Arm Changes Business Model – OEM Partners Must Directly License From Arm

[HandymanHandy]

 

Summary

Here are two HUGE new points Arm wants to do from 2025 onwards:

    •    Arm will end TLAs (technology license agreements) with SoC vendors and go straight to OEMs. i.e. Sony will pay for the Arm license instead of Qualcomm
    •    Arm will ban custom GPUs, custom NPUs, and custom ISPs if the SoC uses stock cores. i.e. no more Samsung’s Xclipse RDNA GPUs/AI Engine, Google’s Tensor NPU/ISP, MediaTek’s APU, HiSilicon’s Da Vinci NPU, Unisoc’s VDSP, … if stock Arm CPU cores are used.

 

Arm is essentially doing what regulators feared Nvidia-owned Arm would do

 

Quotes

 

Quote

 Qualcomm claims that Arm is telling the OEMs that semiconductor manufacturers will not be able to provide other elements of their Arm-based SOCs that Arm also offers as a licensed product. This includes GPUs, NPUs, and ISP. It seems that Arm is effectively bundling its other IP with the CPU IP in a take-it-or-leave-it model. That would mean Samsung’s licensing deal with AMD for GPU or MediaTek with Imagination GPU is no longer allowed after 2024. Furthermore, none of these firms could use their in-house ISP or NPU despite it being far superior to Arm's.

 

My thoughts

I understand that ARM doesn’t make much money unlike their customers, but this is such a bad move, this feels like threats. I feel like, having lost that NVIDIA money, Softbank just want to squeeze as much money as they can get from Arm customers.

 

Supposedly, Nvidia already has 20 year agreement for special use case, so they are not impacted but everyone else are like Samsung, Qualcomm, Mediatek, Google etc.

 

Sources

https://www.semianalysis.com/p/arm-changes-business-model-oem-partners

[AbydosOne]

I wonder if the industry stop-gap solution to this will be just putting the custom silicon next to the ARM cores on a PCB interposer instead of the same die... until RISC-V takes over.

[LapsedMemory]

This feels like a passive-aggressive "FARK YOU" to regulators:  "You're going to deny the buyout because you're afraid NVIDIA will stifle competition?  Fine, we'll just do it ourselves so the next time someone offers to buy us, you won't have anything to complain about."

[tim0901]

40 minutes ago, HandymanHandy said:

    •    Arm will ban custom GPUs, custom NPUs, and custom ISPs if the SoC uses stock cores. i.e. no more Samsung’s Xclipse RDNA GPUs/AI Engine, Google’s Tensor NPU/ISP, MediaTek’s APU, HiSilicon’s Da Vinci NPU, Unisoc’s VDSP, … if stock Arm CPU cores are used.

RIP to the Nintendo Switch then. Or at least its successor.

 

40 minutes ago, HandymanHandy said:

Supposedly, Nvidia already has 20 year agreement for special use case, so they are not impacted but everyone else are like Samsung, Qualcomm, Mediatek, Google etc.

Edit: Just saw this - not sure if this will save Nintendo or not now that they're on the hook for the ARM license?

[Lightwreather]

7 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

Edit: Just saw this - not sure if this will save Nintendo or not now that they're on the hook for the ARM license?

I'd assume, since they use Nvidia stuff, they're exempt?

But this solely speculation.

[igormp]

55 minutes ago, HandymanHandy said:

but everyone else are like Samsung, Qualcomm, Mediatek, Google etc.

Welp, I guess Samsung needs to spin up their SARC division back, while the others will need to build their own µarches. It's not like building a µarch better than the default, shitty ones from ARM is that hard, most companies that tried it  managed to do so (see Nvidia, Apple, Nuvia, Ampere, etc.)

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, HandymanHandy said:

Arm is essentially doing what regulators feared Nvidia-owned Arm would do

 

My thoughts

I understand that ARM doesn’t make much money unlike their customers, but this is such a bad move, this feels like threats. I feel like, having lost that NVIDIA money, Softbank just want to squeeze as much money as they can get from Arm customers.

