Read more.Quote:
Negotiations with SoftBank in advanced stages, should conclude in a "few weeks".
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Negotiations with SoftBank in advanced stages, should conclude in a "few weeks".
Fail,and that means even for the UK to use or design ARM based products we would need Congressional approval.
So will if Nvidia owns it will they allow far and easy access to other parties,or do what they did with other partners,and try and push prices up and not play nice?? There is a reason why Sony,Microsoft and Apple don't want to work with them anymore.
our government is a joke allowing these purchases. Once it's gone it's gone. They never should have let it get sold in the first place.
So currently ARM is a UK company with a Japanese parent company, and the technology is deemed UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
The whole point of having these trees of parent, holding etc companies is to wall things off, so having a US parent company could happily work the same way.
It would only change if Nvidia absorb ARM rather than let ARM run as a UK independent subsidiary, and I'm not convinced absorbing makes any sense.
If I was working on the ARM GPU I might be getting my CV up to date though. I can see pushing SoC IP with ARM CPU license and Nvidia GPU/AI licences becoming a thing.
Pretty bad news.
Can't see Nvidia playing nicely once they are established.
Plus what will be their attitude to Adreno, PowerVR, Mali, and so on long term?
All those vendors who went for ARM for the versatility it gave them will now have to seriously consider RISC-V?
This is Nvidia we are talking about,and in the end the fact is the UK can say what they want,but once Nvidia is bought by a US firm,US laws will be applicable in some way. Japan is very neutral in how it deals with countries. In fact I am surprised the Japanese government is actually allowing this,as they have strengthened protections of their semi-conductor IP and companies significantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
I think even 1% foreign ownership of critical firms requires permission from the Japanese government:
https://www.iflr.com/article/b1lmx4p...investment-law
The A64FX is ARM based for example.
Nvidia owning this,when they make their own ARM CPUs,is a conflict of interest.
Longterm this could be the end of ARM,as countries are developing ARM based products for technological independence. If Nvidia tries its usually stuff,or there is a chance of licenses,being revoked for whatever reason,it's not going to play well. Have you noticed that MIPS never got serious traction,even though it was UK owned for a while?? This will only mean RISC-V will start to get more serious interest. Why do you think the future EU wide processor initiative is RISC-V based??
I don't get why people think Nvidia, assuming they got past regulators in the first place, would want to destroy ARM's business model? Doing so (again, assuming regulators around the world waved it through) they'd be effectively buying a 30-odd billion dollar company just to destroy its value overnight and gain next to nothing back for that monumental investment. And for what? ARM as an entity is far more valuable with its current open-access licensing model.
Sure, they'd gain a very capable team of engineers, but they don't need to spend over $30B to achieve that. I know people are thinking 'so they can design their own processors and lock out competition' - again, making a heck of an assumption that regulators would just let that fly, why would they want to destroy the market for the ARM architecture and push everyone to an alternative if they're trying to capitalise on the install base? It just doesn't add up whichever way you look at it.
Looking at it another way, I'm far from an expert when it comes to such matters but Nvidia would have to go into enormous debt and/or use their own stock to purchase ARM in the first place given they don't have nearly enough cash to do so, and in doing so they'd be lowering their overall margins, and I really can't see the benefit of them buying ARM either way. They wouldn't really *gain* anything they can't already do technologically, and both the regulators and business sense would most likely prevent them from doing the monumentally stupid thing of trying to lock out competitors.
About the only reasons I can think of why Nvidia would be interested, is to maintain ARM as an independent company, much like Softbank have done, in order to protect their independence, but at the end of the day Nvida aren't a charity and it's a huge investment given not many other companies would be able to buy them anyway, sinister intent or otherwise. I expect many of the more sinister-intent companies would be blocked outright by regulators. Another reason could be to do much like SoftBank have done and keep hold until they can sell again or float at a higher price.
Nvidia's history of working with other companies is very,very poor. They dicked around Sony and MS so much with consoles,they refused to ever build a console with their tech in it again. Then Nvidia screwed over companies with the bumps problem,and Apple avoided them. They fell out with Intel too.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
Then the problem is they actually make ARM based CPUs,so what about all the other companies who compete with them,with similar ARM based products? How is that going to be policed??
The other issue,is how independent any foreign subsidiary of a US owned company is. Doing a bit of research,they are actually open to US law,so it means they can't really be fully independent.
