Jump to content

Talk:Arm Holdings: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
ClueBot III (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,369,350 edits
m Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:ARM Holdings/Archives/2013. (BOT)
Aimaz (talk | contribs)
243 edits
Line 171: Line 171:


If it's a [[public limited company]], that would mean that I can buy shares of it on some stock exchange, such as the London Stock Exchange, right? Is it still listed? If not, wouldn't that mean it's no longer a PLC? [[User:Guy Harris|Guy Harris]] ([[User talk:Guy Harris|talk]]) 17:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
If it's a [[public limited company]], that would mean that I can buy shares of it on some stock exchange, such as the London Stock Exchange, right? Is it still listed? If not, wouldn't that mean it's no longer a PLC? [[User:Guy Harris|Guy Harris]] ([[User talk:Guy Harris|talk]]) 17:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

: ARM is not a PLC. I believe the article should now live at [[ARM Ltd.]] but this page exists so I'm not able move this one myself. [[User:Aimaz|Aimaz]] ([[User talk:Aimaz|talk]]) 16:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
== External links modified ==

Revision as of 16:17, 8 March 2017


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Readd all the companies that got deleted with citations

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=ARM_Holdings&diff=573705691&oldid=573703902

Unsourced (or [citation needed]) is not tolerated in ARM Holdings page. It's much more strict that "ARM Architecture". Now this material I deleted under time pressure has no home. comp.arch (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to re-add but please find the citations before expanding the customer-lists. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel kind of bad for trying to clean up ARM Architecture, I did and dumped the mess here, just didn't realize it was such a mess/strict here. I just copy pasted.

Do add (move) what is down here (one at a time is ok) with citations in the article page not down below. This is just the deleted text for convinience.

Deleted text:

ARM architectural licence:

Companies with 32-bit architectural licence include Apple Inc.[citation needed] <Must have one since many Apple processors are "labelled" Apple-design and couldn't be witout an architectural licence. The very least they have a regular one in not "Apple-designed". A7 the 64-bit has one credible source (AnandTech) saying it's also Apple-designed.>

Intel[citation needed] (through its settlement with Digital Equipment Corporation), <Intell still making ARMs? Historically important since DEC first and Intel got that licence?>

and Qualcomm[citation needed].

Distinct 32-bit custom-designd ARM architecture implementations by licensees include Qualcomm's Krait (or Scorpion) in Snapdragon <DONE Krait or older Scorpion link>,

DEC's StrongARM <First "ARM-clone". Influde since historically important?>,

Marvell's (formerly Intel's) XScale. <Next after StrongARM?>

ARM core licence:

Companies that are current licensees of 64-bit ARM core designs include Apple (A7)[citation needed], AppliedMicro (X-Gene), AMD, Calxeda, HiSilicon (Huawei's),<Done, these are the "same thing", which one to use and others.[1][2][3][4]

Companies that are current or former licensees of 32-bit (and some for 64-bit) ARM core designs (some for microcontrollers) include AMD,[5] Alcatel-Lucent, Altera, Analog Devices, Apple Inc., AppliedMicro, Atmel, BlackBerry (formerly Research In Motion), Cirrus Logic, CSR plc, Cypress Semiconductor, Ember, Energy Micro, Faraday Technology, Fujitsu, Fuzhou Rockchip, Huawei (HiSilicon division)[6], IBM,[7] Infineon Technologies (Infineon XMC 32-bit MCU families),[8] Intel (DEC), LG, Marvell, MediaTek, Microsemi, NEC, Nintendo, Nuvoton, NXP Semiconductors (formerly Philips Semiconductor), Oki, ON Semiconductor, Panasonic, Qualcomm, Sharp, Silicon Labs, Sony, ST-Ericsson, STMicroelectronics, Symbios Logic, Toshiba, Yamaha, Xilinx and ZiiLABS.

