Apple inks new long-term deal with Arm for chip technology, according to filing

[Spindel]

Summary

Basically this is new information that has surfaced with the different filings that are necessary for ARMs IPO. 

 

Quotes

Quote

Sept 5 (Reuters) - Apple (AAPL.O) has signed a new deal with Arm for chip technology that "extends beyond 2040," according to Arm's initial public offering documents filed on Tuesday.

 

My thoughts

For people speculating that Apple will soon jump ship to Risc V this news means that Apple will most probably stay with ARM for their CPU for at least 10 years more. Risc V stuff might still appear sooner in Apple devices for support functions sooner, but not for the CPU. 

 

Sources

https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-inks-new-long-term-deal-with-arm-chip-technology-filing-2023-09-05/

[hishnash]

Why do people think apple would switch to RISCV, the amount apple pays ARM per chip is very low since apple is using thier own design IP etc and apple ship such a large volume I would not be surprised if apple got a deal that does not even price it per chip but rather is a nice flat per year fee or even just a single lump sum payment. 

[Dracarris]

19 minutes ago, hishnash said:

Why do people think apple would switch to RISCV, the amount apple pays ARM per chip is very low since apple is using thier own design IP etc and apple ship such a large volume I would not be surprised if apple got a deal that does not even price it per chip but rather is a nice flat per year fee or even just a single lump sum payment. 

The kind of license that Apple uses, called an "architecture" license IIRC, is the most expensive one that there is. While they for sure struck a nice deal with ARM, they also for sure still pay a decent amount of licensing fees and are similarly incentivized as the rest of the industry is to move away from ARM.

[Obioban]

I don't think Apple signing a deal with ARM confirms or denies a potential future use of RISCV-- just means they're not going to get into a situation where they're forced to stop using ARM.

[leadeater]

32 minutes ago, Dracarris said:

The kind of license that Apple uses, called an "architecture" license IIRC, is the most expensive one that there is. While they for sure struck a nice deal with ARM, they also for sure still pay a decent amount of licensing fees and are similarly incentivized as the rest of the industry is to move away from ARM.

There are only two license types currently, with different sub license categories. I doubt Apple is using either and has a fully negotiated license contract to suit their needs, none of the published licenses are suitable for or what Apple needs/wants.

 

https://www.arm.com/products/licensing

https://www.arm.com/products/flexible-access

https://www.arm.com/products/licensing/arm-total-access

 

I would be seriously surprised if Apple uses any of the above. Why would Apple sign a license contract with royalty fees for IP usage that Apple doesn't even use, ARM isn't entitled to that since Apple does not use anything like the Cortex IP.

[Spindel]

32 minutes ago, leadeater said:

There are only two license types currently, with different sub license categories. I doubt Apple is using either and has a fully negotiated license contract to suit their needs, none of the published licenses are suitable for or what Apple needs/wants.

 

https://www.arm.com/products/licensing

https://www.arm.com/products/flexible-access

https://www.arm.com/products/licensing/arm-total-access

 

I would be seriously surprised if Apple uses any of the above. Why would Apple sign a license contract with royalty fees for IP usage that Apple doesn't even use, ARM isn't entitled to that since Apple does not use anything like the Cortex IP.

Most probably Apple is reaping the benefits of being one of the original investors in what ARM is today. 

[Dracarris]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

I would be seriously surprised if Apple uses any of the above. Why would Apple sign a license contract with royalty fees for IP usage that Apple doesn't even use, ARM isn't entitled to that since Apple does not use anything like the Cortex IP.

Apple does not need to pay any IP license fees, but royalties for using the ARM ISA. This has nothing to do with the Cortex IP ecosystem. They are paying for using the ISA and designing their own architecture around it, and I doubt something like that is listed on ARMs website.

 

https://www.quora.com/Does-Apple-need-to-pay-for-a-license-to-ARM-in-order-to-make-CPUs-based-on-ARM-architecture

Not exactly super trustable, I'll see if I can find a better source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture_family#Licensing -> Architectural licence

Some history from when this licensing type started, again many Newton references

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10190521 (very old)

 

Edit: Found what I was referring to (Archi being most expensive), from Anandtech

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, Dracarris said:

Apple does not need to pay any IP license fees, but royalties for using the ARM ISA. This has nothing to do with the Cortex IP ecosystem. They are paying for using the ISA and designing their own architecture around it, and I doubt something like that is listed on ARMs website.

 

https://www.quora.com/Does-Apple-need-to-pay-for-a-license-to-ARM-in-order-to-make-CPUs-based-on-ARM-architecture

Not exactly super trustable, I'll see if I can find a better source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture_family#Licensing -> Architectural licence

Some history from when this licensing type started, again many Newton references

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10190521 (very old)

 

Edit: Found what I was referring to (Archi being most expensive), from Anandtech

The above image is the old license model, it's not used anymore.

 

5 hours ago, Dracarris said:

This has nothing to do with the Cortex IP ecosystem. They are paying for using the ISA and designing their own architecture around it, and I doubt something like that is listed on ARMs website.

The problem is it does, since as you can see by the current links and options none of them offer in any way anything other than access to ARM IP. While Apple will have something akin to "Architectural license" it's not actually a thing anymore and the other example companies all use ARM IP, Apple is actually the unique one of them all since they are not using ARM IP.

