rather bizarre, is that Arm is claiming Qualcomm is one of its competitors, despite Qualcomm being one of its licensees. On top of that, Arm also claims that "Architectural licensees do not use Arm's CPU designs. Arm architectural licensees create their own proprietary CPU designs using their own engineering teams", as part of their reasoning as to why its customers are their competitors


That or they are deep into the opium den and in the middle of a existential crisis while they wrote this.

 

[Xaled]

"Their customers ARE their competition"

Very deep meta level of thinking.

"They pay us to use our designs but design their OWN, thus they aren't using our services, but they still pay us"

This release sounds like frat boys after smoking weed the first time and explaining how their family pays for their life but they deserve it.

What's also rather bizarre, is that Arm is claiming Qualcomm is one of its competitors, despite Qualcomm being one of its licensees. On top of that, Arm also claims that "Architectural licensees do not use Arm's CPU designs. Arm architectural licensees create their own proprietary CPU designs using their own engineering teams", as part of their reasoning as to why its customers are their competitors


That or they are deep into the opium den and in the middle of a existential crisis while they wrote this.

Nvidia just promised them a big bribe, Nvidia is way much worse than a patent troll. They are the most ethicless business organization in the world now

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Nvidia ... are the most ethicless business organization in the world now

That statement is almost laughably false, "corporate ethics" being very nearly a contradiction in terms and all. At least they're trying to buy someone else's IP. Plenty of business organizations just steal it.

 

[Kapone33]

It's odd that Apple isn't being pointed out in the same way as Qualcomm though, although I guess the only reason for that is that Apple doesn't sell chips to anyone else than Apple.
I think part of it also has to do with Nuvia, as Qualcomm bought them and is working on server chips based on their ISA. However, so far, exactly zero chips have been released, which makes it vapourware.

Do you want Nvidia gimping your IOT fridge with a software update to get you to buy a new one?

 

[Vayra86]

Huang's new leather jacket:

Nvidia just promised them a big bribe, Nvidia is way much worse than a patent troll. They are the most ethicless business organization in the world now

No, that's Facebook. EURHM Meta. Sorry, Mark, stop sweating.

Really, you can stop now.

Hey!

 

[catulitechup]

Huang's new leather jacket:

View attachment 233909

no jacket for you this time huang

 

[R-T-B]

Really? Why do you think Nvidia is desperately interested in this deal? Innovation?

A patent troll does not develop tech.

"Their customers ARE their competition"

Very deep meta level of thinking.

"They pay us to use our designs but design their OWN, thus they aren't using our services, but they still pay us"

This release sounds like frat boys after smoking weed the first time and explaining how their family pays for their life but they deserve it.

What's also rather bizarre, is that Arm is claiming Qualcomm is one of its competitors, despite Qualcomm being one of its licensees. On top of that, Arm also claims that "Architectural licensees do not use Arm's CPU designs. Arm architectural licensees create their own proprietary CPU designs using their own engineering teams", as part of their reasoning as to why its customers are their competitors


That or they are deep into the opium den and in the middle of a existential crisis while they wrote this.

Again, you need to revisit the definition of a patent troll.

 

[bug]

Really? Why do you think Nvidia is desperately interested in this deal? Innovation?

I don't know any more than you do. Unlike you, I won't speculate.

 

[sith'ari]

I wonder who'd step up to the plate next if Nvidia does give up. Nvidia was the only one willing to deal with all the ARM internal issues that would have come with part of the agreement, including dealing with the rogue China branch.

I'd be tempted to say Elon/Tesla, if only to try and develop more ARM-based automotive solutions and profit off licensing them to other automotive companies and their partners.

On the other hand, I could see Softbank selling or sharing control with other Japanese tech firms who have more experience with managing a tech company, but they'd still have to deal with the rogue China branch.

Personally i'll never understand why the regulatory authorities didn't have any problem allowing AMD to buyout ATi ,which allows them to control CPU + GPU I.P. , while nVIDIA isn't allowed to do something similar , forcing this way nVIDIA to compete in a constant disadvantage against AMD ,because AMD bougth their privilege to offer an all-in-one package ,while nVIDIA is not allowed to get the same privilege.
To my eyes ,this seems as creating unfair competition towards nVIDIA from the regulating authorities (FTC in particular who sued nVIDIA about this deal).


(I'm only comparing with AMD not Intel , since AMD made a clear GPU I.P. purchase with ATi ,while i think that Intel has developed their own GPU I.P. internally (??) ,not sure though ,so i can't speak about Intel.