 

Supposedly, Nvidia already has 20 year agreement for special use case, so they are not impacted but everyone else are like Samsung, Qualcomm, Mediatek, Google etc.

 

Sources

https://www.semianalysis.com/p/arm-changes-business-model-oem-partners

 

Hmm, on one hand ARM is correct for doing this, because it's the leading reason why you can't just run an off-the-shelf ARM OS on an ARM chip. If ARM wants to compete with Intel and AMD, then this needs to happen.

 

That said, I think people aren't reading between the lines. This is basically an aggressive quality-control measure likely as a consequence of what happened with the Chinese ARM subsidiary. Basically nobody will be permitted to buy the China ARM chips that ARM itself does not sign off on.

 

For everyone else, eg Qualcomm and Samsung, it will likely just mean they need to make their own hardware and won't be able to sell general purpose chips (that arguably have no other buyers anyways but themselves.)

 

Which seems to provide the context for this:

https://www.arm.com/company/news/2022/08/arm-files-lawsuit-against-qualcomm-and-nuvia-for-breach-of-license-agreements-and-trademark-infringement

 

So my opinion here is that the majority (eg Apple, Nvidia) since they make their own hardware, this will have no impact on. This will have an impact on Intel's FPGA business however since they sell ARM+Cyclone FPGA parts.

 

Also Qualcomm's response is quite rich considering that take-it-or-leave-it approach is how they sell their own wireless parts. Have to buy the entire SoC not just the modem.

 

Ultimately It think there will be no change from the status quo, this is just Qualcomm stomping their feet and getting a taste of their own medicine. They fear that they will be cut out of ARM SoC sales because the device manufacturers won't come to them (Qualcomm,) and since they (Qualcomm) do not make their own chips, the device manufacturer will just make the chips themselves.

 

[Salv8 (sam)]

and that ladies and gentlemen, is how you kill a product.

 

also yay i have 1k messages, i'm apart of the 10%.

[Senzelian]

This might be Samsung's best opportunity yet to get rid of Qualcomm as a competitor.

Also I don't know how far Google is with Titan M, but they could maybe extend its functionality to replace Tensor's ISP and NPU? 

[Forbidden Wafer]

2 hours ago, Kisai said:

Also Qualcomm's response is quite rich considering that take-it-or-leave-it approach is how they sell their own wireless parts. Have to buy the entire SoC not just the modem.

EXACTLY! I'm laughing. Their business division is super scummy.
"You want to see the datasheets for this component? Ok, then sign this agreement where you promise to purchase xx thousand units in the next few years."

[TetraSky]

So no more weaksauce SOC with crappy cores but "decent" graphics? They will actually be required to put in the legwork to make the damn thing better? 
...
I can't see any negative to this. Unless the various manufacturers decide to just abandon ARM and go with something else.

[Donut417]

8 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

So no more weaksauce SOC with crappy cores but "decent" graphics? They will actually be required to put in the legwork to make the damn thing better? 
...
I can't see any negative to this. Unless the various manufacturers decide to just abandon ARM and go with something else.

The only other solution is Risk V, right? Is that even remotely ready? How long will it take devs to utilize it? It’s pretty certain x86 won’t be able to be used in this application. Would Risk V have the performance and power efficiency like ARM? 

[BabaGanuche]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Would Risk V have the performance and power efficiency like ARM

The ISA has little to do with either. The implementation of the core and the process node are way more important. Think of the performance and efficiency difference between the Intel Q6600 and the i3 12300. Both are four core 64 bit x86 processors. The latter which is much performant and efficient.

[Likwid]

8 hours ago, tim0901 said:

RIP to the Nintendo Switch then. Or at least its successor.

 

Edit: Just saw this - not sure if this will save Nintendo or not now that they're on the hook for the ARM license?

Nvidia recentrly released Orin Nano, I think current one was based to something like Jetson Nano. GPU improvmenets would be massive if they used Orin Nano fot switch 2

[hishnash]

13 hours ago, Kisai said:

Hmm, on one hand ARM is correct for doing this, because it's the leading reason why you can't just run an off-the-shelf ARM OS on an ARM chip. If ARM wants to compete with Intel and AMD, then this needs to happen.

