Unless they want to spin off a large part of their company (like video) and/or give up the ability to raise prices, give their CPUs first crack at next Gen, etc... I think this may fail.
I was thinking that, but even spinning off video doesn't fix the problem of nVidia making ARM processors AND holding the IP the competition needs to make competing processors.
This is a unique situation because previous chip makers have either developed their ISA or licensed an existing ISA from another chip maker or patent holder. There is of course some precedent for a chip maker buying another for the IP (nVidia effectively did this with 3Dfx, much like Creative did to Aureal) but nothing on this scale where other vendors, hundreds in this case, were licensing that same IP.
Softbank should not be allowed to sell ARM to an existing chip maker.
Companies grow in multiple ways. Some of it is through "organic" growth and some of it is through acquisitions. If Nvidia is sitting on a big warchest, it makes sense for them to look at acquisitions that could propel them into new, growing markets. If you're making an acquisition for growth purposes, you also don't want the acquisition to compete much with your own products. Both of these considerations makes ARM a very tempting target for them. In fact, there probably aren't many better options for Nvidia, right now, because the acquisition has to be both something they can afford and something that's not too small to have a real impact on their revenues.
Second, if we look at the trend of big tech companies each building their own SoC, whether for mobile (Apple, Google) or cloud (Amazon, Microsoft), the best way to monetize that is to snap up ARM. Amazon is still using ARM's IP, but might never go back to buying 3rd party chips. Apple is likewise unlikely ever to use even 3rd party IP, but they still pay ARM *some* royalties. Basically, ARM is pretty much the only sure bet, in the tech industry, right now.
This is a terrible merger. Especially from a company that till date had refused to release up-to-date driver's for Linux. Nvidia has a History of stifling growth and support of platforms they donor like.
NVidia spends more each year advancing their ARM chips than ARM spends advancing their whole platform. It would let NVidia turn that expense into an alternate revenue stream. They would also work to replace Mali with their own GPU technology, mobile gaming is a growth market and getting NVidia as the default GPU for all future ARM chips would guarantee them a huge consideration moving forward. It would do for NVidia in the mobile space what being in the consoles did for AMD. It would also let them be far more competitive in making bids on future consoles should they choose to pursue that direction.
NVidia has spent decades pushing proprietary tech.
Perhaps if they had opened up CUDA for the use of competitors I would be willing to believe they were capable of being good stewards for an open ARM standard.
Instead they have been developed a well earned reputation for screwing over companies that partner with them.
> NVidia spends more each year advancing their ARM chips than > ARM spends advancing their whole platform.
Do you mean Nvidia's entire SoC or just their ARM cores? Because, their latest "Orin" generation now uses ARM's own Cortex A78AE cores. So much for Nvidia's in-house cores...
Also, I wonder how you know just how much they spend on them, as well as how much of that spend is in the form of software vs. hardware. The point being that the software-spend is mostly not comparable to what ARM does.
> They would also work to replace Mali with their own GPU technology
They already have a licensing deal for their GPU block to be incorporated by MediaTek. They don't need this acquisition to do such things.
Well, ARM isn't the greatest microarchitectural innovator in the ARM ecosystem. And, Nvidia, for its part, can't really want ARM because it needs 40 billion dollars worth of patchy physical IP (that, according to an often told fairy story, Nvidia will get to keep for itself, after it cynically cancels the existing ARM licensing agreements once it gains control of ARM). No, lets be clear, Nvidia is willing to pay 40 billion dollars for ARM precisely because of its licensing model not for its less than stellar IP.
Just as ARM has concluded that it needs to greatly increase its IP investments and therefore needs a patron like Nvidia to ensure that it gets the financial resources it needs to keep the company and the technologies that it licenses relevant, Nvidia, too, has concluded it needs to become an ARM company, indeed the ARM company, to ensure the ongoing success of its businesses. The thinking behind the desire to acquire ARM would go something like this: over time ARM + CUDA will outstrip x86 + Xe or x86 + RDNA/CDNA because from amongst these (and other) technological options out there what the biggest industries and addressable markets want or need (at this time or in the near future) is ARM. Nvidia is willing to pay a premium for ARM because a) ARM completes the strategic picture for Nvidia - it offers the opportunity to massively expand the reach of CUDA and to completely eliminate dependence on x86 architecture and the companies that control that architecture, and b) the whole world would have to come to Nvidia's ARM licensing operation if they want either i) ARM physical IP or ii) an architectural license to design and produce custom ARM parts.
Apple and Fujitsu are reaping the benefits of high performance ARM silicon implementations. Qualcomm, with its newly acquired NUVIA unit, will also be going down that path. It isn't hard to see how having an ARM operation capable of licensing high performance ARM IP to all takers would be a good fit for Nvidia. Nvidia is playing the long game here. Even if the planned ARM acquisition should be aborted, due to regulatory obstacles, I doubt that Nvidia will sharply change direction. It will probably continue to look for an IP licensing operation that offers some of the same benefits as an ARM acquisition. One way forward for Nvidia might be to look at high performance RISC-V instead of ARM.
> according to an often told fairy story, Nvidia will get to keep for itself, after it cynically > cancels the existing ARM licensing agreements once it gains control of ARM
This is not even mentioned in the FTC lawsuit.
And Nvidia was heavily invested in the ARM ISA, long before it made the offer to buy ARM. Even if the acquisition is cancelled, I don't foresee Nvidia switching to RISC-V in the near- or even medium-term.
Before Brexit, yes, since Arm Holdings is in GB, but now, they can't say anything about the purchase only about how it will affect Nvidia+Arm doing future business in the EU.
I'd hazard a guess that "future business in the EU" is a top priority for both Arm Ltd. and NVIDIA.
Brexit just makes it worse for Arm, tbh. Now Arm Ltd. must get approval from the UK's CMA (already investigating) and the EUMR (already investigating).
Perhaps Synopsis + ARM would make more sense. Not that the former has the wherewithal to swing the kind of acquisition price that Nvidia offered, but they could always do a merger.
Other thoughts about ARM's prospects: the IPO route should still be viable, if Softbank remains eager to offload it. And I guess there are other private equity or sovereign wealth funds that could afford it? It'd be pocket change for Berkshire Hathaway.
Synopsys already owns ARC, so it could either be good because it's an area they're already experienced in, or bad because it's one company picking up multiple embedded ISAs.
This deal has exposed a lot of terrible trends, all in one go!
1) Selling off national treasures to international mega-conglomerates with zero foresight and zero spine. Don't forget that Arm got a massive check with Soft Bank's valuation + acquisition: they're no innocent player here.
2) Incompetent equity firms embarrassing themselves in a market with zero understanding and losing billions in widely-publicized regulatory scrutiny, stunning loss of value, and another slap across the face at the billionaires club.
3) Stunning levels of blatant trusts / anti-competitive behavior, with plenty clapping along the sidelines, i.e., Marvell, Broadcom, and MediaTek that *all* voiced public support for this horrific deal.
4) That, in the end, it was probably only Google + Apple + Microsoft + Qualcomm + others opposition that caused the FTC to intervene. So, as some have written, when trillionaires and billionaires fight, there is only one winner and it's only luck that the trillionaires aligned with the consumers this time.
> 1) Selling off national treasures to international mega-conglomerates
ARM was publicly traded. It IPO'd and traded in London and on NASDAQ in 1998. Are you saying all the shareholders should've collectively refused Softbank's acquisition?
And if what you really mean is that ARM shouldn't have IPO'd, that's a bit unfair. We can't really say where they'd be, if they hadn't done it.
> 2) Incompetent equity firms embarrassing themselves in a market with zero > understanding and losing billions in widely-publicized regulatory scrutiny, > stunning loss of value, and another slap across the face at the billionaires club.
Are you talking about WeWork? Because that's why Softbank needed money enough to sell ARM. ARM is still probably a good long-term bet.
> ARM was publicly traded. It IPO'd and traded in London and on NASDAQ in 1998. Are you > saying all the shareholders should've collectively refused Softbank's acquisition?
I suspect he's saying UK Government should not have allowed the sale to go ahead to begin with - as they are minded to now do with Nvidia (something about a horse and a stable door).
But this begs a much wider and more difficult question re: the UK Governments longstanding and ongoing inability to handle anything to do with tech beyond bluff and bluster (and the ability of whatever it is to get them and the high ranking civil servants jobs in cushy financial consultancies when they quit/are forced out/unelected).
You comment on every single thing here. You know everything ? Go back to Woodrow Wilson signing of the Fed act, just read what he says from his own mouth.
Everyone in the US *should* understand more about the Federal Reserve system, because it *is* systemically important to our economy. Furthermore, because it's complex and seemingly mysterious, it often factors into conspiracy theories. The Act is indeed a decent starting point:
I'm not going into a detailed "debate" about it, but the idea that not being outright-owned by the government means they're somehow equivalent to a private individual or corporation in the ways they can act is not borne out by the facts (i.e. how they're governed and the charter under which they operate).
I just find it suspicious that you seized on central banks, rather than the obvious institutions of such size and power. Besides the tech firms that were obviously intended by the comment, we could also talk about investment firms, some of which indeed *do* have $Trillions under management. That's a lot of power for truly private citizens & corporations to control.
I wonder what's the user/consumers have benefit here. There's no benefit to people here. If a product is successful it will make money irrespective of user benefit, see AirPods.
Nvidia taking over ARM will push ARM to next level due to Nvidia's HPC and AI expertise and the IoT market. This move would only hurt Apple and Qcomm. Samsung is on Nvidia side because of their exclusive partnership, I don't think they are a part of lobby to smite Nvidia. AMD also probably no horse in this race. As for M$ I doubt. Since their bread and butter is Services market unless those rumors of making a Graviton type clone for their own Azure instances. Plus ARM emulation on Windows is downright pathetic.
This move is caused by Apple and Qcomm heavily lobbying against Nvidia. It would have been amazing to see Apple getting crushed by Nvidia, unfortunately only Apple gets to ruin other companies - They killed Imagination tech, GT Advanced, Dialog Semi. Wanted their pet Broadcom to ruin Qcomm. Google is irrelevant, their Tensor is utter trash. And their silicon expertise is nothing substantial.
There are far worst M&As done in the past with zero resistance - Google/Fitbit/Motorola. ATT take over of Warner, Disney on Fox properties, Facebook Whatsapp, IBMThinkpad Lenovo, Comcast Universal, these have long lasting impacts and have real effect on the world.
> Nvidia taking over ARM will push ARM to next level due to Nvidia's HPC > and AI expertise and the IoT market.
I think Nvidia has said ARM will continue to operate independently. Don't assume that ARM employees will suddenly have access to all of Nvidia's IP or that the architects from the respective businesses will be chatting every day.
> AMD also probably no horse in this race.
AMD probably had an ARM core somewhere in the development pipeline, when the deal got announced.
> ARM emulation on Windows is downright pathetic. ... > Google is irrelevant, their Tensor is utter trash.
Why do you think these companies need (in your opinion) successful execution to have an interest in the deal? If the deal runs counter to their strategic ambitions, that's enough for them to take a stand against it, regardless of how credible those ambitions were.
Companies do not operate for what people care. That's why I mentioned all the other M&As. This was done by Apple and Qcomm precisely. More of an Apple move. They have huge pockets and they do not want Nvidia in their ARM processors.