Also , someone might argue that AMD or Intel , unlike ARM they don't license their I.P. , but this is even worse , since this how monopolies are being created.
On the other hand ,nVIDIA ,through Jensen Huang ,has already publicly commited that they won't change ARM's license-model , and also i'm sure that contracts can be signed in order for this possibility to be ruled-out )

 

[big_glasses]

Personally i'll never understand why the regulatory authorities didn't have any problem allowing AMD to buyout ATi ,which allows them to control CPU + GPU I.P. , while nVIDIA isn't allowed to do something similar , forcing this way nVIDIA to compete in a constant disadvantage against AMD ,because AMD bougth their privilege to offer an all-in-one package ,while nVIDIA is not allowed to get the same privilege.
To my eyes ,this seems as creating unfair competition towards nVIDIA from the regulating authorities (FTC in particular who sued nVIDIA about this deal).


(I'm only comparing with AMD not Intel , since AMD made a clear GPU I.P. purchase with ATi ,while i think that Intel has developed their own GPU I.P. internally (??) ,not sure though ,so i can't speak about Intel.

Also , someone might argue that AMD or Intel , unlike ARM they don't license their I.P. , but this is even worse , since this how monopolies are being created.
On the other hand ,nVIDIA ,through Jensen Huang ,has already publicly commited that they won't change ARM's license-model , and also i'm sure that contracts can be signed in order for this possibility to be ruled-out )

What's the revenue difference between AMD and Intel or nVidia?
Was ATI renting out any of their licenses/IPs, wholesale (no, console semi-custom doesn't count)? Especially by direct competitors?
And yes, for nVidia, their customers are also direct competitors on the big scale computing. Multiple customers have ether made their own chips and completly dropped nVidia (tesla for example) or is using a combination.

 

[sith'ari]

What's the revenue difference between AMD and Intel or nVidia?
Was ATI renting out any of their licenses/IPs, wholesale (no, console semi-custom doesn't count)? Especially by direct competitors?
And yes, for nVidia, their customers are also direct competitors on the big scale computing. Multiple customers have ether made their own chips and completly dropped nVidia (tesla for example) or is using a combination.

I already said that :

Also , someone might argue that AMD or Intel , unlike ARM they don't license their I.P. , but this is even worse , since this how monopolies are being created.
On the other hand ,nVIDIA ,through Jensen Huang ,has already publicly commited that they won't change ARM's license-model , and also i'm sure that contracts can be signed in order for this possibility to be ruled-out

So , there is no problem for the regulators for someone to control the entire I.P. for themselves (as i said this is how monopolies tend to create) while on the other hand , it is a problem for the regulators when someone publicly declares(and also through contracts i'm sure) that they'll keep the current licence model ??
where's the logic in that ?
P.S. I'm speaking about the Regulating authorities( FTC ,etc... ) not companies such as Qualcomm who might have their own certain interests to block the deal...

 

[big_glasses]

I already said that :

I wasn't refering to AMD or Intel, but ATI. I presumed your AMD-reference was pre-aquiring.

So , there is no problem for the regulators for someone to control the entire I.P. for themselves (as i said this is how monopolies tend to create) while on the other hand , it is a problem for the regulators when someone publicly declares(and also through contracts i'm sure) that they'll keep the current licence model ??

where's the logic in that ?
P.S. I'm speaking about the Regulating authorities( FTC ,etc... ) not companies such as Qualcomm who might have their own certain interests to block the deal...

No clue, but size and how the product is used/sold does have an impact.
ATI's size was just graphics. ARM is in a hell of a lot of units, including what a lot of governments consider critical. ALso at the time of aquisition vs now, "computer-stuff" have become much more important and integrated into everyones lives. And the general knowledge of what is using computers have increased.
Also regulators are not always the most knowledgeable

 

[sith'ari]

I wasn't refering to AMD or Intel, but ATI. I presumed your AMD-reference was pre-aquiring.

No clue, but size and how the product is used/sold does have an impact.
ATI's size was just graphics. ARM is in a hell of a lot of units, including what a lot of governments consider critical. ALso at the time of aquisition vs now, "computer-stuff" have become much more important and integrated into everyones lives. And the general knowledge of what is using computers have increased.
Also regulators are not always the most knowledgeable

Yes , that's what i'm also thinking , but how is that fair towards nVIDIA ?
Out of ignorance(as i said ,that's what i also believe) ,a CPU company was allowed to obtain GPU I.P. while now a GPU company isn't allowed to acquire CPU I.P. ,being forced to remain at a dissadvantage in this aspect.
Incredible...

 

[stimpy88]

nGreedia is a morally bankrupt company, that nobody WANTS to do business with. This is a great result, as nGreedia would have held the whole ARM reliant industry to ransom.

 

[Xaled]

A patent troll does not develop tech.


