[klelatti]

> We've already seen the excellent things Apple was able to do with ARM because they had the chip under their own control and were no longer beholden to ARM (or Motorola/IBM before that).

Sorry? Apple remains an Arm licensee and everything they have done will be consistent with the terms of their license.

[cmrdporcupine]

Oh, just noticed I'd written "with ARM" when I meant to write Intel when talking about Apple being beholden. Fixed.

My understanding is Apple has an architectural license, broader than what some other licensees have, and it permits them to make architectural changes that people without that license cannot. And while I don't know the current business terms of this, I would speculate that by them being part of the original joint venture that created ARM in the first place they have at least some remaining better pricing on that than others would?

In any case, correct me if I'm wrong on that... but there's also the fact that by controlling the whole software stack Apple is also able to initiate changes that would be difficult for any other hardware vendor.

[klelatti]

Ah Ok. Agree with the amended version!

FWIW I think it’s unlikely that being a founder has any impact on current terms - we’re now thirty years on and several new licenses on now. Being a huge high profile customer will have an impact so Apple can probably get better terms than if you or me tried to buy an architecture license!

[panick21_]

Apple had to pay a lot for that license and even if you are willing to pay its not that easy to get. And if you do pay, you are not actually allowed resell the licenses for that chip.

RISC-V gives all people a level of power that is even higher then what Apple had with ARM.

As somebody from Esperanto said when making their Esperanto said it. If we had asked ARM it would have been 'pay of a couple million and then you can't do X,Y and Z'.

[klelatti]

I really don't get this sort of take : the world's most valuable company and a startup backed with $100m+ shouldn't have to pay for the IP that they use? Will Esperanto be giving their IP away for free and letting other firms do what they want with it?

Sure RISC-V is great in many, many ways but having the 64-bit Arm ISA ready for Apple to use in (checks notes) 2013 has been fundamental to them building their multi-trillion dollar business. Getting that ISA ready cost real money.

[panick21_]

> shouldn't have to pay for the IP that they use

They don't want actual ARM IP. They only want the ISA. Its questionable if ISA design should be protected.

To get an architectural license its millions, do you think its reasonable to pay millions just for an ISA specification?

And even with that specification, there would be lots of restrictions still.

Listen to Jim Keller on the topic, there are also other issues with how slow developments are. Lots of companies are already out with accelerators that don't even have an official ARM spec yet.

> Sure RISC-V is great in many, many ways but having the 64-bit Arm ISA ready for Apple to use in (checks notes) 2013 has been fundamental to them building their multi-trillion dollar business. Getting that ISA ready cost real money.

That's nice and all for ARM and Apple.

But now we are in the future where an open standard exists. Once you move to an open standard you don't go back very often.