I expected Nvidia to first continue running ARM like it does now and then slowly push ARM+Nvidea chips whileeven more slowly hindering ARM+other GPU chips.
The end goal would be to make ARM+other GPU technical viable but non copetive so that most customers will have to buy ARM+Nvidea to be competive leading to a hard to touch quasi monopoly of Nvidea for android phones (maybe except cheap ones) and and embedded ML.
Oh and at some point they probably would restrict new "custom silicon" contacts to prevent something like Apple silicon from happening again.
I guess call me skeptical. ARM+Nvidia GPU (Tegra) already runs absolute circles around everything besides Apple. They didn't need to acquire ARM to make a chip that's still superior to just about everything else on the market 5 years later.
I'm willing to bet this is entirely around controlling their own future, not changing the way ARM is licensed. With Intel at least acting like they're going to REALLY try to enter the GPU space at this point, Nvidia needed to acquire AMD or ARM to solidify their position. AMD was probably the preferred path but divesting of the GPU business would've been difficult if not impossible with all the embedded graphics chips they've put onto the market. Plus I would imagine the IP pollution potential would open them up to lawsuits from whoever acquired the GPU assets. And if Intel were to be the acquirer (seems like the most likely suitor) - they'd actually have to be seriously concerned about their GPU leadership.
Sorry, but if ARM+Nvidia GPU already runs rings around everyone else besides Apple and Nvidia already has access to all of Arm's IP (and there was no threat of it losing that access) then why does it need acquire ARM to 'solidify' their position?
In reality it's not winning in the mobile SoC market and owning Arm will enable it to hinder its competitors.
Arm was never going to be acquired by a Chinese firm - it would have been blocked.
The problem is that controlling its own destiny gives it control over all its competitors destinies too - and that's not good. I have nothing particularly against Nvidia btw - the same issue would apply for any major SoC designer buying Arm.
Considering the Nintendo Switch is based on a Tegra SoC (likely the Tegra X1), and only costs $300~ I don't think cost is the primary issue. nVidia is mostly targeting platforms with higher performance requirements over building lower performing chips used in phones. They have different thermal and power draw requirements.
That's just not even a little bit accurate. The K1 tablet retailed at $199 - they absolutely could sell it at a price that meets a high-end smartphone price.
I believe that's where they'll hit the hardest. They can keep GPU at the same competitive state, could even make it "easier" for competitors, but if they get a bit of advantage over ML, that's where phones and everything else will be kind of forced to go Nvidia for both GPU and ML.
They don't have much competition as far as I am aware in that sphere, so they'll be able to argue that GPU were able to work with ARM without issues, even did X and Y to make it even easier for them while masking that they made it harder for everyone to compete on ML.
That's just conspiracy theory though, I still have hope they understands the value of an open environment like ARM and buying them was just a way to protect that environment.