Google has a huge command and they control Android. They can work with Nvidia with close partnership for a better SoC than Exynos based Tensor garbage. Strategic Ambition for Google doesn't exist. That company is incapable of breaking even 5% of marketshare in N.A handset. That's why they are irrelevant.
> only Apple gets to ruin other companies - They killed Imagination tech
I made a post about this, why Apple didn't buy it, and what's happened to Imagination under its new owners. Looks like somebody here doesn't want you to know about that stuff. Research it elsewhere.
They didn’t kill Imagination. They’re still around. You don’t seem to know much about what happened. In fact Apple made another deal with them which is in effect now.
Imagination became too big for their britches. So to speak. First, Microsoft left because they wouldn’t do what they needed. Then Apple requested changes to the GPU to better meet their needs, and Imagination refused that too. So Apple left also. Considering that Imagination’s sales were just a few tens of millions a year, and at that point with Microsoft and some other customers leaving, Apple was a good 50% of what was left of their sales.
When they left, the company was in crisis. Engineers jumped ship to Apple. But a coup,e of years later, Imagination announced some new IP that looked a lot like what Apple had been asking for earlier. Apple signed another contract.
Unfortunately, due to sitting pretty on a perpetual licence (from being involved in founding Arm), Apple haven't been against it, just not willing to support it.
Fortunately, other tech giants have been against it.
> This is capitalism? Letting a few megacorps dictate?
Well, it's the government (FTC + courts) that's doing the dictating. They're basically playing referee. So, you have some market participants complaining that their competitor is doing something unfair. The referee has a look at it, and now happens to side with the ones complaining.
I think the number & diversity of those complaining is probably more important than their size, but this is probably a case where size does matter. It matters because, if for no other reason, anything which distorts the market enough to worry such huge players is quite likely to be felt by downstream consumers, as well.
The line between corporation and government is minimal to nonexistent.
That is why an ‘Alzheimer’s’ drug that has no solid data to support its efficacy in treating Alzheimer’s — yet causes brain swelling in far too many — is fast-tracked by an FDA that’s so chummy with the pharma company that it made the experts’ heads spin — the experts who unanimously voted against approval and noted that the basis for the later approval publicity was based on plaques reduction sleight of hand that wasn’t even brought up during the approval meeting. That’s why the corporate government then goes on to double the Medicare cost raise to partially offset the cost of this $56,000 per year per patient scam, as the same crooks are having Medicare funnel the masses’ money to feed their stock price and revolving door.
Just one example of many. That a ridiculously expensive product can cause serious harm with unacceptable regularity and have no adequate adequately-demonstratable benefit to offset it (other than highway robbery of the plebs) — then be foisted onto the backs of those who need and will need Medicare...
Oh, and the corporation exists as an invention of government. Pretty difficult to be separate when disappearing is what happens if pulled apart. The revolving door is the same thing that makes the two equivalent. The marketing games are a bit different but the business isn’t particularly different. So said a president: ‘The business of America is business.’
What you're doing is engaging in a favorite tactic of the partisan media, which is to cherry-pick exceptional cases and present them as if they're "business as usual". We could get into the specifics of that case, but it's missing the point.
> That’s why the corporate government then goes on to double the Medicare cost
Again, you're just picking what fits your preferred narrative. As you do that, you're ignoring the multi-year, comprehensive study recently concluded on prescription drug pricing, that's intended to inform some hopefully sane policy reform on that front.
And, in a fashion typical of anti-government types, you treat "government" as some amorphous and unified organism, ignoring factions, parties, and numerous notable politicians on different sides of these issues. If you don't like what government is doing, then the proper response is engagement, because elections actually *do* have consequences. It's only by people failing to engage in the political process and advocate for their interests that the corporations truly win the day.
> Just one example of many.
I'm sure you can cherry-pick many more. Partisan media does it day in and day out. When there's an organization as large and varied as the US Federal Government, there's always somebody doing something that's either unscrupulous or can at least be spun that way. It would be true of any organization that big and diverse.
> The revolving door is the same thing that makes the two equivalent.
The revolving door is a fixable problem. However, it seems to me that you're not interested in fixing problems.
What you want seems to be infecting others with a deep sense of cynicism and disenfranchisement, which is exactly the opposite of what we need to patch up the flaws and holes in a system that's worked pretty well for a pretty long time.
I'd rather SoftBank just IPO it onto the LSE. Much easier than selling to another company, and it means that the rest of us will once again be able to share in Arm's success.
Depends. It was independent before. If spinning it out would just make it an acquisition target for someone else, then maybe it's not actually an improvement.
Like they did with ARM-China which now sees the Chinese government with 51% of the company which is now recognized as an independent company and is now authorized to issue its own licenses independent of SoftBank’s ARM?
If this bid fails I fear for ARM, it won’t die but it’s going to get messy.
Glad they are finally doing something about this. Consolidation into useless mega corporations has been terrible for consumers around the world, as well as local innovation. These deals are a big part about snuffing out competition. Wish they had acted sooner though. From the US perspective, I think a lot of damage was done to the semiconductor industry in the last 10 years.
It strikes me as ridiculous that some of them are allowed to continue and others blocked.
Lack of adequate consistency in the application of law undermines its authority.
Can anyone provide a substantial justification for blocking this particular merger, whilst approving of the current situation vis-à-vis the continuing existence of various megacorps — some of which own extremely important things like Internet search?
> Can anyone provide a substantial justification for blocking this particular merger, > whilst approving of the current situation vis-à-vis the continuing existence of various megacorps
That presumes there's some sort of consensus that other big acquisitions aren't problematic. Just 1 year ago, the FTC and 46 US states sued Facebook for monopolization, particularly involving its acquisitions:
However, your question seems to presume this is being blocked on the basis of the involved firms' size. That's not actually the issue. I suggest you (re)-read the article to understand the grounds on which it's being opposed.
"Can anyone provide a substantial justification for blocking this particular merger"
The world is willing to put up with a lot, as long as it's below a certain threshold. But when Saruman tries to take the keys to the control centre, the world isn't going to stand for that.
But with their current stock price this deal was valuing ARM for like $70B. There's no way they're going to get that much anywhere else.
Its weird AMD was allowed to buy ATI but this deal is not allowed. ATI had a ton of customers, and post merger the ATI+Intel partnership dissolved completely. Seems like no consistencies here.
That was a completely different set of circumstances. ATI was not doing well and AMD was starting to fail as well. It was more of a desperation move by AMD to stay relevant, and it prevented ATI from going bankrupt. Nvidia is a shrewd tech giant, more in the mold of a modern Apple Inc. ATI sparingly licensed it tech for non-competitive usage. ARM solely runs on licensing its IP and ARM IP is everywhere. It is not financially struggling.
If Nvidia ever showed one ounce of good faith toward another company, I would maybe say this isn't a bad thing. But Nvidia has a track record of pushing around its own customers and as well as anyone who gets in its way. It's an industry bully, and I have zero doubts that it will make all the ARM IP holders suffer if it gets control. ARM IP holders will be left with Nvidia's table scraps as it feasts on the tech market.
They're not, but I don't know why you're so threatened by the idea of judging them as if they were. They surely wouldn't come off looking any better for it.
The issue of treating them as people isn't in how we judge their behavior, it's that they're granted legal rights of people, while *not* sharing many of the other obligations and constraints that bound actual human adults.
I think we're in agreement that it'd be best if they weren't regarded as people in *any* sense.
'They're not, but I don't know why you're so threatened by the idea of judging them as if they were.'
That statement is illogical twice over. The first problem is that it's self-contradictory. The second is that it embeds one of your usual ad homs.
When I read an ad hom in your post (I actually started at the beginning this time, hoping for a break from the pattern) I skip the rest of it. So, if you managed to move from the double-illogic opening salvo to something substantive... better luck next time.
Corporations aren't people. But what if the behaviour of that entity---the corporation---approximated abstract human behaviour? Then, isn't it fair to say, using economy of language, that so-and-so acted in bad faith? It's an everyday convention, tied to language's figurative nature, and quite useful.
> isn't it fair to say, using economy of language, that so-and-so acted in bad faith?
Yes, it's an entirely fair claim.
OG's reaction to it is a clear overreach. I think I understand his concern, but (as usual) he's more concerned with advancing his anti-corporate agenda than trying to be reasonable.
> When I read an ad hom in your post ... I skip the rest of it.
Sure, if you want to cede the point to me, I'll take the win.
Your approach of crying "ad hom", every time I seem to put my finger on your underlying motive, just comes across as confirming my suspicions. Beyond that, it just looks weak.
Tams80, your point sounds valid but under light scrutiny it collapses.
Firstly, the fundamental defining factor of the corporation is to sell less for more. That makes it fundamentally a bad-faith organization.
Secondly, corporations are inanimate/lifeless. People will be replaced if their morality interferes with profiteering. Google's Schmidt mocked the 'don't be evil mantra', saying he wanted a definition of evil and also that it interfered with various plans. It is worthy of mockery because it runs against the defining quality of the corporation.
Corporations are mechanisms for insulating the wealthy against the repercussions of their exploitation politics. As Bierce stated: individual profit (for wealthy individuals) without individual responsibility. The responsibility (cost) is pushed onto the commons/environment/masses.
What's unclear about your anti-corporate rants is what you envision, instead. Do you reject the very notion of collective human action? If not, there surely must be some formalized structures for such organizations and how they operate. And would you have a single individual be held accountable for all actions of the entire collective? That seems a bit unfair, given that no human can truly be omniscient and omnipresent.
As I've said before, it's easy to look at the status quo and point out all the negatives. However, the modern world depends on something *like* a corporation. You can't just abolish them without destroying much of what enables our world to function. That's why it seems like so much tilting at windmills.
We don't have to pretend the negatives don't exist, nor do we need to accept the status quo. However, what I don't see in your posts is anything I recognize as a realistic or pragmatic position. It's as if your only objective is to sew discontent and anti-capitalist sentiment.
nope its me laughing at yet another one of your " im angry at the world and every one in it posts, have you thought about seeing a councilor about your anger issues ?
You are apparently not a lawyer. SCOTUS says that for most purposes corporations are people, including many Constitutional rights guaranteed to people. Here is a little history of the development: https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-...
> SCOTUS says that for most purposes corporations are people,
That's ultimately a pragmatic position, rather than a fundamental one. Also rather lazy, IMO. There are other approaches one could take, such as to *explicitly* delineate the rights and privileges of corporations, rather than essentially saying: "oh, and whatever goes for humans also applies to corporations".
I disagree that corporations should be granted the same rights as humans. They differ in many important ways: they're trivially created and destroyed, they're not subject to the same norms of behavior as adult humans, and non-publicly-traded corporations (in particular) lack transparency in ways that make them ripe for abuse.
Someday, we'll have to grapple with whether non-humans should be treated as people. Maybe it'll be the development of sentient AI's that forces the issue.
> they know they can, and should, do better — but don’t want to.
...or "lazy", in a word.
> ‘Pragmatic’ is one of the euphemisms used by people when
Now that we've established that we're in agreement on this specific point, I'm going to take issue with that blanket characterization of "pragmatic". Any good dictionary (yes, even the OED) will tell you that pragmatism isn't necessarily synonymous with laziness.
Yeah, that's probably because you need a CPU to run a GPU, and you don't need a GPU to run a CPU. So, it's kind of like a parasitical relationship, where one needs the other, but the other doesn't necessarily need the other to survive.
