• frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 hour ago

    We shall break into the desktop and laptop market! Let’s start by severing ties with one of the most successful companies to do that so far.

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    thanks, proprietary licenses.

    can we finally move to open standards now or will these fucks keep on losing money just to spite foss? are they that afraid we read some of their source code?

  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.

      • Toes♀@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        49 minutes ago

        I’m just being a little pedantic. But I believe you meant x64?

        Edit: x86_64 thanks guys

        • woelkchen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 hour ago

            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.

  • CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    166
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    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.

    • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      51 minutes ago

      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.

    • scarilog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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.

      • CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

      • CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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).

        • thesporkeffect@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          58 minutes ago

          Qualcomm is one of the worst monopolists in any industry though. They are widely known to have a stranglehold on all mobile device development

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      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.

  • mako@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    This will get RISC-V probably a big boost. Maybe this was not the smartest move for ARMs long term future. But slapping Qualcomm is always a good idea, its just such a shitty company.

    • dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      10 hours ago

      True, I just wished RISCV laptops were slightly more developed and available. As of now, the specs aren’t there yet in those devices that are available. (8core@2Ghz, but only 16GB Ram, too little for me)

      Kind of a bummer, was coming up to a work laptop upgrade soon and was carefully watching the Linux support for Snapdragon X because I can’t bring myself to deal with Apple shenanigans, but like the idea of performance and efficiency. The caution with which I approached it stems from my “I don’t really believe a fucking thing Qualcomm Marketing says” mentality, and it seems holding off and watching was the right call. Oh well, x86 for another cycle, I guess.

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 hours ago

      You are overestimating RISC-V. It cannot save the planet alone.

      ARM provides complete chip designs.

      RISC-V is more like an API, and then you still need to design your chips behind it.

      • ilmagico@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        10 hours ago

        I could be wrong, but I think Qualcomm designs its own chips and only licenses the “API”, so it would be no difference for them.

        • falkerie71@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          9 hours ago

          If they use Cortex cores, they are ARM designs. Oryon cores are in house based on Nuvia designs, and I assume it would still require a complete chip redesign if they decide to switch to RISC-V.

      • mako@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Of course i will still take RISC-V a long time to be even relevant. But in the future there could be multiple Companies that offer finished chip designs to use. As you said not every company wants and can create a design themself.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I’ll wait and see. RISC-V is a nice idea, but there are way too many different “standards” to make it a viable ecosystem.

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    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.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        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.

        • MudMan@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 hours ago

          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.

  • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    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.