this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
743 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

59566 readers
4696 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml 241 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (12 children)

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 57 points 1 month ago (4 children)

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 48 points 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.

The RISCV instruction set IS open source. What they'd do to ratfuck it is lock the bootloader or something.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ArdMacha@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Simping for Qualcomm is definitely not a take i expected

[–] CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 167 points 1 month ago (3 children)
[–] mako@discuss.tchncs.de 156 points 1 month ago (11 children)

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 51 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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 48 points 1 month ago (4 children)

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 32 points 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 129 points 1 month ago (4 children)

A risky move... Or should I say... A RISCV move...

[–] vext01@lemmy.sdf.org 28 points 1 month ago (4 children)

"risc architecture is gonna change everything"

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago (2 children)

year of the linux riscv desktop

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Xatolos@reddthat.com 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It really did.

FYI, ARM stands for Advanced RISC Machines.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frezik@midwest.social 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It actually did, but not in a way people expected at the time that movie was made. It changed a lot underneath the hood.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 98 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nobilmantis@feddit.it 89 points 1 month ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] moon@lemmy.cafe 78 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The free market is going very well here

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 month ago (62 children)

This is 100% capitalism. It's not free market to have a goverment-enforced monopoly.

[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month ago (9 children)

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

[–] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago (7 children)

X - ~~The system is broken.~~

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

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (61 replies)
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 76 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

With the understanding that both of these are publicly traded multi-billion-dollar corporations and therefore neither should be trusted (albeit Arm Holdings has about 1/10 of the net assets), I feel like I distrust Arm less on this one than whatever Qualcomm is doing on their coke-fueled race to capitalize on the AI bubble.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] irotsoma@lemmy.world 72 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Tech patents are ridiculous. Let's end them or reduce them to 1-3 years with no renewal. Then all that's left is the specific copyright to the technology, not lingering webs of patents that don't make any sense anyway to anyone with detailed knowledge of the tech. All they're good for is big companies using legal methods to stop innovation and competition. Tech moves too fast for long patents and is too complex for patent examiners or courts to understand what is really patentable. So it comes down to who has the most money for lawyers.

[–] cordlesslamp@lemmy.today 36 points 1 month ago

Seeing things like "slide to unlock", "rounded corners", and "scroll bouncing" are all patentable is ridiculous.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] putitoutwithyourbootsted@piefed.social 69 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] chasingtheflow@lemmy.world 37 points 1 month ago
[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 62 points 1 month ago (4 children)

This seems like a tactic that might win a battle but lose the war. Reminds me of Unity.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] szczuroarturo@programming.dev 56 points 1 month ago (3 children)

And so the corporate wars have begun

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I saw this documentary where taco bell won them.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 53 points 1 month ago (3 children)

The amount of IP money grubbing in the IT industry is able to literally make millions out of sand, this is just more of it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 46 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Good. Qualcomm refuses to make it easy to run linux on their hardware. Instead they try to hide basic information about their processors and chips in the name of selling a license for every little thing.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 23 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

And so is Arm, especially their Mali drivers.

While some go "um, ackchually, you don't need a GPU driver for your hobby project of using a cheap SBC to run emulators", it does affect usability a lot. Yeah, Arm also pointing at the licensors and so are licensors to Arm in this case, but it's still not good that the only SBCs with relatively good GPU drivers for Linux are made by Raspberry Pi, and in all other case, you either need to pirate the drivers (!), use the tool that allows regular Linux to use Android GPU drivers, or just use the framebuffer-only driver with heavy limitations.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip 45 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Part of the reason why when people were saying they wanted competition to unseat x86, I didn't want it to be ARM based, because I knew 100% that ARM would jump in and do some shit to rake in more profit and negate all the potential cost savings to the consumer. As long as theres a single(or in the case of x86, essentially (but technically not) duopoly) that controls all the options for one of the options, then it's not a good form of competition.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 40 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We shall break into the desktop and laptop market! Let's start by severing ties with one of the most successful companies to do that so far.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 36 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

I hope this isn't a cartoony scheme driven by Apple honeydicking Arm with the M-series processors to tank PC and Android.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nailed it. They know they have a leading chip in these designs now, the market is expanding, and whatever licensing fee was negotiated in the past needs to be revisited.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 35 points 1 month ago (4 children)

While every comment here seems to scream "end patents", arm has less patent bs than other tech (rounded corners) meant to sue/prevent use. Arm works hard on developing and improving architecture and designs to offer licenses at a compelling price. Qualcomm paying as much as other licensees should be preferable to Qualcomm than bankruptcy.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I wonder if their recent bid to take over Intel, is related.

The irony would be very thik as Qualcomm played a big role in killing Intel's 2010er efforts to enter the mobile sector.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Qualcomm is not trying to take over Intel.

Not only has it been denied by both parties, it would 100% not go ahead. Additionally, it would invalidate the x86 cross-licence that AMD and Intel have, meaning Intel would no longer be able to make modern x86 CPUs. Frankly it's also somewhat doubtful Qualcomm wants to take Intel on.

The rumour was likely someone trying to pump up the stock and sell.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›