Again, you need to revisit the definition of a patent troll.

Really? Almost every corporate has its own patent troll period or mode. They would do anything to earn more, including patent trolling their own product. For instance why do you think Adobe would buy Subtance? Or Why Adobe has been making almost no to zero improvement on Photoshop or illustrator? Why did they switch from perpetual license to subscription? Same thing goes for Autodesk and many other tech firms.
Please just remove these green glasses!

 

[R-T-B]

Really?

Really. Patent trolls do not innovate. They buy tech and sit on it only to sue. It's part of the definition. Even if you stop innovating and go full licensing mode, the fact that you developed something makes you decidedly NOT a patent troll.

 

[TechLurker]

Yes , that's what i'm also thinking , but how is that fair towards nVIDIA ?
Out of ignorance(as i said ,that's what i also believe) ,a CPU company was allowed to obtain GPU I.P. while now a GPU company isn't allowed to acquire CPU I.P. ,being forced to remain at a dissadvantage in this aspect.
Incredible...

I think it's more the fact that ARM is one of the few successful non-x86/64 arches that is readily accessible to most of the world besides RISC-V, vs the duopoly of AMD/Intel (Oligopoly if you include VIA, who only operates within China nowadays, but doesn't have licensing to use newer arches from AMD or Intel), and is as such heavily utilized by pretty much everyone else for everything that isn't a traditional PC. Even Intel and AMD have an ARM license, with AMD having been rumored to slowly still be working on an ARM-based CPU as a side-project.

If Nvidia, who's historically known to be pretty anti-competitive, and anti-consumer at times, and aiming for a closed system much like Apple is working towards, was to take control of such a massive ecosystem that goes well beyond traditional computing, it threatens plenty of foreign governments and industries who rely on ARM-based systems. It also lets Nvidia potentially bias future ARM designs to working better with their own GPU blocks, as opposed to the standard and less-proprietary ARM GPUs or custom GPUs by other parties (like the custom AMD RDNA2 GPU that Samsung integrated with their ARM design, or Apple's own customs).

It also has a political issue; ARM is currently a UK-based and Japanese-owned tech company. As far as I'm aware, Softbank remained pretty neutral with ARM, only having attempted an IoT subdivision that they ended up splitting off and run separately (it's not included in the planned sale). If it came under Nvidia's umbrella, it may end up being stifled by US laws that limit certain levels of tech licensing and whatnot (or so those governments who don't want the merger to happen claim).

In comparison, ATI was floundering against the increasing competition from Nvidia, and was one of the last two major GPU designers (given that 3DFX and their Voodoo platform dropped out). AMD was mostly seen as rescuing ATI, and keeping the competition against a monopoly alive. As well, AMD also made ironclad guarantees that ATI products would remain compatible with any other system they're dropped into, even their competitor Intel, just like how they also guaranteed that they won't inhibit compatibility between AMD CPUs and Nvidia GPUs. Intel on the other hand, developed their own GPU from scratch, leveraging their own past failures to develop a proper GPU, and supposedly also promised the same guarantee that it will work in an AMD rig as well as an Intel one.

 

[sith'ari]

..........
1)If Nvidia, who's historically known to be pretty anti-competitive, and anti-consumer at times, and aiming for a closed system much like Apple is working towards, was to take control of such a massive ecosystem that goes well beyond traditional computing, it threatens plenty of foreign governments and industries who rely on ARM-based systems. It also lets Nvidia potentially bias future ARM designs to working better with their own GPU blocks, as opposed to the standard and less-proprietary ARM GPUs or custom GPUs by other parties (like the custom AMD RDNA2 GPU that Samsung integrated with their ARM design, or Apple's own customs).

2)It also has a political issue; ARM is currently a UK-based and Japanese-owned tech company. As far as I'm aware, Softbank remained pretty neutral with ARM, only having attempted an IoT subdivision that they ended up splitting off and run separately (it's not included in the planned sale). If it came under Nvidia's umbrella, it may end up being stifled by US laws that limit certain levels of tech licensing and whatnot (or so those governments who don't want the merger to happen claim).

3)In comparison, ATI was floundering against the increasing competition from Nvidia, and was one of the last two major GPU designers (given that 3DFX and their Voodoo platform dropped out). AMD was mostly seen as rescuing ATI, and keeping the competition against a monopoly alive. As well, AMD also made ironclad guarantees that ATI products would remain compatible with any other system they're dropped into, even their competitor Intel, just like how they also guaranteed that they won't inhibit compatibility between AMD CPUs and Nvidia GPUs. Intel on the other hand, developed their own GPU from scratch, leveraging their own past failures to develop a proper GPU, and supposedly also promised the same guarantee that it will work in an AMD rig as well as an Intel one.