comp.arch (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bunch of the core licensees back, with citations. I'll let somebody else add more. Guy Harris (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for single handedly doing this. When going to sleep I had second thoughts about this. This material was deleted as unsourced, maybe it's unwanted here, period? Does ARM get paid for the licenses once (royalty-free - guess not)? Or for each processor produced? Maybe the business types - "analysts" don't care for a list of companies, let alone the SoC/microcontroller names like A7 only (names like Apple and iPhone might be an exception).
and "Mention the core licensees first, then the architectural licensees; we mention the licensing of cores before the licensing of architectures in the beginning of the section, and most ARM cores are probably licensed from ARM.". I reversed put them first on purpose since they are more expensive (unsourced but "obvious", probaly confidential, any possible citation?). comp.arch (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A comprehensive list of licensees might not be interesting, but if ARM has a count of licensees, that might be interesting as an indication of the popularity of ARM Holdings' products, and listing some significant companies that have licensed ARM cores or the ARM ISA might also emphasize the company's significance.
As for the licensing terms, ARM's "Licensing ARM IP" page doesn't give any details on the terms (financial and otherwise) they offer - my guess is that ARM only tells those to potential licensees, and might individually negotiate with architecture licensees (and perhaps might do so with some core licensees). I would also guess that core licenses have per-processor charges (that some core licensees might be able to negotiate away in favor of a sufficiently-large one-time payment), and don't have a good guess as to how architecture licenses work, but my guesses aren't worth any more than anybody else's guesses. Absent a citation, I'd be inclined not to say anything about, for example, the relative costs of core and architecture licenses; I think it's reasonably obvious (to the point of not needing a citation) that if you're going to design your own cores from scratch, you need more technical knowledge than if you're going to license a core design from ARM, so we can at least say that. Guy Harris (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well done both of you on your recent excellent work on this article. Dormskirk (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and Harris, I agree, except in the absence of a list at arm.com (or count), a simple count here would be problematic. No way to know if it is maintained or give a citation except then for all the licensees anyway. Might as well list them all then? And if not all then how to objectively trim the list? comp.arch (talk)

References

  1. ^ Anand Lal Shimpi (2011-11-14). "Applied Micro's X-Gene: The First ARMv8 SoC". AnandTech. Retrieved 2012-10-31.
  2. ^ Lawrence Latif (Oct 30 2012). "AMD says ARM based Opteron chips will appear in 2014". The Inquirer. Retrieved 2012-10-31. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Anand Lal Shimpi. "AMD Will Build 64-bit ARM based Opteron CPUs for Servers, Production in 2014". AnandTech. Retrieved 2012-10-31.
  4. ^ ARM Keynote: ARM Cortex-A53 and ARM Cortex-A57 64bit ARMv8 processors launched on armdevices.net
  5. ^ http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/amd-strengthens-security-2012jun13.aspx
  6. ^ http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1261257
  7. ^ "IBM and ARM to Collaborate on Advanced Semiconductor Technology for Mobile Electronics" (Press release). 17 January 2011.
  8. ^ "32-bit Industrial Microcontrollers based on ARM® Cortex™-M".

"Architectural License"

I found this section confusing, hoping this is a quick fix for someone who is well-informed:

-- "ARM licenses their instruction sets, allowing the licensees to design their own cores that implement one of those instruction sets. An ARM architectural licence is more costly than a regular ARM core licence,[52] and also requires the necessary engineering power to design a CPU based on the instruction set." --

The term "architectural license" was introduced here without being defined; does this refer to the instruction-set-only license described in the first sentence? The change in terminology is confusing.

And for someone who doesn't know a ton about ARM Holdings but is generally well-informed about CPU design, it seems *wildly* counterintuitive that buying a whole design from ARM costs less than just buying permission to use their instruction set. So counterintuitive that IMO it could use explanation in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleWalrus (talk • contribs) 21:10, 22 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

The term "architectural license" was introduced here without being defined; does this refer to the instruction-set-only license described in the first sentence?

