Jukka Larja (roskakori2006.delete@this.gmail.com) on February 28, 2019 6:02 am wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I buy a SoC from Samsung, with Samsung developed core, Arm
> will get less than they would get if that core was some standard A75 or whatever? So it seems
> that Samsung is competing with Arm. Can that be if Arm isn't competing with Samsung?
>
> Or does the architectural license mean that Samsung pays less regardless of where their core comes from?


Companies with an architectural license pay a yearly fee for that license, and a lower per core license cost than they would pay if they used an ARM standard core like an A75. If you add in the per core share of the architectural license fee to per core license cost those Samsung designed cores may cost more or may cost less. There's no way to know without knowing the exact fee structure which of course we will never know. (I remember seeing a claim that Apple paid $25 million a year for its architectural license, but I don't recall the source of that claim or know whether that source should be considered credible)

However, those custom cores aren't free, you have to design them. Do you think anyone is saving money overall by getting an architectural license and designing their own cores? I don't see a chance in hell of that, not unless they were shipping billions of SoCs.

Companies take out an architectural license for one of two reasons. One, because they want to tailor the core(s) they design to their exact needs - Apple's reason - or two, to save on other IP licensing costs. This is IMHO the reason Samsung does it, because they don't have to pay the Qualcomm tax on their phones containing Exynos SoCs, just the cellular patent license costs which given Samsung's cellular patent portfolio may well be $0 in a cross license deal.