Many countries didn't go with MIPS,even though it was British owned for quite a while,due to it US roots,and need to get permissions for various things...unless you make a clone!;) They went ARM,as the basic IP is UK developed(some of the cores do have US content,but were subject to US regulatory approval),and they rarely tended to get our companies involved in spats. The US under Trump increasingly does.
So US owned ARM,gives an ARM license,to Country A,but 5 years later Country A has a spat,and it leads to sanctions. Then any product using ARM can't be exported,etc. It's happened before.
The issue is countries develop ARM based products partially due to national security and export considerations,etc.
Even the new EU processor initiative is RISC-V,the same as India which tells me,there were worries about technological independence even elsewhere:
https://riscv.org/2019/08/how-the-eu...upercomputing/
Longterm it's only going to enable RISC-V.
ARM has a different business model to Nvidia's typical one, and ARM wouldn't really work under the latter given they literally make money from licensing to other people. And it's successful because companies actually want to use it. Killing off the business model would lead to no-one wanting to use it anyway, making the investment worthless. Again though, regulators.
Them making ARM CPUs is obviously a competitive concern, and something the regulators will undoubtedly take into account.
I doubt companies not going with MIPS was solely down to them being US-based IP TBH. ARM was already very well-established in the mobile space before MIPS really started trying to enter that market. In fact MIPS were very successful in the embedded market prior to the IPTech acquisition, and if anything ARM seems to have gained market share in spite of that.
I'm sure the sanction nonsense would also be a major consideration in any purchase - it would obviously be a concern if said sanctions would immediately devalue the company under US ownership.
There's a big hype train around RISC-V but at the end of the day it's an ISA, not a set of IP cores a company can just implement into products. Someone still needs to actually design cores around it which is hardly an insignificant undertaking if they hope to compete with competitive designs currently on the market. And then they either need to produce and sell them independently in their own finished designs i.e. the likes of Qualcomm/Samsung/etc, or license those cores back to other companies, and you arrive back at square 1. RISC-V isn't the magical solution to core licensing some people seem to think it is.
Has all the other acquisitions any of these companies made been fully independent and on purpose ignoring Nvidia's past history is not really a good idea. So if Intel bought ARM,you would have no concerns then??Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
I think you really underestimate how much export restrictions are a concern for many countries,and many people in the UK wouldn't understand that.I would say MIPS being US IP,is the primary reasons ARM took off,as it was established in foreign markets before ARM was.
It's become such a major concern in certain areas,the French have made a very successful business in make avionics,etc which can substitute US items on a one to one basis. Multiple countries worldwide are doing this,and this is not like buying something for your consumer products. If you follow these things,more countries are trying to develope independent technologies and Trump throwing hissy fits its not really helping here.
Even countries such as India,did this for some major purchases. You don't seem to appreciate how fickle the US can be,when randomly just using sanctions on all sort of things. Its even lead to European products needing to be reformatted,to remove stuff which has US content,or even European stuff which can be sanctionable.
It is not nonsense - because especially for national security and export of said items,it's a major concern. Both the EU and India,national processor intiatives are based around RISC V for a reason,just as Linux is also used in more places than you think. Do you think it is a fluke,they decided to start development around an open source ISA,which no country has to give permission to use?? I think you don't appreciate why indigenisation efforts are happening.
Having Nvidia buy this also is concerning as,it means most of the important processor IP is now under the control of one part of the world,and a company which has a history of playing poor. Hope does not come into - unless you think the tricks Nvidia pulled for decades suddenly make them a nicer company.
I also wish the regulators stop this TBF,but I have no trust they will.
For all Nvidia's bullish posturing, they basically make the CPU that goes into the Nintendo Switch and these days that is about it. In the past they have been in all sorts of stuff, but it never seems to work out. Phones? I had one of those, my hands were never cold at least. No-one makes them any more. Tablets? I still have an Nvidia tablet and it is just about keeping up, but it went from a few companies making Tegra based tablets so only Nvidia making them to nothing. My wife has an old HP ChromeBook which it turned out had a Tegra in it. They don't make those any more. Even Tesla went to making custom AI processors instead of buying off the shelf Nvidia kit.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Nvidia are in a rut, albeit so far a very profitable one. They have tried to diversify into the SoC market, but it just hasn't worked.
