[HN Gopher] SoftBank set to sell UK's Arm Holdings to Nvidia for...
___________________________________________________________________
SoftBank set to sell UK's Arm Holdings to Nvidia for $40B
Author : JumpCrisscross
Score : 107 points
Date : 2020-09-12 19:41 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ft.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ft.com)
| klelatti wrote:
| On reflection I'm a bit surprised that a consortium hasn't
| emerged to offer more for Arm given the concerns expressed here:
|
| - $40bn isn't a lot in aggregate for the companies that are
| heavily invested in the Arm ecosystem (Apple, Qualcomm, Amazon
| etc) - maybe even Intel would take a small stake!
|
| - The $40bn is partly in Nvidia's (arguably) inflated stock.
| Would cash be more attractive?
|
| - Could probably partly fund through a public offering in due
| course.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| > _The $40bn is partly in Nvidia 's (arguably) inflated stock._
|
| This is _SoftBank_ we 're talking about. Do we really want to
| bring up inflated stock as one of their concerns? ;)
| klelatti wrote:
| There is bound to be some sort of financial engineering going
| on too.
|
| Doesn't Son have a stake in Nvidia so maybe this is to help
| support the Nvidia share price?
| spzb wrote:
| I would have thought Apple was a better strategic fit for Arm and
| likely to be able to pay bigger bucks too.
| wmf wrote:
| People are speculating that Nvidia might end Arm core
| licensing, but Apple would definitely shut it down. Apple's
| culture is totally incompatible with Arm's business model.
| perardi wrote:
| Besides the screaming anti-trust issues they'd run into, that's
| not really Apple's business model, is it? Selling IP to other
| companies? I get they would want to control their own ISA, but
| I can almost imagine them creating their own, versus buying ARM
| and then being forced to maintain existing licenses.
| klelatti wrote:
| Except they owned almost 50% of Arm in the 1990s and were
| very supportive of their business model.
| SahAssar wrote:
| Back then apple's business was quite different. They
| licensed their OS, they collaborated on stuff like the
| pippin, they were not sure if their future was in software
| or hardware.
|
| The apple now is a very different beast.
| mantap wrote:
| I don't think Apple would be allowed to buy ARM, there would be
| serious competition implications.
| plg wrote:
| what are the implications for Apple
| nabla9 wrote:
| Apple has architectural licence, so they can do whatever they
| want.
|
| Apple uses just ARM instruction set and design the
| microarchitecture by themselves.
| mcintyre1994 wrote:
| Do Apple actually work with Arm currently or is all their Apple
| Silicon stuff completely on their own? I don't actually
| understand the issue they have with Nvidia but they seem to have
| one.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| As I understand it, Apple has a special perpetual license for
| the architecture thanks to it being one of the companies that
| founded ARM. This deal shouldn't have too much impact on Apple.
| jrmg wrote:
| I think you're thinking of PowerPC?
|
| To my knowledge, Apple was not involved in any founding of
| ARM (the company or the ISA).
|
| ARM history, according to Wikipedia:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture#History
|
| Edit: I guess you could quibble about 'founding', but really
| I'm wrong, and my own link proves it!
|
| --------
|
| Advanced RISC Machines Ltd. - Arm6
|
| In the late 1980s, Apple Computer and VLSI Technology started
| working with Acorn on newer versions of the Arm core. In
| 1990, Acorn spun off the design team into a new company named
| Advanced RISC Machines Ltd.,[30][31][32] which became Arm Ltd
| when its parent company, Arm Holdings plc, floated on the
| London Stock Exchange and NASDAQ in 1998.[33] The new Apple-
| Arm work would eventually evolve into the Arm6, first
| released in early 1992. Apple used the Arm6-based Arm610 as
| the basis for their Apple Newton PDA
| qweq1231234 wrote:
| From that page:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture#Advanced_RIS
| C...
|
| Advanced RISC Machines Ltd. - Arm6
|
| Die of an Arm610 microprocessor In the late 1980s, Apple
| Computer and VLSI Technology started working with Acorn on
| newer versions of the Arm core. In 1990, Acorn spun off the
| design team into a new company named Advanced RISC Machines
| Ltd.,[30][31][32] which became Arm Ltd when its parent
| company, Arm Holdings plc, floated on the London Stock
| Exchange and NASDAQ in 1998.[33] The new Apple-Arm work
| would eventually evolve into the Arm6, first released in
| early 1992. Apple used the Arm6-based Arm610 as the basis
| for their Apple Newton PDA.
