Re: Report: Arm cancelling contract with Qualcomm

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2024-10-24 2:25 a.m., RonB wrote:
>

<https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft/report-arm-is-sensationally-canceling-qualcomms-chip-license-oct-2024>
>
What you need to know
>
A new report suggests that Arm Holdings PLC is ending its contract with
Qualcomm Inc. which allows the firm to build chip designs based on Arm
technology.
The cancelation notice lasts for only 60 days, and escalates an on-going
dispute between the UK-based chip architecture giant Arm and US-based
chip maker Qualcomm for processors that are in everything from TVs, to
smartphones, to Microsoft's new Copilot+ PCs.
If the cancelation goes through, it could upend the smartphone industry,
given that Snapdragon processors power the vast majority of
Android-based smartphones and tablets, and as well as emerging Arm-based
Windows PCs like the Surface Pro 11.
Qualcomm and Arm have been in a legal dispute for a couple of years now,
and this is the latest escalation in a battle that shows no signs of
slowing down.

 
It sounds like a destructive battle for both companies... Unless ARM has
ulterior motives, like making a deal with Intel or something like that.

>
What I can say for sure is that I am a fan of the architecture for its
ability to produce tremendous power while requiring little energy. Once
it's time to replace this laptop, I don't see how I would be able to go
for another x86-64 machine when the ARM ones have nothing but advantages
in comparison.

I wouldn't ever buy another x86 laptop, but the ARM ones are sweet.
Even Win11 wouldn't be so terrible on one, but I'd of course delete
that and put Debian on.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.