Oh come on, companies didn't go with MIPS because it was already a dead architecture limping to its doom. China went with it, because it was possible to get a MIPS licence where the DEC Alpha clones had no chance of ever being legal so they changed instruction set.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
The EU processor is RISC-V because it makes the whole instruction set licence problem moot, the instruction set is modern, and it is the only instruction set that is designed from the outset for heavy customisation in exactly the way a supercomputer CPU would want to operate. Really, RISC-V deserved to get the win on merit. RISC-V is also rather trendy, which would look nice on the researcher's CVs at the end of the project, always a plus.
OFC these days China is getting undergrads to design, tape out and bring up RISC-V designs. Not an attempt to produce some research, but churning out industry hardened expertise. The EU effort seems rather lame in comparison, and the writing is on the wall for at least the low end ARM designs out there.
https://cntechpost.com/2020/07/25/ri...ully-tape-out/
Honestly I'd urge you to go back and re-read what I've actually said and not immediately infer polar opposites to your own views, because I've not actually said pretty much anything you're countering above.
I'm not saying I have no concerns at all, and the same concerns would apply regardless of whom they were sold to, but in particular any companies where competitive concerns are obvious. Many of the entities who are both interested in and able to afford ARM would attract similar concerns.
I don't think I suggested anything about underestimating export restrictions? In fact I've spoken about concerns around them in the past. But I stand by what I said about ARM vs MIPS. Like I said if export restrictions were a real concern, MIPS wouldn't be as ubiquitous in the embedded as it is/was. Nor various other ISAs in everything from consumer electronics to military applications e.g. Motorola processors in the Typhoon. Correlation vs causation.
Countries moving to protect against dummy-spitting where it affects national security makes a lot of sense. This doesn't really change anything.
Again, where have I made any claim about whether the US is fickle or not? As above, this sanction nonsense has caused all sorts of problems and will have made many companies/countries sit up and re-evaluate their supply chains and reliance on other countries, in particular the US.
I never said RISC-V was nonsense, re-read what I said about it. ISA != competitive cores.
I don't think Nvidia are a nicer company either, but nor do I think they're idiotic when it comes to business. And largely for that reason, I struggle to understand why ARM would be a good fit for Nvidia's business model.
Has anything about Nvidia in the last 20 years said they work well with anyone? No evidence shows this,so in the end they will try their best to twist things to their advantage,but it won't work longterm.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
I can see them trying their best to jack up the licensing prices,etc. They always tried this and why MS and Sony,just never gave them another shot at consoles.
People seem to ignore the fact Nvidia always tries to jump into places with little competition,but eventually get driven out as their own practices backfire on them.
For example,if they had bothered to play nicer with MS or Sony,they might have had another console win. But they didn't and AMD survived because of this,which means they are competing with them still.
People are suddenly expecting Nvidia to play nice,and act all charitable and fair,etc. A Leopard does not change its spots so easily.
Moreover,ARM made £175 million in operating income in 2017.
Do you think Nvidia is going to spend over $30 billion to just get a under $300 million a year extra in income??
China literally cloned MIPS.....! They licensed ARM.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Noticed how MIPS had to be sold to a US company when Imagination Technologies was bought by the Chinese. The UK government rarely steps in like this - the only time I have heard it happen was for Argentina.
RISC V will win,because any country can use,it design what they want,and they don't need to getting special permission to build CPUs around it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
There will be a need for initial heavy lifting but after,that I think give another 5~10 years,ARM will probably be displaced.
Remember,lots of ARM based products don't required backwards compatability at all,so realistically replacing ARM based products isn't as such a big deal,as replacing X86 in Windows PCs. It is also why X86 isn't a big deal outside a windows environment.
They also put out 'feelers' (comments to social media advocates / fanbase) about how they reason they didn't get any other console deals is because it's all to low margin and they wouldn't have been interested*. The fact that neither Sony nor Microsoft had intention of ever working with Nvidia was a mere coincidence....Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Don't forget, that Nvidia also managed to get into Apple's bad books with the whole solder defect thing where they didn't come clean, kept making unbelievable claims that the latest batch of chips they supplied no longer had the problem while some Apple customer's ended up having their motherboards swapped out multiple times in an attempt by Apple (kudos to their customer service at the time) to fix a problem intrinsic to millions of Nvidia chips at the time.
