[stephc_int13]

History will tell, but I have a bad feeling about "Apple Silicon".

They would not use that naming if they intended to support the official ARM ISA in the long run.

The only thing that would prevent them for going the proprietary route is if they can't.

[catach]

> They would not use that naming if they intended to support the official ARM ISA in the long run.

Given Apple's marketing priorities, my guess is that the intent you speak of had zero weight in their naming decisions either way. They have no interest in raising the profile of ARM chips in general, and every interest in promoting their specific chips as amazing.

[skavi]

Apple Silicon is no different from Qualcomm Snapdragon or Samsung Exynos.

[aesh2Xa1]

Does Apple license theirs to other platforms?

[skavi]

I was referring to branding. To clarify my point, I believe having branding separate from Arm’s does not substantially indicate a desire to move away from Arm.

[kmeisthax]

No, and given ARM's hostility to Qualcomm's acquisition of Nuvia they probably would pitch a fit if Apple started selling silicon to third-parties.

[AprilArcus]

I suspect, given Apple's pivotal role in founding ARM holdings, that they have as close to carte blanche with respect to the ARM IP as one could imagine.

[komadori]

Huh, I hadn't realised Apple had been one of the investors when ARM Holdings was spun out of Acorn Computers. It seems their interest was in the Newton using ARM chips.