Yes. I've updated the page; hopefully it now makes it clearer.
As for the cost of an architectural license, my guess would be that if you purchase a core design the cost is usually per-unit while, if you purchase an architectural license, it's a one-time purchase, so the price is high so that if Apple or Qualcomm or Nvidia or... sells a ton of chips, ARM doesn't lose out too badly. That's just a guess on my part, though so it's "original research" and not appropriate; if there are references giving the price schedules for various licenses, that would help. Guy Harris (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My guess you can buy core or both, not just architectural. comp.arch (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article about seven ARM license types: "The ARM Diaries, Part 1: How ARM’s Business Model Works", Anand (image from ARM) or "A long look at how ARM licenses chips", Semiaccurate (ps: there is also some royalty per chip in every license).
  • There are 2 easiest licenses: Academic and DesignStart which can't be used for mass production. Then there is "single use license" - >=$1 mln per each IP core of Cortex-A* (for every project) + 2% from all chips sold.
  • "Multi-use license" allow company to develop several chips (any number of projects) with some fixed IP core from ARM in several years (e.g. 3).
  • "Perpetual multi-use license" is like multi-use but not limited in time. Company may use the licensed core in any number of projects, in any time (up to 10-20 years).
  • "Subscription license" allows to use several different cores from ARM portfolio for some fixed time term. The price is tens of millions dollars.
  • "Architecture license": specs of cores and full testsuite. "free to take that architecture and implement it however you’d like", so it allows to use ARM patents to freely develop ARM-compatible cores. Several opensource ARM cores were killed by ARM with patents on some instructions from ARMv3, ARMv6, v7... `a5b (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, in fact, those two articles are citations for ARM Holdings in the "Licensees" section. Guy Harris (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ARM architecture licenses list

Current list of ARM architecture licenses, please update here (there should be 15 of them[1]): `a5b (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Sansa acquisition in 2015

The acquisition section is out of date, sansa security needs adding to the list. See http://www.arm.com/about/newsroom/arm-expands-iot-security-capability-with-acquisition-of-sansa-security.php Danieljabailey (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ A long look at how ARM licenses chips. Part 1: 7 License types to rule them all, one company to bind them // SemiAccurate, Aug 7, 2013 by Charlie Demerjian
  2. ^ Fergie (Oct 31, 2012). "ARM Cortex-A50: Broadening Applicability of ARM Technology in Servers". ARM (Community portal). Retrieved 16 September 2014.: "Applied Micro announced their intent to develop a 64-bit ARM powered server device. ARM demands compatibility between companies that develop their own ARM processors (achieved through an architecture license) ... three publically announced ARMv8 architecture licensees (Applied Micro, Cavium and NVIDIA)"
  3. ^ Clarke, Peter (1/11/2013). "London Calling: Are ARM's core days numbered?". EETimes. Retrieved 16 September 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help): "the number of architectural licenses seems to have increased with Applied Micro and Cavium"
  4. ^ ARM and Broadcom Extend Relationship with ARMv7 and ARMv8 Architecture Licenses. Business Wire (2013-01-08). Retrieved on 2013-08-02.
  5. ^ Broadcom takes two ARM architecture licenses // EETimes, Peter Clarke, 1/9/2013
  6. ^ "ARM and Cavium Extend Relationship with ARMv8 Architecture License" (Press release). 1 August 2012.
  7. ^ "Huawei announces global agreement to licence ARMv8 architecture" (Press release). 4 September 2013. Retrieved 19 September 2013.
  8. ^ Huawei to licence ARMv8 chip architecture // TechWorld, 04 September 2013
  9. ^ "NVIDIA Announces "Project Denver" To Build Custom CPU Cores Based On ARM Architecture, Targeting Personal Computers To Supercomputers" (Press release). 5 January 2011. Retrieved 19 September 2013.
  10. ^ "NVIDIA Charts Its Own Path to ARMv8" (PDF). Tirias. August 11, 2014. p. 1. Retrieved 16 September 2014.: "NVIDIA announced back in 2011 that it had taken an architecture license for the 64-bit ARMv8 instruction set and was building a custom ARM core. The result is Project Denver. "
  11. ^ "AMD Unveils Ambidextrous Computing Roadmap. Announces 64-bit ARM Core Architecture License and Future "K12" ARM-based Core". SAN FRANCISCO, CA: AMD Press-release. 05/05/14. Retrieved 16 September 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ^ Merritt, Rick (5/5/2014). "AMD Takes Swing at Custom ARM First up, pin-compatible ARM, x86 SoCs". SAN FRANCISCO: EETimes. Retrieved 16 September 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ "Samsung to Jump up Its Application Processor Competitiveness". etnews. 2013/07/29. Retrieved 16 September 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help):"It is known that Samsung signed an architecture license with ARM two to three years ago ... also 64bit ARMv8 architecture is included in the contract."
  14. ^ "Faraday Technology Corporation - ARM Cores".
  15. ^ "HDD Markets and Technologies". Retrieved 19 September 2013. As one of a few select companies to hold a full ARM architecture license, Marvell is uniquely positioned to leverage the pervasiveness of the ARM architecture.
  16. ^ Clarke, Peter (23 July 2010). "Microsoft takes ARM architectural license". Retrieved 19 September 2013.
  17. ^ "Qualcomm's New Snapdragon S4: MSM8960 & Krait Architecture Explored". AnandTech. Octobet 7, 2011. Retrieved 16 September 2014. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help): "Qualcomm has an ARM architecture license enabling it to build its own custom micro architectures that implement the ARM instruction set."
  18. ^ Gwennap, Linley (7/19/10). "TWO-HEADED SNAPDRAGON TAKES FLIGHT" (PDF). Microprocessor Report. Retrieved 16 September 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help): "The Scorpion CPU implements the ARMv7-A instruction set, ... under an architecture license from ARM."
  19. ^ "Intel adopts power conscious strategy to counter ARM". TGDaily. May 17, 2011. Retrieved 16 September 2014.: Intel CEO Paul Otellini, "we have an ARM architecture license. we have no intention to use [it] again to build chip."

