• CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    250
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month 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.

    • scarilog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      1 month 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
        48
        ·
        1 month 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.

        • scarilog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          If Qualcomm released a FOSS RISC-V IP core that would’ve required spending multiple millions on hardware engineer salaries (no chance in hell), I would:

          1. Spontaneously ejaculate
          2. Pull out my FPGA
      • CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month 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
          15
          ·
          1 month 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
      22
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month 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.

    • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month 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.

      • CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        APIs can be complex too. Look at how much stuff the Win32 API provides from all the kernel calls, defined data structures/types, libraries, etc. I would venture a guess that if you documented the Win32 API including all the needed system libraries to make something like Wine, it would also be 850 pages long. The fact remains that a documented prototype for a software implementation is free to reimplement but a documented prototype for a hardware implementation requires a license. This makes no sense from a fairness perspective. I’m fine with ARM not giving away their fully developed IP cores which are actual implementations of the ARM instruction set, but locking third parties from making their own compatible designs without a license is horribly anticompetitive. I wish standards organizations still had power. Letting corporations own de-facto “standards” is awful for everyone.

  • mako@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    157
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month 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
      52
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month 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
      39
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month 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
        48
        ·
        1 month 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
          32
          ·
          1 month 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.

        • LiPoly@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 month ago

          From my understanding, most companies take the reference design from Arm and then alter it to fit their needs.

          • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            That’s a big part of what’s going on. ARM is trying to move into Qualcomm’s traditional business while Qualcomm is trying to move in ARM’s traditional business.

            "Under Chief Executive Officer Rene Haas, Arm has shifted to offering more complete designs — ones that companies can take directly to contract manufacturers. Haas believes that his company, still majority owned by Japan’s SoftBank Group Corp., should be rewarded more for the engineering work it does. That shift encroaches on the business of Arm’s traditional customers, like Qualcomm, who use Arm’s technology in their own final chip designs.

            Meanwhile, under CEO Cristiano Amon, Qualcomm is moving away from using Arm designs and is prioritizing its own work, something that potentially makes it a less lucrative customer for Arm. He’s also expanding into new areas, most notably computing, where Arm is making its own push. But the two companies’ technologies remain intertwined, and Qualcomm isn’t yet in a position to make a clean break from Arm."

            https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/arm-to-cancel-qualcomm-chip-design-license-in-escalation-of-feud/ar-AA1sK49J

            • LiPoly@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              Interesting. So essentially Arm is butthurt that Qualcomm doesn’t want to send them a shitload of money and instead tries to do their own thing, so Arm is trying to force them into buying their product regardless?

      • mako@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 month 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
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month 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.

        • Treczoks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Several differing extensions of the RISC-V core machine instructions, for example. A pain in the rear for any compiler builder.

          • tekato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            That’s a good thing, meaning you can design RISC-V CPUs without functionality you don’t need (like microcontrollers that only need basic operations). However, for those who want a complete CPU, there are RVA profiles (latest being RVA23), which are a list of extensions required to be an application-ready CPU. So there’s really just 1 “standard” for general purpose computing, everything else is for specialized products.

            • Treczoks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              And it does not concern you that this RVA profile is version 23? Which means there are a number of CPUs based on lower versions, too, as they don’t just update on a whim? And they are incompatible, with version 23 because they lack instructions?

              So a compiler would have to support at least a certain number of those profiles (usually, parts in the embedded world are supported for 10+ years!), and be capable of supporting the one or other non-RVA extension, too, to satisfy customer needs.

              That is exactly what I meant with “too many standards”.

              • tekato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                And it does not concern you that this RVA profile is version 23

                Not sure where you got that information. There are only 5 RISC-V profiles.

                And they are incompatible, with version 23 because they lack instructions?

                Like all the x86 CPUs from a few years ago that don’t have all the new extensions? Not supporting new extensions doesn’t mean the CPU is useless, only that it’s worse than new ones, as things should be when there’s progress. Or I guess you throw out your x86 CPU every time Intel/AMD create a new instruction?

                So a compiler would have to support at least a certain number of those profiles

                Do you think compilers only target one x86 version with one set of instructions? For example in x86, there’s SIMD versions SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, compilers support all of them, and that’s literally just for the SIMD instructions. What’s new?