| klelatti wrote:
| Plus Apple was a large shareholder (about 45% I think) in
| Advanced RISC Machines Ltd. The sale of that stake in the
| late 1990s raised a lot of cash (over $1bn) for Apple when
| it really needed it.
| toyg wrote:
| _> Apple used the Arm6-based Arm610 as the basis for their
| Apple Newton PDA_
|
| The ironies of history: one of Apple's most infamous
| failures ended up being the foundation of their later
| success.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Including how much JavaScript kind of resembles
| NewtonScript.
| klelatti wrote:
| Saw a presentation a little while ago with Simon Segars of Arm
| and Jeff Williams of Apple (don't have the link but it was in
| honour of Morris Chang of TSMC and I think Jensen Huang
| hosted!) which seemed to imply that there was quite a close
| relationship. If nothing else I'd expect feedback from Apple to
| Arm about the evolution of the architecture.
|
| If Apple was really unhappy about this and didn't want full
| ownership they could probably pull together a consortium to put
| together a rival bid. Doesn't look like it's happening though.
| severine wrote:
| > _Saw a presentation a little while ago with Simon Segars of
| Arm and Jeff Williams of Apple (don 't have the link but it
| was in honour of Morris Chang of TSMC and I think Jensen
| Huang hosted!)_
|
| Perhaps this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGT3zSGDN3k
| klelatti wrote:
| It was - thank you. Not sure which part led me to think
| that Apple and Arm worked together though and it's a long
| presentation!
| wdb wrote:
| Maybe because it's a co-founder of ARM?
| klelatti wrote:
| There was a specific exchange between Segars and Williams
| in this presentation which seemed to imply a close
| relationship.
| nabla9 wrote:
| Nvidia already has their own ARM SoC, they just merge Arm
| developers to the team.
|
| I suspect that Nvidia changes the business model of Arm a little
| and starts to sell high performance Nvidia Arm CPU's directly to
| server, laptop and mobile manufacturers.
|
| Then we will have Intel, AMD and Nvidia in both CPU and GPU
| markets.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Well... on the bright side I like what Tegras have been able to
| achieve. The Shields and the Switch are neat machines. Maybe
| we'll see some more ARM designs that can compete with Apple.
| 01100011 wrote:
| No, everything Nvidia is evil. We're supposed to be hating on
| them, right? Can I get my upvotes for perpetuating the hive
| mind now?
|
| Seriously. I'm excited to see ARM owned by a hardware centric
| company. That said, I really don't expect this to have much
| impact in the near term. Licenses are already in place. China
| will probably spin competing chips based on their own ISA
| before too long(5-10 years).
|
| I'm frankly interested to hear what folks in HW have to say.
| Hearing the repetitive, uninformed opinions of users and SW
| folks isn't really telling me anything informative about this.
| I'm an embedded SWE and I'm not seeing much to worry about.
| Would it be better if Apple bought ARM? Huawei?
|
| This notion that a hippie commune is going to buy ARM and lead
| us all into open source nirvana where free, cutting edge IP
| rains down from the sky is frankly goofy.
| jonplackett wrote:
| What effect does this have on Apple and them basing their own
| chips on Arm?
|
| Are the now so far down their own road of development that it
| doesn't really matter?
| ausjke wrote:
| now nvidia is the new intel, it owns arm and can do whatever it
| wants to.
|
| time for other big companies checking out alternatives
| gautamcgoel wrote:
| If this goes through, I expect Nvidia to become the new Intel - a
| humongous, anticompetitive chip monopoly. Today, people refer to
| Intel as Chipzilla; tomorrow Nvidia will carry that moniker.
| bayindirh wrote:
| > Today, people refer to Intel as Chipzilla; tomorrow Nvidia
| will carry that moniker.Today, people refer to Intel as
| Chipzilla; tomorrow Nvidia will carry that moniker.
|
| Intel will always be the "Chipzilla". nVidia won't replace them
| but, will join it as the "Chipkong". So we'll have _two_
| problems, not a single but, different one.