For GPUs, you still have nvidia as the main competition, but there were a multitude of smaller makers that did graphics. At the time, I think this would have been primarily Intel, VIA, and Matrox.
Where as, for ARM, in this day and age, there is, literally, only ARM licensed designs. So ARM has a monopoly in ARM, and nvidia, being one of the main competitors of ARM licensed designs, stands to benefit immensely over their competition, if nvidia is allowed to buy ARM.
And don't confuse ARM with RISC-V, those two are related, but totally different things.
> Its weird AMD was allowed to buy ATI but this deal is not allowed.
You misunderstand the objection. It's because ARM is an IP company that sells IP needed by lots of Nvidia's competitors. Having a chip company buy an IP company that's used by other chip companies creates a conflict of interest and an asymmetrical power dynamic.
NVIDIA says it will maintain the ARM R&D and market "as is" but "good faith" and NVIDIA rarely coexist in the same sentence.
NVIDIA does not give a s..t about the future of ARM in cell phones, appliances, SBCs, industrial boxes, etc. NVIDIA just wants to own a CPU architecture (and sell processors) to fight for data center and enterprise domination against INTEL and AMD.
The High Performance Computing (HPC), hyperscale and exascale computing war between INTEL + Multiple acquisitions, AMD + Xilinx and NVIDIA + Mellanox (+ ARM ?) is ramping up and it will be a bloody one.
NVIDIA is still years ahead of INTEL and AMD for compute with CUDA. But AMD is slowly catching up with AMD ROCm and INTEL with INTEL oneAPI. This puts NVIDIA in a difficult position for the future: not having an in-house CPU architecture is a big no-no in this war.
The $40 billion deal is just a "pond" compared to these markets next 10-year data center and corporate expenditures.
No wonder NVIDIA is trying to appear nice and candid.
When NVIDIA says it will continue to develop ARM, it runs contrary to history. High technology companies pursuing two gigantic goals rarely succeed in both. One of the two always suffers badly.
NVIDIA not able to buy ARM is very bad news for... NVIDIA and very good news for... the rest of the world (companies and consumers) with ARM continuing to flourish unimpended by one technology corporation agenda.
The x86/64 industry is a duopoly, but thanks to ARM dozens of companies CAN STILL design cheap processors and hundreds of small companies can buy them for small runs, e.g. a few thousands units.
Apple, Fujitsu, Hitachi and Samsung are not the only ones making ARM-based CPU. Add Broadcom, Qualcomm, Marvell, Rockship, AMLogic, Mediatek and many other ones. Anybody in the world who wants to create a small appliance, phone, TV, medical or industrial box, SBC will probably go with ARM because it is low power, does not cost too much and there is a wide range of processor models adapted to many cases.
Putting ARM's destiny into the oven guy hands will obviously be a disaster. NVIDIA can try to appear nice and candid with its long con, there is no escaping from the fact that it would destroy the ARM market on which so many rely.
If the EU is smart it would buy ARM from SoftBank, keep it as a private company with public investment. The EU will need it when the computing war between China and the US goes hotter because China is not going to stop wanting its independence from the West technology behemoths. Last but not least, it would maintain ARM as a "neutral" CPU architecture. The EU could even make money out of it. Thanks to Brexit, the British would go balistic. But they do not have the money to buy it back. The EU does.
> NVIDIA says it will maintain the ARM R&D and market "as is" but "good faith" > and NVIDIA rarely coexist in the same sentence.
Even disregarding nvidia's history - the UK has seen a number of important acquisitions over the past fifteen to twenty years where the purchasing company has made "iron-clad" promises. Only for those "promises" to be quickly reversed the moment the term expires.
> If the EU is smart it would buy ARM from SoftBank, keep it as a private company > with public investment. The EU will need it when the computing war between > China and the US goes hotter because China is not going to stop wanting its > independence from the West technology behemoths.
Why would the UK, the birthplace and home of ARM (in every respect) allow the "EU" to purchase it? How would the "EU" actually do this (you know what the EU is, right)? The EU has no ability to do such a thing even if the UK regulators were to allow it.
The "best" thing to happen would be for the UK Government to say to Softbank "you cannot sell ARM to any third party, list on the LSE and if you must NASDAQ, we will retain a golden share to stop this happening again". Then the government should do what the U.S. do with Intel/Cray/et al and engage ARM to design and develop supercomputing resources (for which the UK given it's size and capabilities woefully lacks), purchase said systems drawing in further expertise from elsewhere - perhaps a cutting edge fab or two. Alas this will not happen because the "political science"/law/media graduates who populate the civil service at the appropriate level don't "get it" and won't end up with high paid consultancy jobs as they would for fintech, banking and the like.
Don't anthropomorphize inanimate inventions like corporations.
Corporations are inherently a bad-faith model, too. They're designed to sell less for more. That's the basis of turning a profit. It relies on tricking people (the field of advertising, as well as the field of politics — see all the 'incentives'/bribery to get corporations to place their stuff in 'your' area) into parting with more of themselves (money is life) than they're getting in return.
The corporation is an invention to, as Ambrose Bierce stated, provide individual profit sans individual responsibility. Specifically, it's to siphon life from the ecosystem and ordinary people so the yacht owning class can have larger bowling alleys in their homes.
Yeah, we get it. They're greedy. There are also plenty of greedy individuals. Greed is an intrinsic property of life. Whatever the actor, laws and regulations are needed to protect us from that greed.
It's too easy to focus only on the ills of corporations, capitalism, etc. These things have done a lot to benefit people. The core idea of capitalism is to harness intrinsic greed for the benefit of society. Too often, members of the public seem unaware that effective regulations are an essential ingredient in that formula. Regulations and their enforcers *are* the harness, without which there's little benefit and much potential harm.
‘Yeah, we get it. They're greedy. There are also plenty of greedy individuals.’
No, you don’t. You have recycled the same illogic that you led off with in a prior post — the conflation of corporation and individual. Expanding on that to a ‘greed is life’ formula is even less clarifying.
As for the rest it’s a lot of hand waving and an undefined reference to regulators. Regulation means nothing on its own.
> You have recycled the same illogic that you led off with in a prior post
If you don't read my posts, I'll just have to repeat them. The next part was:
me> The issue of treating them as people isn't in how we judge their behavior, me> it's that they're granted legal rights of people, while *not* sharing many me> of the other obligations and constraints that bound actual human adults.
> As for the rest it’s a lot of hand waving ...
It's all too easy for you to bash corporations and capitalism. These aren't perfect institutions, but perfection isn't a realistic goal. If you have any better ideas that have actually been demonstrated to work *at scale*, then let's hear them. Otherwise, we should try to focus on improving the system we have.
BTW, I'm incredibly suspicious of "revolutionary change" as a solution. Revolutions have a very poor track-record of actually yielding improvements for the people.
> NVIDIA does not give a s..t about the future of ARM in cell phones, > appliances, SBCs, industrial boxes, etc.
As an owner of ARM, they would. That's a major part of ARM's revenue stream.
> NVIDIA just wants to own a CPU architecture (and sell processors) to fight for data center > and enterprise domination
No, they're also really heavily-invested in self-driving cars and robotics. What cores do you think those chips use?
And then, there's Nintendo Switch....
> But AMD is slowly catching up with AMD ROCm
LOL. I'm sure they'd like us to think so.
> When NVIDIA says it will continue to develop ARM, it runs contrary to history.
If that's the terms it agrees to with various regulatory agencies, then failing to do so could put them in legal jeopardy. They could face lawsuits, with the consequences being as serious as a forced break-up.
That's why I think this lawsuit didn't take issue with that commitment, but rather focused on more subtle ways the merger could result in an uneven playing field.
> If the EU is smart it would buy ARM from SoftBank
I doubt they have any way of doing that. I doubt the ECB can just buy companies. It also would raise concerns among many, if ARM is in *any* "state" hands.
> it would maintain ARM as a "neutral" CPU architecture.
While I think the EU would be the least bad government to hold it, they're still not neutral.
We like capitalism; it's great. We like it as long as the corporations we have invested in are protected from competition — from capitalism. That it eats itself is something we just won't admit to.
I must be missing something because it seems to me that if the worst-case scenario fears happen (that Nvidia acquiring ARM leads to ARM becoming too expensive for many companies to take advantage of) it simple opens the door for more investment/development in other things, like RISC-V.
Isn't that how supply and demand (aka capitalism) is supposed to work? So... why should this merger be blocked? What am I missing?
> if the worst-case scenario fears happen ... it simple opens the door for more > investment/development in other things, like RISC-V.
Ultimately, the problem is the amount of disruption that happens in between. A lot has been invested in ARM-based solutions and this move gives Nvidia too much influence/power over its competitors, if it's allowed to snatch up ARM. Worse, if the industry were deflected away from ARM, it's not only the hardware vendors that would suffer, but also those who've poured vast amounts of time, money, and effort into developing & refining the ARM software ecosystem.
> Isn't that how supply and demand (aka capitalism) is supposed to work?
Capitalism, left to its own devices, tends to involve lots of harsh corrections that cause substantial amounts of collateral damage. The proper role of government is to smooth out market dynamics, which includes ensuring that no actor wields too much power (i.e. monopoly).
Emulation is not a viable solution for many markets where ARM is dominant or ascendant. It always involves some power & performance penalty -- both key considerations for cloud, mobile, and embedded applications. Furthermore, it doesn't address much of the OS and driver-level software, which would have to be rewritten. Finally, we don't know that it wouldn't still run afoul of ARM ISA patents that Nvidia would ultimately hold.
Taking a step back, I think your suggestion that the existence of some plausible alternative is not the standard used to judge these situations. The most common standard for evaluating mergers & acquisitions seems to focus on whether it's harmful to consumers. And that standard doesn't require that possible competitors are completely and perpetually barred from entry into the market, it just requires that there be some significant harm resulting from the move.
Would you not agree that imposing something like a >= 30% slowdown constitutes a harm? If so, then how can you say Nvidia's potential abuse of ARM doesn't pose a significant threat of harm to thousands of companies and billions of consumers?
> if you truly believe what you're writing you're claiming that capitalism simply is impossible.
Having large corporations use governments to create walls against competition is mercantilism not capitalism. Having governments do that of their own volition is also mercantilism, not capitalism.
Consumers are supposed to benefit by the competition involved in free trade. Seizing private IP as if it’s public domain is the antithesis of that. So long as mega corps, duopolies, and the like are being tolerated by regulators there is zero credibility in blocking this purchase. All it will do is stifle innovation (such as by slowing RISC-V) so a small number of large corporations won’t have to spend a bit more money. It harms Nvidia’s ability to compete whilst helping its competitors — without credible justification.
ARM’s IP is not in the public domain.
This isn’t a credible anti-trust maneuver. What would be is starting with the more powerful monopolists and duopolists and working one’s way down. How about starting with Internet search? If anything is in need of the commons-first commie approach it’s that. Mega corps are deciding what content we’re allowed to find and how. That’s not what the Internet is supposed to be — a giant honeypot for ad revenue and mega corps’ control, hand-in-hand with government authoritarianism. But, the priority is never on what is more needed by the masses. Not one bit. So, instead of actions to free people from censorship we have the priority being protecting a few large corporations from minor inconvenience.
You wanted to know what I’d do? My magic wand would get governments to enable an open-source World Search for searching the Internet — free of profiteering censorship. It would have everything indexed, would not respect robots.txt, and would cache content to preserve it against censorship erasure.