                • Treczoks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Yes, there are differences in certain x86 command sets. But they actually have a market. RISC-V is just a niche, and splintering in a small niche is making the support situation worse.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah, in the current macro environment Qualcomm isn’t that tied down & can afford some changes (basically with a few of their biggest partners that can keep their profits up even in a few transitioning years). Not sure what prompted ARM to force such a deal instead of getting like a good compromise.

      But also fuck Qualcomm & their closed-softwareness.

      Im still hoping I can buy a RISC-V laptop (from Framework?) in 2 or 3 years & just run Linux normally.
      And if that can happen & RISC-V still doesn’t overall prosper it’s bcs of some shitty greedy deals between megacorps.

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month 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?

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        This is textbook late stage free market ideals at work. This is how the free market always ends.

        • Final Remix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          31
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          X - The system is broken.

          ✅ - The system is working exactly as intended and must be destroyed.

          • Petter1@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            There are lots of different kinds of markets, like phone market, grocery market, goldsmith market, etc.

            The governments have to interfere in many markets all the time, that there aren’t monopolies forming or Price-fixing agreement be done, which would lead to prices go ridiculously high, or last companies in markets fucking up taking tons of knowhow with them.

            • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Yes but the statement was “this is how free markets always end”. And I’m just wondering if the commenter has actually been around to see “free markets ending.”

              • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                I think they were less talking about them ending as much as them tending towards the monopoly state over time.

                • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Got it. Saying “this is how free markets always end” if they meant “free markets tends to move towards monopolies” confused me.

              • chakan2@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                That’s a fair comment I guess…but it’s the reality of the game. The US was a free market through it’s early history and today is the result of that.

                It’s just how the free market ends, always. It starts with a few winners consolidating, abusing their monopoly and buying their government protections, and poof…welcome to late stage capitalism.

                “Free Market” people always disregard human nature at it’s worst. There will always be people and orgs that game the system. You simply can’t prevent that. The US is absolutely an end game free market.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah, the huge companies would dominate over small companies even more than they already do.

          • ConsistentParadox@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Copyrights and patents are literally government enforced monopolies for huge companies. Without them, there would be a lot more competition.

            • lud@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              Really? Calling it a government enforced monopoly seems very disingenuous.

              Good luck trying to make a movie without Disney stealing it or making an invention with really effective solar panels or something without the biggest companies stealing it and bankrupt the original creator.

              Copyright and patents protect everyone involved in creation and while there are a LOT of problems with the systems. Removing it entirely seems like the biggest overcorrection possible.

              • ConsistentParadox@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 month ago

                Companies such as Disney have armies of lawyers to enforce their monopolies. Copyright and patent laws are designed exclusively for the rich.

                Disney can very well “steal” other people’s work and get away with it under this system. Without such laws, everyone else would be able to “steal” from Disney as well, which would level the playing field.

                • lud@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  The playing field won’t be level without patents or copyright. Why would I an average idiot make or invent something if the exact second I show the world my invention someone takes it and mass-produces it within a week? I have no chance to raise capital to make the invention myself if you can already buy it in every store. The Chinese manufacturing industry essentially does this already but to a lesser degree. Imagine if every company did that. No small companies or individuals would stand a chance against Goliath.

                  And again the word monopoly is very misleading in this discussion, especially when it comes to copyright. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from making superhero movies just because Marvel/Disney owns a lot of superhero rights. You are just not allowed to make an exact copy of their movie but you are allowed to make similar movies all day long.

                  Another example is a professional photographer. Do you really think that they should be awarded no rights whatsoever to the photograph they took?

                  The same obviously applies to huge companies as well. Why make a movie if it’s available for free download literally everywhere.

                  How do you propose that the makers of content, inventions and products get paid? Donations? Get real, that won’t happen.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Or trade secrets. “Perfect information” is a bitch. Not to speak of “perfectly rational actors”: Say goodbye to advertisement, too, we’d have to outlaw basically all of it.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Trade secrets don’t need to be enforced much by law. You can create an ad hoc trade secret regime by simply keeping your secret between a few key employees. As it happens, there are some laws that go beyond that to help companies keep the secret, but that only extends something that could happen naturally.