| season2episode3 wrote:
| Duopolies everywhere.
| bayindirh wrote:
| It won't be a duopoly because nVidia doesn't make x86
| hardware. Even if they did, there would be three contenders
| (AMD, Intel, nVidia).
|
| nVidia is becoming an AI/HPC behemoth. GPUs for Compute,
| ARM for feeding the GPUs, Infiniband for interconnect. All
| in a tightly integrated, closed package. This is a clear
| monopoly.
|
| They're light years ahead in terms of GPU development and
| Debugging tools when compared to AMD. CUDA cornered AI/GPU
| computing it seems. Intel's interconnect foray has fizzled,
| like their Xeon Phi / Larabee efforts. So, nVidia has the
| interconnect (Infiniband) and compute part for now.
|
| CPUs can be challenged and disrupted. It's a mature
| technology. AMD can catch nVidia in enterprise in medium
| term (hopefully), but Infiniband has no competitors for
| what it does. And no, 100G Ethernet is no match for 100G
| Infiniband (we use it a lot since DDR. It's an insane
| tech).
|
| We're living in interesting times.
| natcombs wrote:
| I wish they went public. I'd love to invest in them long term
| yourabanana wrote:
| Well now you can. Through NVDA.
| vmception wrote:
| gigglesnort
| Nemo_bis wrote:
| Also on Reuters: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-arm-holdings-
| m-a-nvidia/nv...
| perardi wrote:
| Regardless of the consequences of selling to Nvidia...that's not
| a great exit, is it? They bought ARM for $32 billion, and they
| are getting $40 billion for it? With all the money sloshing
| around in the debt markets, I figured they'd get a bit more.
| Retric wrote:
| Depends on how much leverage they used. If it was all cash on
| hand the that's a poor ROI, if they only put up say 8b then
| that's a nice return over 4 years.
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| The important players like Samsung/Apple/Huawei are already ARM
| architecture license holders so they can do their own thing if
| they don't like the direction that NVidia is going in.
|
| A 128 bit version might be an issue in the future.
| ysleepy wrote:
| A 128bit ISA is super unlikely. We're barely using the 48bit
| implemented in AMD64 of 64 possible address bits.
|
| Wider data arguments are already implemented as AVX/2/512.
| akvadrako wrote:
| Architectures with 128 pointers exist, but the extra bits are
| used for metadata. I don't see much indication this'll become
| mainstream through.
|
| https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/ctsrd/cheri/cheri.
| ..
| xxpor wrote:
| I could imagine we might see an architecture with 128 bit word
| sizes, but I doubt we'd see 128 bit pointers (aka a 128 bit
| address space) any time soon. Itd just be more annoying than
| anything. I personally have even written software where we do
| pointer path to get 32 bit indexes rather than storing full 64
| bit pointers simply because of space constraints (like trying
| to fit a hot struct into a single cache line)
|
| Having a native uint128_t would make dealing with IPv6
| addresses a lot nicer though :)
| ip26 wrote:
| Current chips don't even actually support 64 bits of hardware
| address yet, seeing as few users can afford 2 exbibytes of
| DRAM and shuffling around a full 64 bits of hardware address
| is a noticeable tax on the chip.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| 25% more than they paid just 2 years ago?
| llsf wrote:
| Softbank bought ARM in 2016 and paid $32B ($35B of 2020 USD
| after 4 years of inflation).
|
| And today they get $40B but partly in Nvidia stocks... Assuming
| that Softbank manages to sell immediately the Nvidia stock and
| get their $40B, it is more like 14%. In the same timeframe
| Nvidia stock went from $30 (Jan. 2016) to $480 (Friday) or x16.
|
| Softbank would have a way better outcome if they had invested
| in Nvidia 4 years ago, than investing in ARM. The potential 14%
| they got over last 4 years, is not great.
| klelatti wrote:
| I think that concerns about this being the end of Arm are
| overdone - I expect that the UK government will get some
| assurances about maintaining the HQ in the UK etc and that Arm's
| business is sufficiently different to Nvidia's to make wholesale
| merger with Nvidia's existing operations counterproductive.
