Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on March 1, 2019 10:05 am wrote:
> Foo_ (foo.delete@this.nomail.com) on March 1, 2019 6:35 am wrote:
> > Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on February 28, 2019 9:13 am wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > This is IMHO the reason Samsung does it, because they don't have to pay the
> > > Qualcomm tax on their phones containing Exynos SoCs,
> >
> > So basically Samsung does it because they are saving money
> > overall? It seems you're contradicting yourself here :-)
> >
>
>
> I was responding to a claim being made in this thread that companies with architectural
> licenses designing their own cores are somehow "competing" with ARM. The savings
> Samsung gets from their Exynos cores come at Qualcomm's expense, not ARM's.

Wait, the newer Exynos SoCs using Mx instead of Cortex-A7x cores come at Qualcomm's expense?
How much money did Qualcomm make on the A73s in the Exynos 7 SoCs?

Different anon, I'm genuinely confused.