The free flow of knowledge vastly outweighs ARM’s spindly IP when it comes to anti-trust prioritization. But, people are so accustomed to the ridiculous nature of the search situation as to barely question it. That the Internet came into being as a military-corporate complex entity perhaps helps to explain why too few demand that it be something more efficient.
Yes, I remember that. Yahoo was supposed to be the doorstep of the Internet. And then Google came about and, as if by magic, always landed on what you really wanted.
Oh, I kept well-curated bookmarks in Netscape Navigator. At one point, the storage format for the bookmarks was a .HTML file, which was pretty neat. You could simply post it up on your website, to share your bookmarks with people. Yeah, that was a thing back then.
> and would cache content to preserve it against censorship erasure.
As I'm sure you're aware, there are serious practical limits to what can be archived. Also, it runs into a bit of trouble with RTBF, for which I think there are some compelling arguments:
> Having large corporations use governments to create walls against competition > is mercantilism not capitalism.
Look at the track-record of how often mergers & acquisitions get blocked and you'll quickly see that it's more the exception that they intervene. You seem to presume the FTC and courts incapable of weighing the evidence and arguments in order to reach the best decision.
> Having governments do that of their own volition is also mercantilism, not capitalism.
If they acted to further tilt the playing field, yes. If they act to level it, no.
> Seizing private IP as if it’s public domain is the antithesis of that.
Exactly who is doing that?
> So long as mega corps, duopolies, and the like are being tolerated > by regulators there is zero credibility in blocking this purchase.
That's a false dichotomy. Because they've previously approved some mergers & acquisitions they shouldn't have, is no reason to pack up and go home.
> All it will do is stifle innovation (such as by slowing RISC-V)
No, it doesn't stifle RISC-V. That was founded and gaining pace before this, and we have every reason to expect RISC-V will continue maturing, unabated. You can't justify an anti-competitive move on the basis that it will hasten innovation. That's like saying it's okay to fling asteroids at the Earth to hasten the evolution of new animals.
> It harms Nvidia’s ability to compete
Nvidia is competing quite well, if you haven't noticed. And none of their announced plans depends on this acquisition.
> ARM’s IP is not in the public domain.
Nobody said it was.
> This isn’t a credible anti-trust maneuver. What would be is starting with the > more powerful monopolists and duopolists and working one’s way down.
When you're in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. This acquisition is a lot easier to stop now, than it would be to unwind after substantial damage had been done. That's why the FTC's role is to review these deals, *before* they complete. We even have a good example of this, where the FTC + 46 states recently sued Facebook, in part for its acquisition of Instagram. That claim was dismissed, on the basis that the FTC hadn't objected at the time.
As for monopolies and duopolies, the burden for dismantling them is considerably higher. It's not enough merely to show that a company has a de facto monopoly, you actually have to prove they're wielding their power in improper and harmful ways. There's actually a lot of legislation and case law, around these things. It's not something the FTC can just do on a whim.
> Mega corps are deciding what content we’re allowed to find and how.
Breaking up Google isn't the only solution to that problem, you know? And even if they were broken up, there's no reason to think the pieces wouldn't each just behave in the same way. A better solution would be some sort of regulation of internet search.
> That’s not what the Internet is supposed to be
According to whom? Is that enshrined in any law? The Internet existed before internet search!
> a giant honeypot for ad revenue and mega corps’ control ... > But, the priority is never on what is more needed by the masses. Not one bit.
Well, we *did* have net neutrality *and* regulations against ISPs spying on their customers. That is, until 2017, when Congress & POTUS decided otherwise. That at least shows you can't say "not one bit". It'll probably come back, someday.
> instead of actions to free people from censorship > we have the priority being protecting a few large corporations from minor inconvenience.
That's another false dichotomy. Whether the FTC does this has nothing to do with action on censorship. Any move by the government against online censorship would require new laws, which needs Congress to act.
And, again, it's not the corporations that would ultimately pay the price. The FTC cares about consumers first, before investors and businesses.
My point was that the internet is not some fundamental thing that existed before time. It's a thing that we collectively created, and we can collectively change it.
But, that only has a chance of succeeding if there's a positive and definite vision people can coalesce around, like Net Neutrality.
The UK is fearful that NVidia who already does much of the same R&D ARM does will close offices and lay off employees which would see as many as 5000, highly paid engineers hitting the unemployment line.
China is afraid NVidia will fight them on the ARM-China stuff as it is now a direct competitor to ARM. They don’t want to risk loosing that control.
The US congress, and FTC, are being lobbied heavily by Qualcomm, Intel, and a few others about how it’s bad for consumers because…. Reasons? When mostly they are fearful that NVidia’s patent portfolio would make their stuff non competitive and cause years of their R&D to go down the drain as it just doesn’t stack up.
The high pay that the corporate world gives is supposed to be balanced by the reduced job security. Otherwise, public sector jobs should be paying at the same level. So, if those engineers lose their jobs they’re supposed to get new ones. Or, they can always become secondary math and science teachers making very little money.
The FTC doesn’t seem to be particularly concerned with catering to China. I don’t know about the UK in terms of that.
Protecting Intel from RISC-V seems to be a foolhardy endeavor. The world is moving toward open source, just as microcomputing went from dozens of incompatible platforms to mostly x86.
Can't see what the fuss is about. NVIDIA's acquisition of ARM would only do one thing - accelerate the transition to RISCV and ultimately waste a lot of NVIDIA's cash.
The mere potential for the industry to eventually re-balance, after any harms done by the acquisition, is not the standard to which these M&A activities are held. The standard they must meet is that the move not do substantial harm. If it gives Nvidia a short-term advantage over its competitors, that harms consumers (i.e. in the form of higher prices, and since we're talking about Nvidia, that's not even a theoretical point) and shareholders of those other companies.
Also, RISC-V & its various ISA extensions have not been deployed at the same scale or variety of applications as ARM. I think it's still too early to say that its patent situation is entirely stable. If credible patent claims emerge about some key ISA extensions, that could easily nullify the benefits of using it vs. Nvidia-controlled ARM, for some/many applications.
If you want to talk about consumer harm there is a list of actual things to focus on rather than canards.
Ethylene oxide. ‘Inert’ ingredients that are thousands of times more toxic to human cells and up to 25,000 times more toxic to creatures such as bee species.
You talk a good game but it’s all fluff. Corporate welfare isn’t about protecting consumers.
It would also give Nvidia intimate knowledge of all R&D and product development roadmaps, of all ARM licensees, and the ability to prioritize ARM focus on areas that benefit Nvidia.
This isn't happening...there are too many powerful people against it. Much of it stems from getting burned by nVidia in past dealings--nVidia doesn't play "nice" and never has. Their bad reputation goes back decades--it's not new. I remember when nVidia was awarded the first xBox contract--Gates was still with Microsoft at the time. Right after the contract was fulfilled and Microsoft was preparing to award the contract for the second iteration of the xBox--nVidia sues Microsoft. Microsoft settled but it was obvious they were really pissed. nVidia never got another xBox contract--even though it kept submitting bids for many years thereafter. Whatever they pulled it pissed Microsoft off a great deal. I don't see this deal making it for nVidia--too many people don't trust the company. I don't--but I'm just a small fry here. nVidia made its bed...
Here's the deal... since so many comments are using the false claim that some corporations are benevolent people and others are malevolent people.
The deal is that the corporation exists to do one thing: enrich the wealthy. Henry Blodget isn't the only person to post plenty of hard data (charts) on that. But, his seminal article about why people are protesting (from the Occupy period) is a good a place to start. Find the one with dozens of charts. It shows, very clearly, the massive divide between the financial class and the masses (whose claim to fame is that they 'own' debt). Corporations are a machine designed by the former to milk the latter. The masses get some shiny toys and quality of life improvements to partially compensate them for the exploitation – to keep them pacified.
A corporation has no obligation to do anything altruistic, beyond providing just enough pacification (goods/services) to the masses to keep the corporation from being attacked politically in a manner that actually threatens its scope and survival.
Corporations can even be used to violate laws. When the fines are smaller than the profit it is an attractive proposition. Given that corporations frequently function to insulate against liability sweetens the corrupt pot. Insiders on MSNBC blithely stated that the DOJ has long had a policy of fining corporations rather than jailing executives.
The illogical claim is that it's better for ordinary workers, as if the corporation would suddenly be shut down — as if it couldn't simply get replacement executives. Imagine the idea of promoting workers at the company to the executive class. Egad! Of course the justification is illogical but such things are par for the course. The expectation is that the masses will hear the nice words, nod, and never unpack them to see the falsity.
You are worried about what 'Microsoft thinks' after what Microsoft's executives did to IBM via the OS/2 scam? What about how IBM bypassed superior available consumer hardware when building the first IBM PC — simply to maximize margin? Critics complained but stock holders smiled, as selling less for more is the point. One cynical view is that the function of the critics is to obscure the truth of what corporations are about.
Corporations are rotten. However, some are worse than others. If there were a rotteness scale, Nvidia would hit MAX till the bell broke off. Understandably, folk are up in arms about it, especially money-hungry dogs like Apple I'm sure. And you're right, perhaps it would have instigated a transition to RISC-V; but right now, there's too many invested in ARM.
‘but right now, there's too many invested in ARM.’
That doesn’t make sense in any sort of free market context. All you’re saying is that anti-competitive behavior is protectionism for certain companies.
> That doesn’t make sense in any sort of free market context.
It does, unless you're advocating entirely laissez-faire capitalism (which I don't, and is largely theoretical). The goal of the FTC is to keep any market player from gaining an unfair advantage, through M&A activities. That's exactly what this is.
> All you’re saying is that anti-competitive behavior is protectionism for certain companies.
It's the overall market they're trying to protect. The ultimate test is in the plausible impact on consumers. A healthy market delivers better value for them.
The ideal of capitalism is to minimize harm and maximize the benefit of self-interested market participants. People need to understand this. It's the reason we need good laws and effective enforcement.
Consider the alternatives. Are you going to simply wish they weren't rotten? As long as bad behavior produces growth, it's a race to the bottom. If their competitors don't adopt similar tactics, they'll be run out of business.
I just can't grasp the ins and outs of capitalism. But I do side with it, something my younger self would've been shocked by. Non-capitalist systems are usually some form of state capitalism masquerading as "equality and ownership for all." Well, I know that if I've privately toiled and sweated for something, it's mine. Nobody has the right to take it away. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, a lot of non-capitalist feeling often seems to me a secret desire to take away what belongs, usually by toil, to someone else.
Idealistically, I would subscribe to something like Star Trek's non-feasible system, where everyone works but there doesn't appear to be any money!
I think what he's saying is: in the real world, it can end up being a dirty game, so there's got to be regulation. As in sport, there must be rules and umpires.
> Mode believes that governments should pick the winners and losers.
Generally, no. I do think it's best if no market participant has too much power. In short, I believe capitalism needs to be regulated, both to keep a level playing field and to mitigate the damage caused by its excesses.
> something my younger self would've been shocked by.
As a teenager, I found the idea of socialism to be alluring. That was until I saw how poorly it tended to work, in practice.
> Non-capitalist systems are usually some form of state capitalism > masquerading as "equality and ownership for all."
If the constant is greed, then we shouldn't be surprised to see it manifest in one way or another, no matter what the system. So, the challenge is then one of devising the most effective system to manage & even harness that greed for the benefit of society.