|
| However, I can't see how they will avoid enormous conflicts of
| interest between Nvidia and other competing Arm customers and
| that this will be to the detriment of everyone who makes and uses
| Arm based products (except Nvidia).
| wAYshzRtw wrote:
| > However, I can't see how they will avoid enormous conflicts
| of interest between Nvidia and other competing Arm customers
| and that this will be to the detriment of everyone who makes
| and uses Arm based products (except Nvidia).
|
| Yes, this. I see people talk about this but not enough imo. How
| on earth would Nvidia ever be allowed to purchase Arm? That's a
| massive conflict of interest. I know the rules don't really
| matter when we're talking about companies this large but this
| is so blatant, to me.
| almost_usual wrote:
| The disaster that was WeWork could ruin ARM.
| BluSyn wrote:
| I think this is a very bad and short-sided deal.
|
| ARM is in such a great position currently. There's no reason to
| sell except that SoftBank is in desperate need of capital. On top
| of that, Nvidia is likely to be a terrible steward of the IP.
| Nvidia has a terrible track record of working with other
| companies, partners, and open source developers. ARM has become a
| de-facto standard in mobile space, and Nvidia will likely use
| that position to strong-arm competition. This will push vendors
| out of ARM and into some alternative ISA. While long-term this
| might end up being great for RISC-V, it's going to cause a huge
| fracture in software stacks at the exact WORST time. Finally
| we're starting seeing huge convergence on ARM in
| Mobile/Desktop/Server space. One ISA to rule them all! Nope, now
| Nvidia is going to destroy that progress and set everything back
| another 5+ years.
|
| Please, somebody tell me I'm wrong. I really don't want to be so
| pessimistic about this.
| gumby wrote:
| > While long-term this might end up being great for RISC-V...
| set everything back another 5+ years.
|
| Five years is no big deal. In fact there's so much in the
| pipeline it's likely little will be different For 3-5 years.
|
| The bigger problem is RISC-V is immature and to use ARM as an
| example will need another decade to get its act together (for
| which I have high hopes BTW). I agree with you that this will
| definitely be a shot in the arm for RISC-V.
|
| > it's going to cause a huge fracture in software stacks at the
| exact WORST time [due to platform convergence]
|
| This is far from the worst time, and platform monoculture is
| not something to be celebrated. So from that perspective you've
| given me some encouragement from the news of this deal.
| znpy wrote:
| Maybe this will accelerate RISC-v, we'll see
| xxpor wrote:
| I'll never forget when I was applying for internships back in
| 2010, Nvidia was the ONLY company I came across with an GPA
| requirement (3.5). I happened to be below that, so I didn't
| even bother applying.
|
| None of the FAANGs cared in the slightest.
|
| I bring this up just because I feel it probably probably
| represents their arrogance well, in addition to everything else
| they do.
| [deleted]
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| >ARM is in such a great position currently. There's no reason
| to sell except that SoftBank is in desperate need of capital.
|
| Softbank needs cash. sells ARM. not a good reason?
| Animats wrote:
| Softbank has to prop up Uber and WeWork with something.
|
| I dunno, would you rather have ARM technology owned by a US
| company or by a front for the Saudi sovereign wealth fund?
| rvz wrote:
| Unfortunately, you are correct. This is what Nvidia was looking
| for since out of the big 3 US semiconductor manufacturers, it
| doesn't have its own IP on CPUs. Now it will soon be able to
| control ARM to its advantage against the competition. This will
| indeed push the urgency for RISC-V to be worth looking at in
| the next few years to be used by hardware vendors soon. But it
| will be a long wait.
|
| As for the UK _now_ realizing SoftBank 's _expensive_ 'pass the
| parcel game' with ARM since 2016, I'd say you only appreciate
| something until it is gone. [0][1] In terms of technology, the
| UK simply didn't know what they had.
|
| [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54122692
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24362846
| ethbr0 wrote:
| > _This is what Nvidia was looking for since out of the big 3
| US semiconductor manufacturers, it doesn 't have its own IP
| on CPUs. Now it will soon be able to control ARM to its
| advantage against the competition._
|
| In all fairness, consider the market from Nvidia's
| perspective: they've spent a few decades being a stone's
| throw from Intel eating them. They've survived by innovating,
| iterating, and being ruthless.