 

Nvidia for example have the Grace CPU that uses Arm Neoverse V2. Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 uses multiple different Cortex CPU cores. These are all example companies that have been said to use the "Architectural license". That's what makes Apple unique, they do not use ARM IP only the ISA. Fujitsu A64FX would be another example of this. The number of companies and SoC designs that actually use no ARM IP is 2 that I can remember, Apple and Fujitsu, but there are probably a few others. Everyone else is actually using it and that's why ARM licensing is the way it is, to cater for the 99% while the 1% can negotiate to their own needs.

[Dracarris]

24 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The above image is the old license model, it's not used anymore.

Do you have a source for this besides the website (which in such cases often does not show the full list of options)? I see that besides the listed two "nobody" uses an archi license, but that does not necessarily mean it's not available anymore (be it only upon special request or not).

This would also mean that the wiki page is outdated.

[hishnash]

28 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Everyone else is actually using it and that's why ARM licensing is the way it is, to cater for the 99% while the 1% can negotiate to their own needs.

Yes apple will of cource have a custom contract,  also since from what we know of the old contract there was nothing forcing apple to sign a new one, apple could have just stayed on the old contract (but not get access to new ARM ISA features) for apple that would be sad but not that big a deal as thier existing contract already let them make thier own ISA alterations so had ARM refused whatever terms apple suggested it would not mean apple could no longer make chips it would just mean arm would have a massive hole in thier $$$ income and a big negative mark on the IPO. 

[LAwLz]

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The above image is the old license model, it's not used anymore.

Do we even know what Arms licensing looks like anymore?

I know you linked to their website where they show the flexible and all access models, but I am not sure those are the only two that exists. Arm is not exactly that open with a lot of things, so I wouldn't be surprised if the TSA and ALA licenses still exist, just that they don't present them on their website.

 

Even if those are the current main two licenses being offered, my guess is that a lot of large companies have their own custom licenses, and those usually last a long time. For example, Nvidia's license agreement was for 20 years, and we know for a fact that license agreement allows Nvidia to make completely custom CPU core designs.

 

The last time Arm confirmed the existence of an Architecture License Agreement (the one needed to make fully custom cores) was in 2022 when they filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm for their Nuvia deal and specifically said Nuvia had an "ALA".

Page 4, point 17.

[Kisai]

9 hours ago, Spindel said:

Most probably Apple is reaping the benefits of being one of the original investors in what ARM is today. 

Apple is big enough to get whatever they want from ARM, including threatening to buy them to keep the IP from landing in a competitor's closed ecosystem (eg Nvidia.)

 

 

 

[leadeater]

13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Do we even know what Arms licensing looks like anymore?

I know you linked to their website where they show the flexible and all access models, but I am not sure those are the only two that exists. Arm is not exactly that open with a lot of things, so I wouldn't be surprised if the TSA and ALA licenses still exist, just that they don't present them on their website.

 

Even if those are the current main two licenses being offered, my guess is that a lot of large companies have their own custom licenses, and those usually last a long time. For example, Nvidia's license agreement was for 20 years, and we know for a fact that license agreement allows Nvidia to make completely custom CPU core designs.

 

The last time Arm confirmed the existence of an Architecture License Agreement (the one needed to make fully custom cores) was in 2022 when they filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm for their Nuvia deal and specifically said Nuvia had an "ALA".

Page 4, point 17.

The ones on the website are both probably just different forms of TLA's, it's not uncommon branding wise to have names for things but in all the legal aspects have different or more specific terms. Not something I like myself because it gets rather confusing when getting in to proper discussions, Oracle licensing for example argh.

 

You'll notice none of the licenses on the website or the sub section groups of each of them allow for custom core designs, only usage of ARM IP and designs.

 

In any case when people on the internet talk about ALA licenses and give examples they are wrong, Qualcomm case and point since the lawsuit is specifically about them not having an ALA and taking an unauthorized, by ARM, acquisition path to both obtaining one and technology developed under one to bring to market products. That's what the whole Qualcomm, Nuvia, ARM fight is about. At one stage Qualcomm did have an ALA but they never brought to market any product under the ALA license, every product Qualcomm has sold has been under TLA (at least "Snapdragon" etc products).

 

The amount of companies that actually need and have an ALA is small, very small, and reading what ARM talks about it isn't really even what Apple have or are doing. ALA is about tight working relationship with ARM with significant involvement from ARM in the development of customized cores based on their technology. At this point Apple far as I see it only utilize the ISA and engineering wise is 100% Apple and I doubt ARM has much involvement other than around the ISA specifically.

 

For example Ampere Altra are customized Neoverse N1 cores with vector units and Ampere One is Neoverse V1 (from what I can tell, not confirmed). This is being done under an ALA and fits very well with what ARM says an ALA is and is for. An ALA is required to customize ARM core designs, Apple isn't even doing that.

 

Whatever Apple has, whether it's an ALA or not, in my opinion is a lot more specialized and I would believe their license reflects that. The whole situation around the ARM license agreements is to ensure ARM gets the money for their IP they have developed and usages of it. Since an ALA is in their own words specifically for customizing their existing core designs and heavy involvement from them this doesn't fit with what Apple is doing.

 

Who knows? Do I? Nope. Either way it doesn't appear to me Apple or ARM are unhappy with whatever arrangement they have. I also don't see any pressing need or desire from Apple to move away from ARM. The way I see it people end up projecting their desires and personal excitement for RISC-V and create their own narrative why companies would or are wanting to move to that, I see no reason currently why Apple would entertain a move to RISC-V. They might use the technology in co-processors etc but I simply don't see a move to that for main processing cores, not even for Apple Watch.