I don't argue that greed is good. I merely argue that it's fundamental and it's what we make of it.
So much that we do is driven by simpler, fundamental currents in our nature. How often is vanity or desire for applause the root of virtuous behaviour? Quite often, the real drive is hidden even from ourselves or, if visible, we don't wish to accept it. I don't mind: the proof of the pudding is in the eating, not the ingredients or oven. But it can play out in more sinister ways when people are hitting out on some social issue but really are pushing for their own interest. To me a lot of ill feeling against the rich seems that way. What is it, except envy? Envy for the rich man's wealth. Then, highfalutin rhetoric and philosophies are built up in the universities (all that Marxist nonsense?) to sanction stealing another man's property.
Justice is a real and fundamental social concept. In controlled experiments, primates have repeatedly and consistently reacted negatively, when they've observed one of their peers getting cheated or getting a worse deal.
Some people are more sensitive and activated by the perception of injustice than others. I think there is some legitimate outrage that *not* born out of envy, when some reap in excess at the seeming (or actual) expense of those with little.
For this and other reasons, I think the legitimacy of the system hinges on some degree of fairness. Fairness in both the rules and their enforcement.
You're right. I was being overly cynical against my better reason. The main thing we all want is fair, equal dealing. What is good for one is good for all. And when one sees the disparities between rich and poor, it's hard not to be moved by the picture. Concerning the primate experiments, I believe there are neural correlates that have a bearing on this, when one is being treated differently, being left out, etc. It causes an effect similar to physical pain.
(And while it may seem I was defending the rich because I'm well off, the truth is, I work for small wages, have struggled to get a job, and grew up in a home where we weren't well-to-do at all.)
Thinking about my comment, it struck me that my muddled sentiment was trying to say: if society is divided into three segments---the high, the middle, and the low---it is the middle who have hidden motive to install themselves in place of the high, using lip service to equality and brotherhood to get the low on their side. What's more, they come up with all sorts of intellectual cant in the universities to back their aims. Once they, the middle, have displaced the high, the proletariat will still be in the spot they've always been. Take it, I was hitting out against that. When I hear talk of yachts, etc., I fancy I can almost sense the envy of this upward-aiming group.
> it is the middle who have hidden motive to install themselves in place of the high
I think we're somewhat wired to be social-climbers. It's an intrinsic part of being social animals, and it gets back to the part about greed being somewhat innate.
> using lip service to equality and brotherhood to get the low on their side.
Feeling victimized or disadvantaged is a powerful motivator, and politicians know this. That's one of the accelerants of identity politics. And I'm not making an oblique reference to any specific group, as no group is immune to it.
That's why I think society loses, when we engage in identity politics. The more we can bring the focus back to establishing and enforcing general principles, the better we are for it.
> When I hear talk of yachts, etc., I fancy I can almost sense the > envy of this upward-aiming group.
I think extreme wealth does have a corrosive effect on society. It's also not as good for the economy. Markets function better, when money and power don't over-concentrate.
Incidentally, today is Day of Reconciliation in SA. That's what society needs, reconciliation and love, whereas identity politics is causing more division and cementing the lines. Focusing on the 0.01% that makes us different, and sweeping under the carpet the 99.9% where we're the same. Imagine if subatomic particles had to say, "Let's engage in identity politics," matter as we know it would fall to pieces. Small wonder, society is in this state.
Agreed, extreme wealth is not a nice thing, but if somebody earned it by toil and sweat, by right it belongs to him. How does society remedy that?
> today is Day of Reconciliation in SA. That's what society needs, reconciliation
That's admirable. It would probably help.
> Focusing on the 0.01% that makes us different
I'm often struck by the irony of how fiercest conflicts are often between neighboring tribes or countries that outsiders find almost indistinguishable.
> if somebody earned it by toil and sweat, by right it belongs to him.
You can't. Not by yourself. Amassing extreme wealth depends on the work of many people, much infrastructure, standards, security, and stability. All of that comes at a cost. Taxes are the tool we have of assessing and extracting those costs.
> The main thing we all want is fair, equal dealing.
Agreed, but we must be wary that we're unreliable judges of fairness. I wish I could remember the name, but there's a psychological effect where people judge their position according to their neighbors and it leads to a skewed perception where most people feel like they're doing relatively worse than they are.
In my case, I have nothing to complain about. I'm paid more than enough to meet my needs. In fact, if I thought this were the upper end of the pay scale, I could accept it without much complaint. However, when I learn that others in my area are getting paid more for similar or even lower-grade work, I can't help but feel slightly annoyed.
Anyway, fairness is a loaded term. What some people judge to be fair (e.g. equal opportunity), might be seen as unfair to those trying to compete who are at a disadvantage. Thus, even agreeing on the general principle doesn't guarantee we'd agree on any specific policy or means of instituting it.
This is where I think having broad participation (i.e. democracy) has real potential. If you believe the system is working mostly as judged fair by the preponderance of your peers, that can lend real legitimacy to it. It's by no means a guarantee that democracy leads to a fair system, but broader participation *should* tend to make the system more fair than it'd otherwise be.
Absolutely, I think it's almost universal that we feel we're worse off than our fellows. And that leads to discontent, robbing joy from what could've been a happy life. As my dear grandmother often says, "Contentment." Sadly, people are envying other's cars, jobs, heck, even gardens! I joke not.
As always, solutions are what count. I think there's much to be gained if we could apply ideas from computer science to society. In many ways, isn't society like an operating system? The problem is, programs are individual and sentient. So the question becomes, how do we reconcile these tensions, of control vs. individualism? And how do we do so in a stepped fashion? Because unlike a hard drive, we can't format a society. Democracy is the best system we've got; but I would go so far to say that anti-democratic notions can still be "emulated" on the democratic machinery. Perhaps critical mass of participation hasn't been achieved, or you've got this monolithic clumping into "AMD and Intel." A law of nature? Perhaps.
> In many ways, isn't society like an operating system?
Good questions, but I think a lot of where economists and certain ideologies have gone wrong is by treating humans as perfectly logical and always acting in their own best interest. We know humans are subject to a whole range of cognitive biases and errors, which some of us have grown very adept at exploiting -- both for political and economic gain.
> how do we reconcile these tensions, of control vs. individualism? > And how do we do so in a stepped fashion?
This is the challenge of our age. At least, in terms of governance. We have to figure out how to fix discourse. If we can both fix discourse and increase engagement, then there's hope. Part of fixing discourse involves somehow reducing manipulation, which is a growing threat and driving the electorate towards the extremes.
> I would go so far to say that anti-democratic notions can still be "emulated" > on the democratic machinery.
Yeah, what seems to happen is that demagogues take power and then start breaking and contorting government to enshrine themselves and increase their authority. Before you know it, you can no longer call it a democracy. Examples abound.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." People forget that part. Democracy is anything but self-maintaining.
Some ingredient is missing from democracy. As long as the human element is present, there'll be manipulation. The game seems to be, how do I use the democratic system to install myself in power? So, instead of a tyrant who does it by force, we now use a softer, more persuasive approach. Promise a tonne of stuff, play into the notions of the demographic you're trying to win, crack some jokes, and you're well ahead. Plus, the Common Folk don't seem to know what they want, or what will truly make them happy, and are ripe for manipulation.
We discussed an AI ruling at some length before. Of course, humans aren't going to accept it, and I fear it would end up being tyrannical because its optimisation would always outweigh our attempts for democratic reform. Or human fingers might be in off-limit parts of the source code!
> we now use a softer, more persuasive approach. Promise a tonne of stuff, > play into the notions of the demographic you're trying to win, crack some jokes, > and you're well ahead.
That's the sort of thing you do if you're aiming for the center of the electorate. If you're running as a partisan or a cultural/economic warrior, then you want to seem more extreme in your views and uncompromising in your positions.
> the Common Folk don't seem to know what they want,
Really? I think most people in fact *do* know what the do/don't want. Manipulation tends to harness fear, anxiety, or moral outrage. Those tactics tend to be inexpensive, because they don't require big spending or huge government projects, once the politician is elected. The same cannot be said of appealing to their economic self-interests.
> humans aren't going to accept (an AI ruling)
The AI you really need to fear is probably one that's smart enough to put up a human front man.
The radical character does gain quite a following, often by appealing to passion or unreason.
You're right, and dug deeper than I went. Appealing to fear works natively, and is a tactic employed throughout history. Same with moral outrage. The wind blows strongly in Salem this Christmas.
As for that AI using a human front man, it is a chilling thought. I can't help picturing a ventriloquist or something like a techno-doppelganger!
I watched the first 3 Matrix movies. I didn't too much mind the sequels, but didn't really think they were up to the level of the first movie. I recently watched it again, right around its 20 year anniversary. Ah, nostalgic.
I didn't plan on watching Resurrections. Maybe if the reviews are really good, but I'm not really interested in seeing more movies like #2 and #3.
Aside from being a bit gratuitous, I thought Ex Machina was pretty good. So far, I think Next (the series that originally aired in 2020) is one of the more plausible visions of a rogue AI taking over.
Reloaded and Revolutions were overdone, CGI-drenched action movies. The 1999 original was about a concept. Once revealed, there was little left. I expected Resurrections to be a disaster, but was surprised, and felt it had a poignancy that was missing before. Also, seeing these beloved characters back after so long was really something. I would say, if you loved the original, Resurrections is worth it. Faithful, with a wiser perspective. And while there were some ugly CGI patches, I was shocked to see a 2021 movie---and Matrix of all things!---looking pretty real a lot of the time.
Ex Machina was excellent, but left me feeling rather unsettled. Perhaps it was that unlikeable man who created the androids. I'm fond of Blade Runner 2049, which, admittedly, is a bit low on AI philosophy. Haven't seen Next but I'll take a look when I get a chance.
(Forgot to add: Steins;Gate 0 dealt with AI generally and is worth watching. And Time of Eve, in a more light-hearted fashion, looked at android equality.)
Regarding Steins Gate, I'm basically done with time travel in movies & TV. I might make an exception for Tenet, which was well-reviewed and sounds genuinely creative.
I actually have seen Time of Eve (as well as all of the Ghost in the Shell TV and movies). I even recommended it to someone else.
About the second and third movies, that's pretty much what I was thinking.
I need to re-watch Blade Runner 2049. There were definitely things about it I didn't fully grasp. I preceded it by watching the Director's Cut of the original movie, which just looked fantastic and was pretty fun in that retro-future sort of way.
Next is a little sketchy on some of the technical details, I think mostly driven by a desire to create an ongoing sense of dramatic tension, but gets enough things right to be truly unsettling.
Actually, it occurs to me there was a 2008 movie called Eagle Eye that's in a somewhat similar vein as Next. Worth a watch, I'd say.
I did see Tenet and meant to watch it again because a lot was puzzling. Certainly creative and well executed, but I ended up feeling Inception was still the better movie. Anyway, there's a car chase in Tenet that's worth its weight in gold.
Ghost in the Shell, 1995, was a masterwork, and the Wachowskis seem to have got a lot of ideas from it.
Also saw the Director's Cut of BR, or the Final Cut as they're calling the best version nowadays, and it looked terrific. (The negative was supposedly scanned at 8K.) The first BR had that distinctive ambience. Plus, who could forget those umbrellas! My favourite scene is Deckard's questioning of Rachel, where, smoking her cigarette, she answers him famously. 2049 delivered; but I felt it didn't have that many ideas. What draws me is the otherworldly atmosphere and beautiful photography. And that part when K's "wife" bids him farewell, what a sad, golden moment; filmmaking at its best.