There was post on the AT forums thread on this (link), where someone pointed out that since Nvidia already have an ARM architectural licence, what do they want?Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
You don't spend $32 billion unless there's a return. So what do they want?
Force the other ARM GPU vendors out and eventually make money licencing GeForce to the entire mobile phone industry?
Neither Qualcomm nor Apple would be happy with that. And what will happen to ARM's Norwegian design centre which makes Mali?
Could Android jump to another CPU? A lot of it is still managed code AFAIK, but that's the same thing as the Linux model of full source code packages so only mostly portable.
EDIT:
* low margins is of course also why Intel wasn't interested in building Apple a mobile SOC (which might have been ARM anyhow), they never took Atom seriously, and are now in a panic about loosing the fab race to TSMC (and even Samsung). Turns out low margin, but high volume can be very profitable after all.
Samsung also just recently licensed RDNA for its SOCs. The Samsung S21 is their first SOC to use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
Also wait until they jack up their licensing costs too.
ARM barely makes $300 million a year in licensing costs.
The margin thing is one reason why I'm really unsure why they'd be interested. Nvidia like their high margins.Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
Pretty much the point I'm making TBH - they don't need to purchase ARM to make ARM CPUs. Anything else would attract major regulatory scrutiny.Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
Probably, but someone needs to make one first. Ask Intel, Samsung, Qualcomm, LG, Google, Nvidia themselves and many more how their own cores designs are doing in the mobile space. Changing ISA doesn't magic those problems away.Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
India's first indigenous mobile CPU is be build around RISC-V:
https://www.rambus.com/blogs/india-t...es-risc-v-isa/
https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news...c-v,39781.html
Someone with a ARM architecture licence can really do what they want. Qualcomm, Apple, Intel, AMD and all the other main players can put whatever GPU they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by kompukare
The one thing that Nvidia can do is kill off Mali, which would hurt low end players. Hopefully they will just position Nvidia graphics as a high end option.
Android can in theory run on other CPUs, and has been run on Intel and MIPS in the past. In practice that was with the old DALVIK system, the modern ART system is apparently harder, and then there are the games with native ARM libraries.
It would need to actually be competitive for that, including in terms of power efficiency in that sort of power envelope, and that remains to be seen for their current offerings. The mobile market hasn't stood still.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Plus if they're planning to replace it, they need to replace it with something, and I don't seem them licensing their own GPU IP. If they were to just kill it, they've just lost a revenue stream, so I don't really see the point.
It can be withdrawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/25/...rade-ban-uk-us
Huawei has a ARM uarch license....they almost lost it,but Softbank said it was a UK company,so managed to wangle it. Now,see how that works once Nvidia owns it. Any foreign owned subsidiaries of US owned companies would be subject to restrictions.
They might want to learn from how Mali is more energy efficient to apply those tricks to their mainline graphics.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
I think Nvidia's failed Tegra initiative did do wonders for Geforce efficiency and hence performance from being able to cram more shaders into a given heat allowance.
lol, Huawei are the No1 phone maker atm despite Trump's daftness. Seems their sales didn't tank as much as Samsung's. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020...sales-plummet/
Mali isn't the most power efficient graphics....PowerVR seems to be,otherwise Apple wouldn't have been using them for so long!;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
If not they would have bought IT for pocket change! ;)
Have they ever designed their own cores though? They make their own SoCs, but I only know of ones using off the peg cores such as the A76.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Even when they were told they were being cut off from US intervention, they were only cut off from future help and didn't lose anything they currently had. To a company making their own cores that would be a minor inconvenience, but if they want to plug in an A77 IP block into their SoC then they were stuffed.
OFC given the hate between the companies we might find that Intel making your argument just to stir things up and lose Nvidia some money. That's the bit that worries me, you don't need things like fact or legal merit to mess things up when these guys get involved.
They have a full license AFAIK,but the wording is "UK technologies",so Softbank managed to move around it. The issue is when Nvidia buys them,all subsidiaries can be subject to the same laws. The issue there were loopholes around this,but increasingly from what I gather they are being closed. Even if ARM was technically UK "owned",the problem is pressure can still be pushed onto Nvidia,as they are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Also the fact is there will be uncertainty over what applies and what doesn't - even countries such as India got some severe sanctions in the 1990s after their second lot of nuclear tests,and that was ontop of severe technological sanctions on various things in previous years. Hence the UK and France stepped in and did some good business over there as a substitute. After Modi came to power and under Obama things were significantly relaxed,so they can import more technology. However,it spurned an increased indigenisation effort for the last few decades.
