dmcq (dmcq.delete@this.fano.co.uk) on August 20, 2022 4:31 pm wrote:
> Groo (charlie.delete@this.semiaccurate.com) on August 20, 2022 9:37 am wrote:
> > me (me.delete@this.me.com) on August 18, 2022 12:22 pm wrote:
> > > Beastian (no.email.delete@this.aol.com) on August 18, 2022 11:43 am wrote:
> > > > https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-18/qualcomm-is-plotting-a-return-to-server-market-with-new-chip?sref=CTldYvAJ
> > > >
> > > > Recall their first act with Centriq was cancelled despite the product being well received by professionals:
> > >
> > While you are 100% right here, the 2nd order effects of that decision were
> > both abjectly stupid and crippled QC's devices and relegated them to the mediocrity
> > they are mired in now. Rank idiocy and a spectacular own-goal.
> >
> > > The problem is finding a market. Because outside of Cloud, most are sticking with x86 for now.
> > >
> > Yup, x86 or in-house is the way forward at the moment.
> >
> > > But getting Amazon to license the Nuvia cores for a future Gravitron... that might work.
> >
> > Other than ARM licensing precluding a company doing that, it sure sounds like a good idea. :)
> >
> > -Charlie
>
> I can see thre being a bitof discussion over that! But no good reason ARM wouldn't be
> willling to accept some money for that. It's just how much money would be the problem.


The architectural license does not permit sublicensing of designs. Considering that core licensing is how ARM makes the overwhelming majority of its revenue, why in the world would they allow that at any price?

This is not going to happen, Qualcomm will be able to sell chips, not license Nuvia cores.