|
| Some here might not remember how cutthroat the early-GPU days
| were. Nvidia survived.
|
| Now, an opportunity to become a technical peer to Intel at
| the CPU level? To control their own destiny?
|
| They'd be insane not to take this opportunity.
| noir_lord wrote:
| The techies here including myself did, it was a deal the
| government should have looked into.
|
| It was a crown jewel of a company, hard to imagine the French
| government letting it slide or the US government letting a
| intel be sold to a foreign company.
| klelatti wrote:
| Even though I've long followed Arm (I went to a
| presentation in Cambridge from Steve Furber about the Arm 1
| in 1985ish even before the first commercial chips shipped)
| I'm a bit sceptical about how much value would ever be
| generated for the UK economy by Arm. The business model is
| about low margins and selling to everyone around the world
| so its hard to see how being next door to Arm
| (geographically) would be a big advantage.
| gumby wrote:
| The theory is that clusters form around "anchor tenants";
| Cambridge has the University (and its excellent CS
| departments), ARM and some others, and is close to he
| largest capital marketplaces in the world, grandiosely
| bundled into a so-called "silicon fen". So school leavers
| can get jobs, network, start companies, develop other
| tech in a virtuous circle.
|
| Well that's the theory; nobody has actually been able to
| reproduce Silicon Valley except arguably in SF (it's more
| like the valley grew a tentacle is the peninsula, though
| the distance is far enough that the culture is slightly
| different).
|
| As far as Cambridge goes, I don't see that this purchase
| makes any difference for those factors, except bragging
| rights in Whitehall.
| pm90 wrote:
| This is a bit of an aside, but it never ceases to amaze
| me how many would be tech hubs try variations of Silicon
| Valley in their (maybe informal?) branding. Silicon
| hills, Silicon fern.. (I knew a couple more but I'm
| forgetting atm). It's not like it's the name which made
| it what it is.
| my123 wrote:
| > it doesn't have its own IP on CPUs
|
| NVIDIA does design their own CPU cores.
| klelatti wrote:
| Using the ARM ISA for application processors.
| bartread wrote:
| > Nope, now Nvidia is going to destroy that progress and set
| everything back another 5+ years.
|
| You're blaming Nvidia. You should be blaming SoftBank and
| Masayoshi Son: bunch of fucking hucksters misleading people and
| making bad investments.
|
| Now they need to sell ARM to fill some of the gaping void that
| has resulted. They couldn't care less who they sell to and what
| the outcome of that sale will be. I have nothing but contempt
| for them.
|
| An absolutely miserable turn of events.
| nickff wrote:
| So you think ARM should be spun-off rather than sold? It seems
| like Softbank is having some issues unrelated to ARM, and needs
| the money. I'm also not sure that Softbank ownership has
| contributed anything to ARM's success.
| hosh wrote:
| The issue is with the well-being of the tech ecosystem and
| less with SoftBank or ARM's well-being as a business.
| SoftBank may not have contributed to ARM's success, but their
| neutrality allows ARM to license their IP without the kind of
| self-dealing you would get if Nvidia owns it. Further, Nvidia
| has a poor track record in global citizenship.
|
| The net result is that the overall ecosystem is going towards
| a degenerative state, rather than fostering innovation and
| diversity in tech.
| almost_usual wrote:
| I'd think SoftBank's ownership has probably resulted in more
| cash burn for ARM.
| alvern wrote:
| This makes sense. Most of the Jetson/Xavier/Nano boards already
| use a Carmel ARMv8 chip. I just hope this spurs more development
| in ARMv8. Currently the majority of ARM is ARMv7 (smartphones and
| Raspi).
| zamadatix wrote:
| I think it's more about having CPU IP more than what CPU IP
| they have used in Jetson/Xavier to this point (though it is a
| helping factor). HPC also loves ARM these days and nvidia makes
| huge cash on that already.
|
| Smartphones have largely been ARMv8 for the last 5 years.
| Raspberry Pi is as well these days.
| blodfreed wrote:
| Unpaywalled link https://pastebin.com/ugZpqfPE
| justinclift wrote:
| https://archive.vn/PLQr3
| mmanfrin wrote:
| With the removal of the 'web' button, could we possibly get a non
| paywalled link?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-12 23:00 UTC)