And this is probably the best solution, keeping it as subsidiary of Apple, and keep innovating. ARM benefited from Apple, and even if Qualcomm has large chunk of ARM based chip share, they haven’t harnessed the true potential of the architecture like Apple has.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Federal Trade Commission Sues to Block Nvidia's Planned Arm Acquisition
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I actually am old enough to remember the tail end of anti-Japan sentiment, paranoia and anxiety in the US. When I was growing up everyone told me Japan was going to take over the world (maybe that's why I ended up in Japan) so I can see the similarities just fine.
The argument that US and "Western" (including NE Asia) concern over China's behavior today is the same as the Japan panic then, however, is IMHO, false equivalency.
Post WWII, Japan has always been a stalwart ally of the US and member of the "Western" order and in the 1970s and 80s Japan was even more dependent on the US for its security than it is today. While it may have fooled the laymen, the idea that Japan was going to "takeover" was always fanciful and just a convenient narrative to pressure Japan on trade.
China however is playing a very different game. It has always had a neutral to outright hostile stance toward the US, Japan, and the broader "West," and clearly seeks to reorient the global political order and manipulate the international trade regime. Political intent matters, and China is much more than just an economic competitor.
Furthermore, unlike the Japan (and later Korea) of decades past, which only bent the intellectual property rules of the day or took advantage of loopholes, China has no qualms about brazenly steeling or even seizing intellectual property whenever possible.
Another key difference is market access. China's egregiously severe restrictions (and outright bans in some sectors) on foreign enterprises operating in the Chinese domestic market make all the complaints about market access in Japan over the years look like a whole lot of nothing. The idea that the many of America's tech giants (Google, Twitter, etc,) among the most competitive sectors of the US economy are completely locked out of the Chinese market, while China builds domestic copycat companies that then seek to expand overseas, is absolutely wild and has no historical precedent.
This is all to say nothing of the deplorable human rights situation in China.
I'm not saying there aren't similarities or that China isn't at times treated unfairly or used as a political football but China today does not equal Japan in the 70s/80s.
So you suggest USA should use ARM as leverage in security politics? Really? Death sentence of ARM, I would say.
Qualcomm is only worried about market share, the US courts and FTC are just laughably hypocritical, and the U.K. government doesn’t have a f‘ing clue about technology and how much it’s worth hence couldn’t care less about ARM being sold to foreign companies, the current party no doubt happily receiving brown paper envelopes.. if they did THEIR job in the first place ARM wouldn’t have been up for sale and most companies would be happy still.
While there may be tangential benefits for Intel to see this deal blocked, this is an effort led by Apple and Tim Cook with Qualcomm and Samsung supporting.
Tim Cook does not want to rely on Nvidia, in any way, shape or form. That's the long and short of it.
Now before anyone interjects with "oh but Apple has a perpetual licence", that's still a license which is a contract, which they would then have with Nvidia. Tim Cook does not have contracts with Nvidia.
That is what I thought.
Apple and Qualcomm can still make their own CPU/GPU that is ISA compatible with ARM. They would still be able to innovate they way they have. But, lose out on anything Nvidia created and decided not to share. Just like Apple doesn't have to share how they do what they do with the M1/Pro/Max.
It maybe more restrictive than licensing x86 from intel. But, I don't think it would be as bad as the FTC makes it out to be.
Sorry, but do you know that Apple is a Co-Founder of ARM?
"The company was founded in November 1990 as Advanced RISC Machines Ltd and structured as a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple, and VLSI Technology."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Ltd.
Apple is not interested into buying ARM. Apple has an architectural license, so it designs the processors from scratch using the instruction set architecture.
Yeah, umm... not at all the same as Apple not "sharing". Only Apple depends on the cores they design, no one else. EVERYONE depends on ARM designed cores, including Apple. ARM design cores are in everything... there are probably dozens of them inside every WIntel computer. I wouldn't be surprised if every radio (Wifi, Bluetooth, Cell) controller on the planet isn't running on an ARM core... including Qualcomm's.
ARM is a de facto standard and should remain outside the grasp of a company that competes with others who license their IP.
As someone else posted, it would be better if a consortium of companies that depend on the technology got together and bought it. That would ensure its continued business model.
It requires something like 12Ghz RISC-V to match the overall performance of a 3.1Ghz M1. Right now RISC-V is 5Ghz and mainly only wins on some power efficiencies.
RISC-V is nowhere close to ready to Macs And Apple will always design their own CPU going forward.
I’m saying that it’s good for the US to have that as an option. Ideally it isn’t necessary. Semiconductors and semi IP are already a big deal in security politics (see: entity list).
What about RISC-V? Weren't there rumors that Apple would move there? Also, isn't RISC-V open source, so less concern about takeovers?
Ironically, Nvidia can license ARM for much less than $40B and still do almost everything that you said. Indeed this might be Nvidia's backup plan if the deal doesn't go through. Regardless of whether Nvidia goes the ARM or RISC-V route they have publicly stated that they are interested in moving into the CPU business.
Internaut
macrumors 65816
As a Brit who's known about ARM since ARM stood for Acorn RISC Machine, and who got to see them grow into what, strategically, is a seriously, extremely very important company I'm happy with this but also surprised. There's a geopolitical angle and that angle is that a US company, and by extension the US, gets control over tech that most people in the developed world use and often depend on.
Though agreements doesn’t change , they expire. Does Apple has some kind of insurance for its license??
That's not new.
If it helps, none of this technology can be made real without Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company.
Internaut
macrumors 65816
Indeed. The day China invades Taiwan, I think it would likely be deemed necessary for some of TMSC’s facilities there to cease to exist.
I still don't think it will be as bad as everyone makes it out to be.
You would have to pay someone. Be it ARM direct today or Nvidia tomorrow. Again, what difference does it make? Plenty of companies own other companies and they don't prevent their previous business from continuing just like before. DellEMC for instance. They owned (past tense) the majority share of VMware. Didn't stop VMware from being compatible with HPE or Lenovo, or any other server manufacture. Same for EMC storage. Still works with other vendors. It doesn't "have" to be all for Nvidia. Just a note that I'm not favoring Nvidia's purchase here. I would rather ARM stand on it's own. But, again I can understand if they can't do that. Or if SoftBank can't continue to own it do to other financial reasons. I do believe they have a right to sell the company even though it's a de facto standard to the world. I'm still pissed we don't have 3dFX anymore. And we just have to deal with AMD and Nvidia for Graphics for like the past however long it's been. But, that's business.
Softbank (which owns it currently) could change how they want ARM to function today. So, it really doesn't matter who owns it. In a perfect world sure, a kind hearted non-profit with deep pockets would own everything and resell the licenses at very fair and reasonable prices to anyone that wanted it. We can't protect every business anymore than we can force one's into existence.