1)Specullations and unfounded accusations. As i said in another post among those 3 companies only Intel is the one which has a legal verdict to shadow their history. (European Commission found Intel guilty for actions which ""harmed millions of European consumers"" ). nVIDIA on the other hand ,has only unproven accusations which never legaly proved such as the infamous GPP thing !! If you look my history , i've made a quite extensive discussion here at TPU about the GPP matter(i was member of Hardocp for years ,so i knew 1st hand the story and Kyle Bennett who started that story) and i also had a debate with Jim AdoredTV in the past( in this video check for my comment , youtube username: powernod :

) so i won't bother to repeat my GPP arguments , whomever wants they can check my history here at TPU ( https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...ages-in-monopolistic-practices.242216/page-10 )

2) "neutral" . I see , and i agree with you but here is the question :
How can someone guarantee the future ? you say that Softbank remained neutral , but in order for this to be evaluated , we have to wait for the future !!! the day that ARM was sold to Softbank who could guarantee such a thing ? just like now with nVIDIA , noone !!! only the future can tell .
So noone can prove that nVIDIA will not honour their already spoken public commitments ,only the future can determine such a thing , and as i said before , that's why contracts exist , in order to ensure such things !!

3)So as i said before , bying an I.P. and keeping it to yourself ( AMD/ATi ) is better for competition than bying an I.P. and keep using its licence model ( nVIDIA/ARM) .
To me as i said , there is no logic in such things , the only thing i know for fact is that the regulators allowed in the past a CPU company to buy GPU I.P. (*for their own use) , while now they are not allowing a GPU company to buy a CPU I.P. (*not only for their own use but for licencing as well) . This way they leave nVIDIA in a serious disadvantage towards AMD(and Intel of course) , especially these days where every major company is obvious that they are looking to promote their all-in-one package.

 

[Vayra86]

1)Specullations and unfounded accusations. As i said in another post among those 3 companies only Intel is the one which has a legal verdict to shadow their history. (European Commission found Intel guilty for actions which ""harmed millions of European consumers"" ). nVIDIA on the other hand ,has only unproven accusations which never legaly proved such as the infamous GPP thing !! If you look my history , i've made a quite extensive discussion here at TPU about the GPP matter(i was member of Hardocp for years ,so i knew 1st hand the story and Kyle Bennett who started that story) and i also had a debate with Jim AdoredTV in the past( in this video check for my comment , youtube username: powernod :

) so i won't bother to repeat my GPP arguments , whomever wants they can check my history here at TPU ( https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...ages-in-monopolistic-practices.242216/page-10 )

2) "neutral" . I see , and i agree with you but here is the question :
How can someone guarantee the future ? you say that Softbank remained neutral , but in order for this to be evaluated , we have to wait for the future !!! the day that ARM was sold to Softbank who could guarantee such a thing ? just like now with nVIDIA , noone !!! only the future can tell .
So noone can prove that nVIDIA will not honour their already spoken public commitments ,only the future can determine such a thing , and as i said before , that's why contracts exist , in order to ensure such things !!

3)So as i said before , bying an I.P. and keeping it to yourself ( AMD/ATi ) is better for competition than bying an I.P. and keep using its licence model ( nVIDIA/ARM) .
To me as i said , there is no logic in such things , the only thing i know for fact is that the regulators allowed in the past a CPU company to buy GPU I.P. (*for their own use) , while now they are not allowing a GPU company to buy a CPU I.P. (*not only for their own use but for licencing as well) . This way they leave nVIDIA in a serious disadvantage towards AMD(and Intel of course) , especially these days where every major company is obvious that they are looking to promote their all-in-one package.

Holy crap! That guy is like a perfect image of Linus when he turns 70.

I can't unsee it now. Damn it

 

[R-T-B]

Holy crap! That guy is like a perfect image of Linus when he turns 70.

I can't unsee it now. Damn it

It cost you nothing not to share this revelation...

 

[eidairaman1]

Nvidia just promised them a big bribe, Nvidia is way much worse than a patent troll. They are the most ethicless business organization in the world now

Next to intel and microsoft.

 

[stimpy88]

Next to intel and microsoft.

The unholy trinity of evil.

However, I think Facebook, Google & Intel make my top 3, with nGreedia No4, then Apple, then Samsung.

 

[Bomby569]

Softbank couldn't care less about the bussiness, they are in it for profit, buy expecting to sell higher. Taking in the license money will work to, but that's not their bussiness.
Nvidia coudn't convice their own mothers of what they were giving as reasons to aprove the deal, it was a long shot anyway, i doubt they don't already had a plan B, C or D. Huang is a great CEO, they had to try it.