> so many comments are using the false claim that some corporations are benevolent people
Who here has actually *said* they're benevolent?
I think the real issue is market power. You don't want one actor to have too much of it.
> the corporation exists to do one thing
The wealthy exist to enrich themselves. Corporations are but one tool they use to do it. The point shouldn't be to debate whether greed exists. The point should be how to *use* the powerful motivation of greed to do useful and beneficial work, while minimizing the incentives for it to cause harm.
> Corporations are a machine designed by the former to milk the latter. > The masses get some shiny toys and quality of life improvements > to partially compensate them for the exploitation – to keep them pacified.
As you seem to acknowledge, corporations supply more than just shiny toys. You can't look only at the harm they do. If you talk about any realistic reform, you also need to replace the benefits and services they provide.
You also can't wish greed out of existence. The best we can do is try to manage (and harness) it.
> Insiders on MSNBC blithely stated
Sounds like editorial content, rather than reporting. I guess you found that by searching for some source that aligned with your thinking on these issues? You know that's confirmation bias, right? There could be 99% of datapoints that refute your claims, but if you conduct your search in a way likely to return just the 1% that agree, you come away feeling validated. That's why scientists (and good economists) try to devise good tests that would *disprove* their hypothesis, in order to truly test it.
> the DOJ has long had a policy of fining corporations rather than jailing executives.
The standard for prosecuting executives is very high. You have to prove intent, which is a high bar for resource-starved SEC lawyers to meet. Consequently, they tend to go after things that are easier to prove, such as insider trading. I wish it weren't so, but the way you presented it makes it sound like the DOJ is corrupt. It's not, but the same cannot be said of some of those controlling its budget.
> The illogical claim is ... if the corporation would suddenly be shut down — > as if it couldn't simply get replacement executives.
No, I don't believe that factors into the decision-making process. Care to cite any first-hand DOJ sources on that?
There have indeed been prosecutions of top executives, such as in the cases of Worldcom, Tyco, Enron, Merrill Lynch, and those are just the ones that come to mind. Even now, there's the Theranos case. Of course there *should* be many more, but these cases and the Sarbanes–Oxley Act show some willingness to hold executives to account.
> The expectation is that the masses will hear the nice words, nod, > and never unpack them to see the falsity.
No, I doubt that. You impugn motives too easily, given your proclivity to decry these sorts of claims made by others.
> You are worried about what 'Microsoft thinks' after what Microsoft's > executives did to IBM via the OS/2 scam?
That was over 25 years ago. Not only does technology evolve, but also the law's attempts to regulate it. Not least, because its role in our lives is now so much more pervasive and fundamental. Also, now lawmakers, judges, and lawyers are increasingly well-versed in it.
Apple won't be king of the heap forever. Many tech giants that once seemed unbeatable have receded somewhat, and no longer dominate as before. IBM, Microsoft, Cisco, and even Google seems to have plateaued quite a bit.
So, it's not enough to justify the concerns & potential harms listed in the lawsuit that there's a more advanced player the combined entity would be better positioned to possibly dethrone. Indeed, if Apple is seen to abuse its power, the proper solution is anti-trust litigation against *it*. Otherwise, Apple will eventually slip up, or others will simply catch up to it. I fully believe either Intel or AMD could compete with it, if they'd just be willing to leave x86 behind.
I don't get your point. Apple is not a merchant vendor of chips, and Nvidia doesn't compete with Apple. There's nothing Nvidia can't do with an architectural license from AEM, and a stellar engineering team, that they could do if they owned ARM - that is, if they intend to compete on a technological field, rather than manipulate, handicap, and control other licensees.
I’m curious as to what governments would have been thinking if Apple hadn’t sold off it’s approximately one third share of stock in the early 2000’s. As Apple was one of the founders, they couldn’t have been shrugged off as Nvidia is here.
Surely if Nvidia gets the ARM, they will share information which makes the rest slower while they hide something that is needed to make it faster. Therefore there own product will be better than the rest.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
175 Comments
Back to Article
Marlin1975 - Thursday, December 2, 2021 - link
Unless they want to spin off a large part of their company (like video) and/or give up the ability to raise prices, give their CPUs first crack at next Gen, etc... I think this may fail.Samus - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
I was thinking that, but even spinning off video doesn't fix the problem of nVidia making ARM processors AND holding the IP the competition needs to make competing processors.This is a unique situation because previous chip makers have either developed their ISA or licensed an existing ISA from another chip maker or patent holder. There is of course some precedent for a chip maker buying another for the IP (nVidia effectively did this with 3Dfx, much like Creative did to Aureal) but nothing on this scale where other vendors, hundreds in this case, were licensing that same IP.
Softbank should not be allowed to sell ARM to an existing chip maker.
Crazyeyeskillah - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
nvidia doesn't make chips, they design them.supdawgwtfd - Thursday, December 9, 2021 - link
They design, then contract TSMC/Samsung to make them, which they then sell.Same thing
pogsnet - Monday, December 20, 2021 - link
If you want technical, then HP, Dell, etc dont make laptops then, since it is all sub con to other manufacturerspogsnet - Monday, December 20, 2021 - link
Agree, there is conflict of interest on this area.Dolda2000 - Thursday, December 2, 2021 - link
To this day I fail to see what the benefit of the purchase to nVidia would be over just having an architectural license.mode_13h - Thursday, December 2, 2021 - link
Companies grow in multiple ways. Some of it is through "organic" growth and some of it is through acquisitions. If Nvidia is sitting on a big warchest, it makes sense for them to look at acquisitions that could propel them into new, growing markets. If you're making an acquisition for growth purposes, you also don't want the acquisition to compete much with your own products. Both of these considerations makes ARM a very tempting target for them. In fact, there probably aren't many better options for Nvidia, right now, because the acquisition has to be both something they can afford and something that's not too small to have a real impact on their revenues.Second, if we look at the trend of big tech companies each building their own SoC, whether for mobile (Apple, Google) or cloud (Amazon, Microsoft), the best way to monetize that is to snap up ARM. Amazon is still using ARM's IP, but might never go back to buying 3rd party chips. Apple is likewise unlikely ever to use even 3rd party IP, but they still pay ARM *some* royalties. Basically, ARM is pretty much the only sure bet, in the tech industry, right now.
Tams80 - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
Yes, but they should have seen this coming from miles off.Despite all the drama, there never was a chance that this deal was going to be allowed to go through.
I'm not sure if it is hubris or not that has led to Nvidia trying to push it this far (though it seems likely given their history).
mode_13h - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
Not many mergers or acquisitions were getting blocked, in recent years. I don't blame them for trying.BillBear - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
I never saw how the acquisition made sense unless they intended to get rid of architectural licenses going forward.sharath.naik - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
This is a terrible merger. Especially from a company that till date had refused to release up-to-date driver's for Linux. Nvidia has a History of stifling growth and support of platforms they donor like.pogsnet - Monday, December 20, 2021 - link
Agree, everything for them is not free.Lakados - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
NVidia spends more each year advancing their ARM chips than ARM spends advancing their whole platform. It would let NVidia turn that expense into an alternate revenue stream. They would also work to replace Mali with their own GPU technology, mobile gaming is a growth market and getting NVidia as the default GPU for all future ARM chips would guarantee them a huge consideration moving forward. It would do for NVidia in the mobile space what being in the consoles did for AMD. It would also let them be far more competitive in making bids on future consoles should they choose to pursue that direction.BillBear - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
NVidia has spent decades pushing proprietary tech.Perhaps if they had opened up CUDA for the use of competitors I would be willing to believe they were capable of being good stewards for an open ARM standard.
Instead they have been developed a well earned reputation for screwing over companies that partner with them.
mode_13h - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
> NVidia spends more each year advancing their ARM chips than> ARM spends advancing their whole platform.
Do you mean Nvidia's entire SoC or just their ARM cores? Because, their latest "Orin" generation now uses ARM's own Cortex A78AE cores. So much for Nvidia's in-house cores...
Also, I wonder how you know just how much they spend on them, as well as how much of that spend is in the form of software vs. hardware. The point being that the software-spend is mostly not comparable to what ARM does.
> They would also work to replace Mali with their own GPU technology
They already have a licensing deal for their GPU block to be incorporated by MediaTek. They don't need this acquisition to do such things.
sirmo - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
Can impose your will on other companies while being a licensee. You need to be a licensor for that :)Spunjji - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
I've only been able to puzzle out advantages that amount to anti-competitive behaviour.ChrisGX - Saturday, December 11, 2021 - link
Well, ARM isn't the greatest microarchitectural innovator in the ARM ecosystem. And, Nvidia, for its part, can't really want ARM because it needs 40 billion dollars worth of patchy physical IP (that, according to an often told fairy story, Nvidia will get to keep for itself, after it cynically cancels the existing ARM licensing agreements once it gains control of ARM). No, lets be clear, Nvidia is willing to pay 40 billion dollars for ARM precisely because of its licensing model not for its less than stellar IP.Just as ARM has concluded that it needs to greatly increase its IP investments and therefore needs a patron like Nvidia to ensure that it gets the financial resources it needs to keep the company and the technologies that it licenses relevant, Nvidia, too, has concluded it needs to become an ARM company, indeed the ARM company, to ensure the ongoing success of its businesses. The thinking behind the desire to acquire ARM would go something like this: over time ARM + CUDA will outstrip x86 + Xe or x86 + RDNA/CDNA because from amongst these (and other) technological options out there what the biggest industries and addressable markets want or need (at this time or in the near future) is ARM. Nvidia is willing to pay a premium for ARM because a) ARM completes the strategic picture for Nvidia - it offers the opportunity to massively expand the reach of CUDA and to completely eliminate dependence on x86 architecture and the companies that control that architecture, and b) the whole world would have to come to Nvidia's ARM licensing operation if they want either i) ARM physical IP or ii) an architectural license to design and produce custom ARM parts.
Apple and Fujitsu are reaping the benefits of high performance ARM silicon implementations. Qualcomm, with its newly acquired NUVIA unit, will also be going down that path. It isn't hard to see how having an ARM operation capable of licensing high performance ARM IP to all takers would be a good fit for Nvidia. Nvidia is playing the long game here. Even if the planned ARM acquisition should be aborted, due to regulatory obstacles, I doubt that Nvidia will sharply change direction. It will probably continue to look for an IP licensing operation that offers some of the same benefits as an ARM acquisition. One way forward for Nvidia might be to look at high performance RISC-V instead of ARM.
mode_13h - Saturday, December 11, 2021 - link
> according to an often told fairy story, Nvidia will get to keep for itself, after it cynically> cancels the existing ARM licensing agreements once it gains control of ARM
This is not even mentioned in the FTC lawsuit.
