dmcq (dmcq.delete@this.fano.co.uk) on March 3, 2019 5:33 am wrote:
> anon (spam.delete.delete.delete@this.this.this.spam.com) on March 3, 2019 4:35 am wrote:
> > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on March 3, 2019 1:58 am wrote:
> > > Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on March 2, 2019 11:54 pm wrote:
> > > > Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on March 2, 2019 4:06 pm wrote:
> > > > > Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on March 2, 2019 3:53 pm wrote:
> > > > > > anon (spam.delete.delete.delete@this.this.this.spam.com) on March 2, 2019 9:09 am wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The modems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Qualcomm charges royalties based on the phone's cost (this is what Apple is fighting over) but when
> > > > > > Samsung uses Exynos they don't have to pay Qualcomm royalties on the phone's cost. They own enough
> > > > > > cellular patents they may have a cross license agreement with Qualcomm and pay $0, but even if they
> > > > > > pay something they pay far less to Qualcomm than they do when they use a Qualcomm SoC.
> > > > >
> > > > > You didn't read what anon said, do you?
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > Thank you for that, I was starting to believe I was somehow
> > being unclear, but apparently it can be understood.
> >
> > > >
> > > > I think you didn't read, or didn't understand, what I wrote. I thought it was pretty
> > > > clear. For every Exynos SoC Samsung ships in a phone, Qualcomm makes less money because
> > > > they don't get to sell them a Qualcomm SoC, and charge based on a percentage of the phone's
> > > > sale price for their patents because of the deal they make licensees sign.
> > > >
> > > > This has nothing to do with the ARM cores in the Exynos or Snapdragon, it has to do with the modems.
> > > >
> > > > He quoted me as saying "The savings Samsung gets from their Exynos cores", which
> > > > if that is what I typed I mistyped, and should have said "Exynos SoCs".
> > >
> > > O.k.
> > > So, you didn't say that Qualcomm is at disadvantage, because Exynos contains Mustang instead of A7x.
> > > But you did bring Qualcomm into discussion in totally illogical manner.
> > >
> >
> > Exactly, the question was do custom cores compete with Cortex-A,
> > not does Qualcomm make less money if they sell fewer modems.
> >
> > > You said: "Companies take out an architectural license for one of two reasons [...] 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".
> > > And you didn't answer to anon's question how exactly Exynos with Mustang
> > > is different from Exynos with A7x w.r.t. Qualcomm patents.
> > >
> > > Personally, I think that the main reason for existence of Mustang is not savings, but one or several
> > > control freaks in Samsung top management. For the same reason they developed in-house GPU.
> > > But their in-house GPU remains in stealth mode while Mustang ships in huge quantities. Which
> > > probably means that *after* we subtract money spent on development of Mustang, because it's
> > > spent anyway, Exynos with Mustang does cost to Samsung less than Exynos with A7x. Which
> > > indirectly suggests that A7x licensing is more expensive than Mali licensing.
> > >
> >
> > Little bit of column A, little bit of column B, little bit of column C.
> > They control their own core, they save money and they can go for higher performance.
> > If everyone including Qualcomm just uses standard Cortex-Ax then Samsung can get an additional
> > selling point. ARM is very diespace-conscious because almost all of their customers have to pay
> > for that. Samsung gets die space at cost, so they've got an unfair advantage and can abuse that.
>
> Unfair? Abuse? The best complexion I can put on this is that you are misusing words again.
>

Can you give me an example of a fair advantage?
Or are you going to keep dodging all questions and complaining about me using words in "inappropriate ways"?