anon (spam.delete.delete.delete@this.this.this.spam.com) on March 2, 2019 11:19 am wrote:
> dmcq (dmcq.delete@this.fano.co.uk) on March 2, 2019 9:41 am wrote:
> > anon (spam.delete.delete.delete@this.this.this.spam.com) on March 2, 2019 9:09 am wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Okay I'll deal with the direct query. They said that Qualcomm
> > lost money because if Samsung had not made their
> > own chips without some of Qualcomms wireless licences they would have had to pay Qualcomm for the licence.
> >
>
> Yes, but that's only Snapdragon vs Exynos.
> Whether that Exynos uses ARM's or Samsung's cores does not matter to Qualcomm.
>
> The first Exynos SoCs use Cortex-A cores exclusively, the newer ones use Samsung's Mx as big and Cortex-A
> as LITTLE cores. If that switch saves Samsung money then someone is losing revenue and it's not Qualcomm.
> Either Samsung pays ARM less for their own M cores than for Cortex-A or they are not saving money.
>
>
> Of course Qualcomm lost money due to Samsung switching to their own chips, but any additional savings
> of an Exynos with Samsung's own cores compared to an exclusively Cortex-A Exynos can not be coming out
> of Qualcomms pockets, because they don't make any money on the Cortex-A cores Samsung buys from ARM.
>
> > Samsung and Qualcomm both make chips that compete in smartphones.
> > However I would not count the above argument
> > about the licence as competing in the normally accepted meaning in business. Qualcomm is simply not getting
> > money for phones which don't use their ip. Yes they get
> > less money but that is because there is no requirement
> > in that are a, not because they are competing with some other company for the business.
>
> I'm not sure what else they'd be competing for, other than money.

You are using the word compete in an inappropriate way for business. The word for what happens between a seller and a buyer is haggling. The word for what happens between two sellers trying for the same buyer is competing. They have quite different dynamics, in a haggle both participants expect to win, if a customer or supplier disappears that is normally bad news. In a competition there is normally just the one winner, if a competitor goes away that is normally good news. If you have to go through a longer chain to figure out costs and benefits that is strategic thinking.