dmcq (dmcq.delete@this.fano.co.uk) on February 25, 2021 6:01 am wrote:
> Anon (no.delete@this.thanks.com) on February 25, 2021 4:01 am wrote:
> > Brett (ggtgp.delete@this.yahoo.com) on February 23, 2021 3:57 pm wrote:
> > >The question is how much could AMD make from licensing a high performance ARM core
> > to Qualcomm so that Qualcomm could dominate the high end even harder. Not much.
> >
> > Actually, I think that they could make $0 from licensing an ARM core. As in, they are legally not allowed
> > to. ARM sells a license to build SoCs with your own custom core, not to license that core to others.
> >
> > Maybe they could do some semicustom arrangement, where Qualcomm "licenses" 95% of
> > the SoC design to AMD, who "manufacture" (via TSMC) the chip, then "sell" it to Qualcomm...
> > But I don't know if that would give them the legal coverage they need.
>
> I've never thought of ARM as too proud to do a deal :-) so I guess one could could come to an
> arrangement with them. I'm not sure if there would be any wider implications of such licencing.

That would likely only make the licensing deal even less profitable to AMD.
Look at what ARM revenue is. Now ponder that the business AMD would have would only be a fraction.

So we are looking at how much, $100 million per quarter? It's obvious that is not worth any significant investment.

A product AMD would sell themselves would make much more money and would be safer as opposed to something that relies on the licensing partner keeping the deal. Their partner could always pull an Apple and kill them if they bet the company on licensing. Basically, AMD designing a nice core in hopes of making money on licensing makes no bloody sense at all.