And Nvidia was heavily invested in the ARM ISA, long before it made the offer to buy ARM. Even if the acquisition is cancelled, I don't foresee Nvidia switching to RISC-V in the near- or even medium-term.
meacupla - Thursday, December 2, 2021 - link
Ah, so even the US FTC agrees that nvidia-arm would be bad for business.I wonder if EU will go for litigation as well, instead of only probing.
boozed - Thursday, December 2, 2021 - link
In the EU they probably only have to say "nope".Zoolook - Wednesday, December 8, 2021 - link
Before Brexit, yes, since Arm Holdings is in GB, but now, they can't say anything about the purchase only about how it will affect Nvidia+Arm doing future business in the EU.ikjadoon - Friday, January 21, 2022 - link
I'd hazard a guess that "future business in the EU" is a top priority for both Arm Ltd. and NVIDIA.Brexit just makes it worse for Arm, tbh. Now Arm Ltd. must get approval from the UK's CMA (already investigating) and the EUMR (already investigating).
mode_13h - Thursday, December 2, 2021 - link
Perhaps Synopsis + ARM would make more sense. Not that the former has the wherewithal to swing the kind of acquisition price that Nvidia offered, but they could always do a merger.Other thoughts about ARM's prospects: the IPO route should still be viable, if Softbank remains eager to offload it. And I guess there are other private equity or sovereign wealth funds that could afford it? It'd be pocket change for Berkshire Hathaway.
SarahKerrigan - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
Synopsys already owns ARC, so it could either be good because it's an area they're already experienced in, or bad because it's one company picking up multiple embedded ISAs.ikjadoon - Thursday, December 2, 2021 - link
This deal has exposed a lot of terrible trends, all in one go!1) Selling off national treasures to international mega-conglomerates with zero foresight and zero spine. Don't forget that Arm got a massive check with Soft Bank's valuation + acquisition: they're no innocent player here.
2) Incompetent equity firms embarrassing themselves in a market with zero understanding and losing billions in widely-publicized regulatory scrutiny, stunning loss of value, and another slap across the face at the billionaires club.
3) Stunning levels of blatant trusts / anti-competitive behavior, with plenty clapping along the sidelines, i.e., Marvell, Broadcom, and MediaTek that *all* voiced public support for this horrific deal.
4) That, in the end, it was probably only Google + Apple + Microsoft + Qualcomm + others opposition that caused the FTC to intervene. So, as some have written, when trillionaires and billionaires fight, there is only one winner and it's only luck that the trillionaires aligned with the consumers this time.
ikjadoon - Thursday, December 2, 2021 - link
But otherwise, the best news of December yet. Gotta love reading that headline first thing in the morning.mode_13h - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
> 1) Selling off national treasures to international mega-conglomeratesARM was publicly traded. It IPO'd and traded in London and on NASDAQ in 1998. Are you saying all the shareholders should've collectively refused Softbank's acquisition?
And if what you really mean is that ARM shouldn't have IPO'd, that's a bit unfair. We can't really say where they'd be, if they hadn't done it.
> 2) Incompetent equity firms embarrassing themselves in a market with zero
> understanding and losing billions in widely-publicized regulatory scrutiny,
> stunning loss of value, and another slap across the face at the billionaires club.
Are you talking about WeWork? Because that's why Softbank needed money enough to sell ARM. ARM is still probably a good long-term bet.
Drae - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
> ARM was publicly traded. It IPO'd and traded in London and on NASDAQ in 1998. Are you> saying all the shareholders should've collectively refused Softbank's acquisition?
I suspect he's saying UK Government should not have allowed the sale to go ahead to begin with - as they are minded to now do with Nvidia (something about a horse and a stable door).
But this begs a much wider and more difficult question re: the UK Governments longstanding and ongoing inability to handle anything to do with tech beyond bluff and bluster (and the ability of whatever it is to get them and the high ranking civil servants jobs in cushy financial consultancies when they quit/are forced out/unelected).
StevoLincolnite - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
Trillionaires don't exist yet.mode_13h - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
The point seemed to be referring to the respective companies' valuations, based on market cap.Silver5urfer - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
Central Banks do exist and they control the world wide money supply & they are privately owned.mode_13h - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
> they are privately owned.WTF? Stop watching conspiracy videos on youtube.
Silver5urfer - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
You comment on every single thing here. You know everything ? Go back to Woodrow Wilson signing of the Fed act, just read what he says from his own mouth.Conspiracy on youtube ? lol negative IQ showcase.
mode_13h - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
Everyone in the US *should* understand more about the Federal Reserve system, because it *is* systemically important to our economy. Furthermore, because it's complex and seemingly mysterious, it often factors into conspiracy theories. The Act is indeed a decent starting point:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act
I'm not going into a detailed "debate" about it, but the idea that not being outright-owned by the government means they're somehow equivalent to a private individual or corporation in the ways they can act is not borne out by the facts (i.e. how they're governed and the charter under which they operate).
I just find it suspicious that you seized on central banks, rather than the obvious institutions of such size and power. Besides the tech firms that were obviously intended by the comment, we could also talk about investment firms, some of which indeed *do* have $Trillions under management. That's a lot of power for truly private citizens & corporations to control.
melgross - Monday, December 6, 2021 - link
It’s actually not. It’s more of a quasi governmental bank.Silver5urfer - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
I wonder what's the user/consumers have benefit here. There's no benefit to people here. If a product is successful it will make money irrespective of user benefit, see AirPods.Nvidia taking over ARM will push ARM to next level due to Nvidia's HPC and AI expertise and the IoT market. This move would only hurt Apple and Qcomm. Samsung is on Nvidia side because of their exclusive partnership, I don't think they are a part of lobby to smite Nvidia. AMD also probably no horse in this race. As for M$ I doubt. Since their bread and butter is Services market unless those rumors of making a Graviton type clone for their own Azure instances. Plus ARM emulation on Windows is downright pathetic.
This move is caused by Apple and Qcomm heavily lobbying against Nvidia. It would have been amazing to see Apple getting crushed by Nvidia, unfortunately only Apple gets to ruin other companies - They killed Imagination tech, GT Advanced, Dialog Semi. Wanted their pet Broadcom to ruin Qcomm. Google is irrelevant, their Tensor is utter trash. And their silicon expertise is nothing substantial.
There are far worst M&As done in the past with zero resistance - Google/Fitbit/Motorola. ATT take over of Warner, Disney on Fox properties, Facebook Whatsapp, IBMThinkpad Lenovo, Comcast Universal, these have long lasting impacts and have real effect on the world.
mode_13h - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
> Nvidia taking over ARM will push ARM to next level due to Nvidia's HPC> and AI expertise and the IoT market.
I think Nvidia has said ARM will continue to operate independently. Don't assume that ARM employees will suddenly have access to all of Nvidia's IP or that the architects from the respective businesses will be chatting every day.
> AMD also probably no horse in this race.
AMD probably had an ARM core somewhere in the development pipeline, when the deal got announced.
> ARM emulation on Windows is downright pathetic.
...
> Google is irrelevant, their Tensor is utter trash.
Why do you think these companies need (in your opinion) successful execution to have an interest in the deal? If the deal runs counter to their strategic ambitions, that's enough for them to take a stand against it, regardless of how credible those ambitions were.
Silver5urfer - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
Companies do not operate for what people care. That's why I mentioned all the other M&As. This was done by Apple and Qcomm precisely. More of an Apple move. They have huge pockets and they do not want Nvidia in their ARM processors.Google has a huge command and they control Android. They can work with Nvidia with close partnership for a better SoC than Exynos based Tensor garbage. Strategic Ambition for Google doesn't exist. That company is incapable of breaking even 5% of marketshare in N.A handset. That's why they are irrelevant.
mode_13h - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
> only Apple gets to ruin other companies - They killed Imagination techI made a post about this, why Apple didn't buy it, and what's happened to Imagination under its new owners. Looks like somebody here doesn't want you to know about that stuff. Research it elsewhere.
melgross - Monday, December 6, 2021 - link
They didn’t kill Imagination. They’re still around. You don’t seem to know much about what happened. In fact Apple made another deal with them which is in effect now.Imagination became too big for their britches. So to speak. First, Microsoft left because they wouldn’t do what they needed. Then Apple requested changes to the GPU to better meet their needs, and Imagination refused that too. So Apple left also. Considering that Imagination’s sales were just a few tens of millions a year, and at that point with Microsoft and some other customers leaving, Apple was a good 50% of what was left of their sales.
When they left, the company was in crisis. Engineers jumped ship to Apple. But a coup,e of years later, Imagination announced some new IP that looked a lot like what Apple had been asking for earlier. Apple signed another contract.
mode_13h - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
> They didn’t kill Imagination.I was just quoting Silver5urfer.
> In fact Apple made another deal with them which is in effect now.
Yes, I know that.
> You don’t seem to know much about what happened.
Do you?
https://www.jonpeddie.com/news/predatory-investors...
Tams80 - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
That you use 'M$' I think tells us all we need to know that your opinion has no value.Oxford Guy - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
'That, in the end, it was probably only Google + Apple + Microsoft ... 'I think the word irony fails to suffice.
Tams80 - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
Unfortunately, due to sitting pretty on a perpetual licence (from being involved in founding Arm), Apple haven't been against it, just not willing to support it.Fortunately, other tech giants have been against it.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
‘Fortunately , other tech giants have been against it.’This is capitalism? Letting a few megacorps dictate?
mode_13h - Wednesday, December 8, 2021 - link
> This is capitalism? Letting a few megacorps dictate?Well, it's the government (FTC + courts) that's doing the dictating. They're basically playing referee. So, you have some market participants complaining that their competitor is doing something unfair. The referee has a look at it, and now happens to side with the ones complaining.
I think the number & diversity of those complaining is probably more important than their size, but this is probably a case where size does matter. It matters because, if for no other reason, anything which distorts the market enough to worry such huge players is quite likely to be felt by downstream consumers, as well.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, December 9, 2021 - link
The line between corporation and government is minimal to nonexistent.That is why an ‘Alzheimer’s’ drug that has no solid data to support its efficacy in treating Alzheimer’s — yet causes brain swelling in far too many — is fast-tracked by an FDA that’s so chummy with the pharma company that it made the experts’ heads spin — the experts who unanimously voted against approval and noted that the basis for the later approval publicity was based on plaques reduction sleight of hand that wasn’t even brought up during the approval meeting. That’s why the corporate government then goes on to double the Medicare cost raise to partially offset the cost of this $56,000 per year per patient scam, as the same crooks are having Medicare funnel the masses’ money to feed their stock price and revolving door.
Just one example of many. That a ridiculously expensive product can cause serious harm with unacceptable regularity and have no adequate adequately-demonstratable benefit to offset it (other than highway robbery of the plebs) — then be foisted onto the backs of those who need and will need Medicare...
Oh, and the corporation exists as an invention of government. Pretty difficult to be separate when disappearing is what happens if pulled apart. The revolving door is the same thing that makes the two equivalent. The marketing games are a bit different but the business isn’t particularly different. So said a president: ‘The business of America is business.’
mode_13h - Saturday, December 11, 2021 - link
> That is why an ‘Alzheimer’s’ drug ...What you're doing is engaging in a favorite tactic of the partisan media, which is to cherry-pick exceptional cases and present them as if they're "business as usual". We could get into the specifics of that case, but it's missing the point.
> That’s why the corporate government then goes on to double the Medicare cost
Again, you're just picking what fits your preferred narrative. As you do that, you're ignoring the multi-year, comprehensive study recently concluded on prescription drug pricing, that's intended to inform some hopefully sane policy reform on that front.
And, in a fashion typical of anti-government types, you treat "government" as some amorphous and unified organism, ignoring factions, parties, and numerous notable politicians on different sides of these issues. If you don't like what government is doing, then the proper response is engagement, because elections actually *do* have consequences. It's only by people failing to engage in the political process and advocate for their interests that the corporations truly win the day.
> Just one example of many.
