Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN who wrote (196908)	12/11/2025 2:01:25 PM
From: Wildbiftek	6 Recommendations Recommended By Cooters JeffreyHF QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN ryhack vkvraju5 and 1 more member Respond to of 196982

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...

To: QCOM_HYPE_TRAIN who wrote (196908)	12/11/2025 8:42:00 PM
From: engineer	7 Recommendations Recommended By AlfaNut Cooters Dr. John JeffreyHF John Hayman and 2 more members Respond to of 196982

apple was teh seed investor in ARM a long time ago ( before 1995). This is why they have a special relationship dating ging way back. i don't think Mayosi son has any warmth in his heart for them in particular. everyone has the same blockade for changing. Not enough development of the cores and a total lack of coordinated software support for it. In Qualcomm case, they have spent literally $B's on developing the drivers, boot systems, support routines around the ARM core. I am sure that Apple has spent much the same. as I stated a year or so ago, there is no huge consortium of Sw developers and open source to support the risc-V cores. It is growing, but not mature enough to walk away from ARM over. but I agree that it is growing, but it is going to take alot more than just will power to overcome the 25 years of use built up, expertise, hardware peripherals, drivers, etc. this is exactly why I advocated a huge push by a few large companies each throwing in $1B a piece to build that infrastructure. But I truly bekieve is what I wrote before. Appe is enjoying seeing Qualcomm consume time and resources fighting ARM over stuff that eventually ARM will get dinged big time for. But every $100M spent in ARM vs Qualcomm is money drawn away from Apple vs Qualcomm that could happen.