ARM doesn't actually make that much money a year. £175 million in 2017. Paying over $30 billion,doesn't tell me they are just here for licensing costs. I can see them certainly try and box companies in and jack up prices,like they did with GPUs,as in the short term there is not much which can be done.
If they wanted better GPU,tech Imagination Technologies was sold for £550 million and Apple IGPs are far ahead of any other mobile ones,and they could have easily bought MIPS,but didn't care. They already have an ARM design license.
Makes me wonder whether there is something else happening behind the scenes.
Edit!!
IT also does mobile RT GPUs too,so would actually have been a good fit.
Nvidia and open-access licensing model? I'm not sure how that would work unless Nvidia kept ARM as a completely separate business with it's own board of directors etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
Well the context of the quote is important TBH...Quote:
Originally Posted by Iota
mmmm now I understand why Samsung is partnership with AMD to design Galaxy Gpus....the writing was on the wall
I really don't think it is that complicated.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
I am expecting a big push in Windows on ARM. So far it has always been half hearted, and most ARM chips aren't optimised for high performance. Nvidia know how to make an ARM chip perform, and I can see a future push for Chromebook and Windows ARM machines. Partly to stop Nvidia being the one GPU trick pony they have been trying to branch out from for years, but giving Intel a kicking would be a nice bonus for them.
This could turn into a very nasty Intel vs Nvidia battle.
I am not seeing it though. A huge amount of ARM business is to companies which make Android based devices. Companies such as Qualcomm,Samsung,Fujitsu and the Chinese firms. I can't see them putting up with Nvidia trying a fast one on them,and it will only push them to other uarchs. You really think they will just stand by and allow Nvidia to try and do what they did to AMD?? I think not.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Plus one of the biggest selling points of Windows is its backwards compatibility,etc which is why ARM based Windows never took off.
If you don't need backwards compatability,Windows has no real advantages. ARM based Windows versions have been a failure,and it is nothing to do with performance IMHO. The people they are targetting are not wedded to Windows,especially younger people and if you use a device as a consumption device,not a production device. Google essentially gives away Android for free,and if you don't want to use certain stuff,Android is essentially freely available to anyone,ie,why Huawei can still use it,despite the restrictions based on it. Can you see MS trying to essentially compete with Android in upfront costs?? I don't see it longterm as MS makes most of its money through licensing.
Also,if MS was that worried about ARM,they could have gone a different way with the consoles,and the whole concept of them trying to unify console and PC gaming,etc.
Edit!!
The only way it would work,is as Iota describes,as a totally separate business,with the current model. But again,ARM works though licensing IP,and they made $230 million in revenue in 2017. Even if they tripled that,that would be barely $700 million a year. It would take decades to get $30 billion back. This only makes sense if Nvidia wants to be another Chipzilla and push out all the other ARM licensees,and make their own chips like Qualcomm does.
This is why I think they are trying to corner the market on ARM CPUs and push everyone else out. It fits in what Nvidia always tends to do.
The fact that regulators aren't sniffing around on this stinks to high heaven for me.
No beneficiary of an unbiased licensor should then own that licensor, this is just asking for trouble. An American company now owning the only other realistic option for CPUs on the planet, while under the Trump administration?
Hmm...
Softbank is loosing a lot of money based on some poor investments,so actually are after cash. They even divested their own holdings in Nvidia last 2019,so I have to question how much of any purchase agreement will be stocks and how much will be cash?? They just have under $11 billion in actual cash. It will be interesting to see how this is funded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnixSo currently ARM is a UK company with a Japanese parent company, and the technology is deemed UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
The whole point of having these trees of parent, holding etc companies is to wall things off, so having a US parent company could happily work the same way.
It would only change if Nvidia absorb ARM rather than let ARM run as a UK independent subsidiary, and I'm not convinced absorbing makes any sense.
If I was working on the ARM GPU I might be getting my CV up to date though. I can see pushing SoC IP with ARM CPU license and Nvidia GPU/AI licences becoming a thing.