 

I think you have a good point here.  But mandating that chips that use ARM designs need to be ARM designs through and through they end up creating an ecosystem of chips were all the ARM designed chips will all work the same. Currently if you pick any 2 ARM cpus even throughs with identical cortex cores just booting them will require a LOT of custom work for each as all of the rest of the chip will be a custom mixture.  

This move will in the end mean it is much simpler for OEMs to switch between ARM chip fabricators. But also moving the licensing to the OEM means ARM could (and I expect they will) charge based on the device cost.  I think they might well currently be rather sad with things like ARM MS studio laptops being sold were they might get $1 (if that) when the intel they're getting $50 (or more). 

And this will not affect the big bib players that have ISA licenses to build fully custom cores. 

[hishnash]

7 hours ago, BabaGanuche said:

The ISA has little to do with either. The implementation of the core and the process node are way more important. Think of the performance and efficiency difference between the Intel Q6600 and the i3 12300. Both are four core 64 bit x86 processors. The latter which is much performant and efficient.

absolutely however dome ISA choses can make it easer or harder to build an equal core...   but you still need to put in the leg-work.  

for sure the legacy nightmare that intel/amd need to support in x86 cpus does not make it easier to build a well optimised branch predictor etc. 

[williamcll]

Time to go back to x86 phones or wait for some random Chinese manufacturer to start selling RISC-V phones?

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, williamcll said:

Time to go back to x86 phones

I recall Intel putting an Atom CPU in a phone once, they like showed it off at one of those tech conferences back in the day. It never went anywhere. If I recall it performed terribly. 

[NF-A12x25]

9 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

I recall Intel putting an Atom CPU in a phone once, they like showed it off at one of those tech conferences back in the day. It never went anywhere. If I recall it performed terribly. 

core i9 gaming phone when

 

ok after saying that it’s actually gonna happen, i want an RGB gaming toaster to put in my RGB gaming bathtub

[igormp]

4 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

I recall Intel putting an Atom CPU in a phone once, they like showed it off at one of those tech conferences back in the day. It never went anywhere. If I recall it performed terribly. 

There were quite some x86 phones, most by Asus:

https://www.gsmarena.com/asus_zenfone_2_ze551ml-6917.php

 

https://www.gsmarena.com/asus_zenfone_4_a450cg_(2014)-6428.php

 

https://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_razr_i_xt890-4998.php

 

https://www.gsmarena.com/lenovo_k800-4445.php

[Donut417]

9 minutes ago, igormp said:

There were quite some x86 phones, most by Asus:

https://www.gsmarena.com/asus_zenfone_2_ze551ml-6917.php

 

https://www.gsmarena.com/asus_zenfone_4_a450cg_(2014)-6428.php

 

https://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_razr_i_xt890-4998.php

 

https://www.gsmarena.com/lenovo_k800-4445.php

Looking at the release date and when they cut them, Yeah they were very successful /s 

[igormp]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

Looking at the release date and when they cut them, Yeah they were very successful /s 

Yeah, they had tons of issues with battery life and some NDK-based apps that didn't work (I remember many Atom users had issues with pokemon go at launch).

But still, almost 4 years of sales is something, and those zenfones were quite common here.

[Arika]

This kills the arm

[Mihle]

Risk V should hurry up.

[hishnash]

2 hours ago, Mihle said:

Risk V should hurry up.

The ISA is fine what RISCV needs is competitive ARC desigens that can compete. This however takes a LOT of money and thus such designs will cost money in fact already the high end RISCV designed out there are just as prescriptive in the license, the only difference between RISCV and ARM is that you do not need to pay for an ISA license if you want to build your own chip from scratch but very very very very few companies can even start doing that for a basic chip let alone a full SOC, and for those companies that can afford to do that they have already been in the game for years so have a lot of pre-existing ARM dependancy. Some of them (apple) have apparently started to look into incorporating RISCV into some of the co-prososores they embed within the SOC (nothing has shipped like that I think yet however).