SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting
QCOM 172.29-2.2%3:59 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN who wrote (196908)12/11/2025 2:01:25 PM
From: Wildbiftek6 Recommendations

Recommended By
Cooters
JeffreyHF
QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN
ryhack
vkvraju5

and 1 more member

   of 196978
 
It's also possible they get very favorable treatment as a founding investor, and I'm pretty sure Apple had a big part to play in the development of ARMV8 as their implementation came out just 1 year after the announcement of the ISA (so I suspect the first implementation and the ISA were developed in a highly coordinated way...)

There's a (now redacted) tweet by a former Apple kernel engineer Shac Ron:

forums.anandtech.com

1) The premise here is wrong. arm64 is the Apple ISA, it was designed to enable Apple’s microarchitecture plans. There’s a reason Apple’s first 64 bit core (Cyclone) was years ahead of everyone else, and it isn’t just caches.

2) Arm64 didn’t appear out of nowhere, Apple contracted ARM to design a new ISA for its purposes. When Apple began selling iPhones containing arm64 chips, ARM hadn’t even finished their own core design to license to others.

3) ARM designed a standard that serves its clients and gets feedback from them on ISA evolution. In 2010 few cared about a 64-bit ARM core. Samsung & Qualcomm, the biggest mobile vendors, were certainly caught unaware by it when Apple shipped in 2013.

4) Apple planned to go super-wide with low clocks, highly OoO, highly speculative. They needed an ISA to enable that, which ARM provided.M1 performance is not so because of the ARM ISA, the ARM ISA is so because of Apple core performance plans a decade ago.

Given that ARM's own CPU implementations generally lag Apple's in PPA on the same ISA, I'd say Apple gave ARM the abstract requirements for the ISA based on their own initial internal implementation of that ISA.

I don't believe Apple's licensing terms were ever disclosed either during discovery or otherwise as it would be damning to ARM's arguments in court...
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News