I'm sure you can cherry-pick many more. Partisan media does it day in and day out. When there's an organization as large and varied as the US Federal Government, there's always somebody doing something that's either unscrupulous or can at least be spun that way. It would be true of any organization that big and diverse.
> The revolving door is the same thing that makes the two equivalent.
The revolving door is a fixable problem. However, it seems to me that you're not interested in fixing problems.
What you want seems to be infecting others with a deep sense of cynicism and disenfranchisement, which is exactly the opposite of what we need to patch up the flaws and holes in a system that's worked pretty well for a pretty long time.
r3loaded - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
I'd rather SoftBank just IPO it onto the LSE. Much easier than selling to another company, and it means that the rest of us will once again be able to share in Arm's success.mode_13h - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
Depends. It was independent before. If spinning it out would just make it an acquisition target for someone else, then maybe it's not actually an improvement.Lakados - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
Like they did with ARM-China which now sees the Chinese government with 51% of the company which is now recognized as an independent company and is now authorized to issue its own licenses independent of SoftBank’s ARM?If this bid fails I fear for ARM, it won’t die but it’s going to get messy.
mode_13h - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
> If this bid fails I fear for ARM, it won’t die but it’s going to get messy.As you point out, it's already messy.
flgt - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
Glad they are finally doing something about this. Consolidation into useless mega corporations has been terrible for consumers around the world, as well as local innovation. These deals are a big part about snuffing out competition. Wish they had acted sooner though. From the US perspective, I think a lot of damage was done to the semiconductor industry in the last 10 years.Oxford Guy - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
It strikes me as ridiculous that some of them are allowed to continue and others blocked.Lack of adequate consistency in the application of law undermines its authority.
Can anyone provide a substantial justification for blocking this particular merger, whilst approving of the current situation vis-à-vis the continuing existence of various megacorps — some of which own extremely important things like Internet search?
mode_13h - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
> Can anyone provide a substantial justification for blocking this particular merger,> whilst approving of the current situation vis-à-vis the continuing existence of various megacorps
That presumes there's some sort of consensus that other big acquisitions aren't problematic. Just 1 year ago, the FTC and 46 US states sued Facebook for monopolization, particularly involving its acquisitions:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/202...
However, your question seems to presume this is being blocked on the basis of the involved firms' size. That's not actually the issue. I suggest you (re)-read the article to understand the grounds on which it's being opposed.
Oxford Guy - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
'That presumes there's some sort of consensus that other big acquisitions aren't problematic.'No, it doesn't. That's a different subject.
GeoffreyA - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
"Can anyone provide a substantial justification for blocking this particular merger"The world is willing to put up with a lot, as long as it's below a certain threshold. But when Saruman tries to take the keys to the control centre, the world isn't going to stand for that.
Oxford Guy - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
References to fantasy aren’t really so illuminating.GeoffreyA - Monday, December 6, 2021 - link
Just a bit of humour.Wereweeb - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
In the end of the second paragraph, there's a lone "The"Kamen Rider Blade - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
Good, now for the rest of th World's Government to dog pile on top of this and file their own lawsuits or injunctions to block the merger.Kamen Rider Blade - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
Honestly, I think nVIDIA would have an easier time acquiring one of the remaining x86 Licenses.webdoctors - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
But with their current stock price this deal was valuing ARM for like $70B. There's no way they're going to get that much anywhere else.Its weird AMD was allowed to buy ATI but this deal is not allowed. ATI had a ton of customers, and post merger the ATI+Intel partnership dissolved completely. Seems like no consistencies here.
Einy0 - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
That was a completely different set of circumstances. ATI was not doing well and AMD was starting to fail as well. It was more of a desperation move by AMD to stay relevant, and it prevented ATI from going bankrupt. Nvidia is a shrewd tech giant, more in the mold of a modern Apple Inc. ATI sparingly licensed it tech for non-competitive usage. ARM solely runs on licensing its IP and ARM IP is everywhere. It is not financially struggling.If Nvidia ever showed one ounce of good faith toward another company, I would maybe say this isn't a bad thing. But Nvidia has a track record of pushing around its own customers and as well as anyone who gets in its way. It's an industry bully, and I have zero doubts that it will make all the ARM IP holders suffer if it gets control. ARM IP holders will be left with Nvidia's table scraps as it feasts on the tech market.
Oxford Guy - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
'If Nvidia ever showed one ounce of good faith toward another company,'Don't anthropomorphize inanimate entities. Corporations are not people.
mode_13h - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
> Corporations are not people.They're not, but I don't know why you're so threatened by the idea of judging them as if they were. They surely wouldn't come off looking any better for it.
The issue of treating them as people isn't in how we judge their behavior, it's that they're granted legal rights of people, while *not* sharing many of the other obligations and constraints that bound actual human adults.
I think we're in agreement that it'd be best if they weren't regarded as people in *any* sense.
Oxford Guy - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
'They're not, but I don't know why you're so threatened by the idea of judging them as if they were.'That statement is illogical twice over. The first problem is that it's self-contradictory. The second is that it embeds one of your usual ad homs.
When I read an ad hom in your post (I actually started at the beginning this time, hoping for a break from the pattern) I skip the rest of it. So, if you managed to move from the double-illogic opening salvo to something substantive... better luck next time.
GeoffreyA - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
Corporations aren't people. But what if the behaviour of that entity---the corporation---approximated abstract human behaviour? Then, isn't it fair to say, using economy of language, that so-and-so acted in bad faith? It's an everyday convention, tied to language's figurative nature, and quite useful.GeoffreyA - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
Meant as reply to Oxford Guy.Oxford Guy - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
It’s extremely misleading — definitely not useful.mode_13h - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
> isn't it fair to say, using economy of language, that so-and-so acted in bad faith?Yes, it's an entirely fair claim.
OG's reaction to it is a clear overreach. I think I understand his concern, but (as usual) he's more concerned with advancing his anti-corporate agenda than trying to be reasonable.
mode_13h - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
> When I read an ad hom in your post ... I skip the rest of it.Sure, if you want to cede the point to me, I'll take the win.
Your approach of crying "ad hom", every time I seem to put my finger on your underlying motive, just comes across as confirming my suspicions. Beyond that, it just looks weak.
Tams80 - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
Companies are composed of people though and do rely to varying degrees on good faith between leaderships.Hency why Apple, Microsoft, and Sony want little to do with Nvidia.
Oxford Guy - Monday, December 6, 2021 - link
Tams80, your point sounds valid but under light scrutiny it collapses.Firstly, the fundamental defining factor of the corporation is to sell less for more. That makes it fundamentally a bad-faith organization.
Secondly, corporations are inanimate/lifeless. People will be replaced if their morality interferes with profiteering. Google's Schmidt mocked the 'don't be evil mantra', saying he wanted a definition of evil and also that it interfered with various plans. It is worthy of mockery because it runs against the defining quality of the corporation.
Corporations are mechanisms for insulating the wealthy against the repercussions of their exploitation politics. As Bierce stated: individual profit (for wealthy individuals) without individual responsibility. The responsibility (cost) is pushed onto the commons/environment/masses.
mode_13h - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
> fundamental defining factor of the corporation is to sell less for more.> That makes it fundamentally a bad-faith organization.
Bad-faith is a standard of behavior, not motives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith#In_law
> Secondly, corporations are inanimate/lifeless.
Not really. Just because it's not a singular, fleshy organism doesn't mean it lacks many of the essential characteristics of life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions
What's unclear about your anti-corporate rants is what you envision, instead. Do you reject the very notion of collective human action? If not, there surely must be some formalized structures for such organizations and how they operate. And would you have a single individual be held accountable for all actions of the entire collective? That seems a bit unfair, given that no human can truly be omniscient and omnipresent.
As I've said before, it's easy to look at the status quo and point out all the negatives. However, the modern world depends on something *like* a corporation. You can't just abolish them without destroying much of what enables our world to function. That's why it seems like so much tilting at windmills.
We don't have to pretend the negatives don't exist, nor do we need to accept the status quo. However, what I don't see in your posts is anything I recognize as a realistic or pragmatic position. It's as if your only objective is to sew discontent and anti-capitalist sentiment.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
‘What's unclear about your anti-corporate rants is what you envision, instead. Do you’Another tired fallacy. Stick to the subject.
mode_13h - Wednesday, December 8, 2021 - link
> Another tired fallacy. Stick to the subject.As usual, you either miss the point or seize on anything that lets you avoid the hard questions I pose.
Qasar - Wednesday, December 8, 2021 - link
and then claim its a fallacy, or ad hom, or something stupid to avoid the whole thing. 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣Oxford Guy - Thursday, December 9, 2021 - link
So, spamming emojis is your advice? Okay, noted.Qasar - Sunday, December 12, 2021 - link
nope its me laughing at yet another one of your " im angry at the world and every one in it posts, have you thought about seeing a councilor about your anger issues ?RealBeast - Monday, December 6, 2021 - link
You are apparently not a lawyer. SCOTUS says that for most purposes corporations are people, including many Constitutional rights guaranteed to people. Here is a little history of the development: https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-...mode_13h - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
> You are apparently not a lawyer.That much is clear.
:P
> SCOTUS says that for most purposes corporations are people,
That's ultimately a pragmatic position, rather than a fundamental one. Also rather lazy, IMO. There are other approaches one could take, such as to *explicitly* delineate the rights and privileges of corporations, rather than essentially saying: "oh, and whatever goes for humans also applies to corporations".
I disagree that corporations should be granted the same rights as humans. They differ in many important ways: they're trivially created and destroyed, they're not subject to the same norms of behavior as adult humans, and non-publicly-traded corporations (in particular) lack transparency in ways that make them ripe for abuse.
Someday, we'll have to grapple with whether non-humans should be treated as people. Maybe it'll be the development of sentient AI's that forces the issue.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
‘Pragmatic’ is one of the euphemisms used by people when they know they can, and should, do better — but don’t want to.mode_13h - Wednesday, December 8, 2021 - link
> they know they can, and should, do better — but don’t want to....or "lazy", in a word.
> ‘Pragmatic’ is one of the euphemisms used by people when
Now that we've established that we're in agreement on this specific point, I'm going to take issue with that blanket characterization of "pragmatic". Any good dictionary (yes, even the OED) will tell you that pragmatism isn't necessarily synonymous with laziness.
In this case, I think you're right that it is.
GeoffreyA - Friday, December 10, 2021 - link
Pocket OED: "dealing with matters from a practical point of view"GeoffreyA - Friday, December 10, 2021 - link
pragmaticOxford Guy - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
‘SCOTUS says that for most purposes corporations are people’Have you spoken with Dredd Scott about that?
meacupla - Friday, December 3, 2021 - link
Yeah, that's probably because you need a CPU to run a GPU, and you don't need a GPU to run a CPU. So, it's kind of like a parasitical relationship, where one needs the other, but the other doesn't necessarily need the other to survive.For GPUs, you still have nvidia as the main competition, but there were a multitude of smaller makers that did graphics. At the time, I think this would have been primarily Intel, VIA, and Matrox.
Where as, for ARM, in this day and age, there is, literally, only ARM licensed designs.
So ARM has a monopoly in ARM, and nvidia, being one of the main competitors of ARM licensed designs, stands to benefit immensely over their competition, if nvidia is allowed to buy ARM.
And don't confuse ARM with RISC-V, those two are related, but totally different things.
mode_13h - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
> