dmcq (dmcq.delete@this.fano.co.uk) on March 2, 2019 2:56 am wrote:
> anon (spam.delete.delete.delete@this.this.this.spam.com) on March 1, 2019 3:13 pm wrote:
> > dmcq (dmcq.delete@this.fano.co.uk) on March 1, 2019 2:13 pm wrote:
> > > anon (spam.delete.delete.delete@this.this.this.spam.com) on March 1, 2019 1:32 pm wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > I think they're saying a person who digs their own garden is in competition with gardeners they
> > > might pay to do the job. Which I suppose one can stretch one's mind to. After that I suppose you
> > > can somehow step further along to saying the person who sells them spades is also in competition
> > > with them.After that the going gets easier, any mother having a child is in competition.
> > >
> >
> > Not what I was asking.
> > Samsung has to choose between their own Mx cores and ARM's A7x.
> > Doug S wrote that if they save money by using their own cores this hurts Qualcomm, but not ARM.
> > I'm asking how is that possible?
> >
> >
> > If you want to go with the gardener analogy the choice is between letting gardener A do it or
> > buying/renting tools from him and doing it yourself. Now Doug is saying that if I were to do
> > it myself then this would cost gardener B, who lives across the street, but not gardener A.
> > If I let A do it A gets a lot of money and B gets no money. If I do it myself A gets less money and B still
> > gets no money. Yet somehow B is supposed to be at a disadvantage and A is supposed to be unaffected.
> >
> >
> > Honestly this looks more like "ARM can't compete with itself, therefore someone else must be hurt
> > by this, I guess it's Qualcomm because Qualcomm competes with everyone" than a rational argument.
>
> I don't think following the money like you have is very useful in defining compete. Yes a supplier 'competes'
> against a buyer. They can haggle over the price. But using the word in that way when talking about companies
> just removes any real meaning from the word - everybody competes with everybody for money so it conveys
> no information. The usual meaning of compete in business is that one company competes against another
> if they both want to sell to the same buyer. In that context the two companies don't even exchange money
> with each other, in the case of a buyer and a seller they do exchange money, but it is the case where
> they don't directly exchange money that people normally talk about competing.

What are you on about?
Try reading it again.
If there is no conceivable scenario where B gets any money from me in exchange for goods/services then B does not compete.


Back to the original question:
Qualcomm makes exactly 0$ on ARM's A7x cores in Samsung's Exynos SoCs.
Qualcomm makes exactly 0$ on Samsung's Mx cores in Samsung's Exynos SoCs.
Doug S said this switch cost Qualcomm money.
He also said this switch does not cost ARM anything.

How does that work?
I quote "The savings Samsung gets from their Exynos cores come at Qualcomm's expense, not ARM's."
How? Qualcomm is not paying them anything nor are they losing out on any revenue since that was already 0.