ARM does not supply chips

The article contains the text: "ARM also supply chips for all common network related technologies in smartphones ..." I suggest instead: "ARM's designs are also used in many common network related technologies in smartphones ..."

Reason: ARM does not supply chips. ARM licenses its designs to other companies who supply chips. Many of the companies that supply chips do not own chip factories (known as foundries) so they subcontract the manufacturing to specialist foundry companies such as TSMC, GlobalFoundries, etc.

ARM supplies designs for CPUs, GPUs, on chip bus fabric (also known as interconnect) and related trace components, debug components, and on-chip peripherals such as timers, interrupt controllers, cache controllers, SDRAM controllers, etc.

~~IJ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.96.140 (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "ARM's core designs are also used in chips that support many common network related technologies..." - the cores are what's used, but the cores don't themselves support those networking technologies at the lowest level (ARM don't design 802.11 support, for example). Guy Harris (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ARM Holdings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offer by Softbank

I would like to point out some factual errors on the company-related page for ARM Holdings, concerning "Offer by Softbank."

Please note that I am an employee of ARM Holdings, and have responsibilities to monitor company-related articles online for accurate information.

I appeal to the editor to make the following changes, which are factually correct and will be helpful. Some of the citations previously published on the company-related page are incorrect in their information.

1) EDIT REQUESTED for: "Japanese IT company Softbank, owned by Masayoshi Son, made an agreed offer for ARM on 18 July 2016 at a price of £23.4 billion."

Correction needed: £24.3 billion, not 23.4 Citations: https://next.ft.com/content/235b1af4-4c7f-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/arm-agrees-24-3bn-takeover-by-japans-softbank-lhwmfrbnl


2) REMOVAL REQUESTED OF: "Brexit resulted in a fall in the value of the pound, creating an opportunity for Softbank to acquire ARM at a reliatvely low price in Japanese Yen."

Why: The statement that ARM is cheaper in Yen after Brexit is incorrect. The opposite is true.

Citation for its removal: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1af06a9c746341169af8209e0291f657/japans-softbank-acquire-arm-uk-31-billion

3) REMOVAL REQUESTED OF: ZDNET Citation http://www.zdnet.com/article/softbank-to-acquire-arm-holdings-for-23-4bn-report/]ZDNet's newes about acquisition

Why: The citation is factually incorrect, as should it not be used as reference for information.

Any questions, please contact me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfryer2000 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is ARM still a PLC?

If it's a public limited company, that would mean that I can buy shares of it on some stock exchange, such as the London Stock Exchange, right? Is it still listed? If not, wouldn't that mean it's no longer a PLC? Guy Harris (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARM is not a PLC. I believe the article should now live at ARM Ltd. but this page exists so I'm not able move this one myself. Aimaz (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ARM Holdings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arm_Holdings&oldid=769284109"