They are small fry if this goes ahead, we'll be luck if one survives.
This is probably the worst news which could have come from this, I'm unsure if Intel would be a better buyer (for the world and it's economy, long term).
Erm have we kinda forgotten the biggest elephant in all of this? Apple moving to ARM over it's whole product line?
NV would have a huge amount of leverage over Apple - something they've always wanted to do....
Maybe Apple will buy Nvidia! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
Not really. Apple have an architecture license and design their own cores. To try pushing around Apple with unfair pricing etc would undoubtedly (and rightly) attract competition complaints, and not forgetting Apple have plenty of legal weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandy
What makes you think they're not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
Which is precisely why it makes no sense to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
And like I said in my very first post...Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Another reason why it doesn't make much sense to me. People are discussing this like it's a done deal, but in reality it's just rumours on the Internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Which is just toally unrealistic. Nvidia have tried to enter that segment before and were unsuccessful, plus it's not like they could enter that market without licensing technologies from the likes of Qualcomm, etc. They might find that challenging if they've hypothetically just pushed them from their near-monopoly position. But again, regulators would have something to say long before that happened. Also, how much experience do Nvidia have with modems and RF? Making a competitive mobile SoC involves far more than just gluing together some CPU and GPU cores. The reality is Nvidia have very little experience in this area, and it's also a fiercely competitive area.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
It doesn't matter if any business is losing money, IP exchanging hands should always be regulated. Especially if it impacts the second largest CPU design on the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
I get you're playing a very smart game of devils advocate, but there have been no restricting statements and it's being barrelled through. The announcement for sales ponder only went up a couple of weeks ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
How could the second largest CPU architecture design company that licenses to two of the three (surely microsoft has a license as well) largest operating system designers (Apple and Google) on the planet and the next two largest non x86 silicon designers on the planet (Samsung and Apple) as well as the black sheep, Huawei.
And then letting Nvidia, an underdog licensee have it...
Looking at it objectively, it stinks. It would be worse if Apple, Samsung or Google had it.
I'm really not and nor is it that complicated. There are rumours of interest in a sale. Nvidia have not publicly expressed interest and nor have they moved to purchase, so why would regulators be piping up about something that might not even happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
I think you're under the impression this is further ahead than it really is. The Hexus title does sorta come across that way though TBF.
Are you basing your entire side of the discussion on the fact that neither Softbank or Nvidia have publicly stated the level of discussion between them?Quote:
Originally Posted by watercooled
https://media.tenor.com/images/c4553...79d0/tenor.gif
What you're saying just doesn't make any sense.
Rather than trying to be sarcastic while completely missing the point, why don't you explain why and how you think regulators should be getting involved with private discussions between companies? :rolleyes:
/sQuote:
From Regulator X: If Nvidia are looking to buy ARM as we found out might be the case when we read rumours on the bus on the way to work, we would jolly well like them to know we would have concerns!
It just doesn't work like that. If regulators trawled the web and offered official responses to every unsubstantiated rumour, they'd more than have their hands full, yet be completely wasting their time.
That's just the flashy headline grabbing stuff. Look around you, try and find something with a CPU in it that isn't an ARM chip. Routers and WiFi access points used to be MIPS, but they are pretty much all ARM now. My 3D printer uses an Atmel chip, but the next generation will be ARM. TVs are pretty much all smart TVs these days, and are ARM based.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
ARM is such a success because the licence model allows this mind boggling breadth of product, precisely because ARM doesn't even try and make the silicon. Nvidia can't design and make all the chips, it would be futile to try and would just devalue the company they spent all that money on.
So while I get what you are saying Nvidia would have to be very focused on which market exactly they are targeting, and who they want to take on.
My expectation is for a push into servers and laptops. Apple would be helping with mindshare with their change to ARM, Nvidia already have a presence in servers for compute. They can draw on the existing licence fees as a cash cow, and push harder into new market segments, and make their billions back there.
Aside the main discussion, I am guessing another GPU price increase. someone has to pay softbank...
Considering this: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...on-fitbit-buy/
I don't see how regulators wouldn't take a very serious look into any entity like Nvidia taking over ARM. ARM's importance in the market (and their continued neutrality) is far more significant than that of a wearables manufacturer. Softbank is not a competitor and had no real motive to derail ARM's business model so it's not comparable to their takeover.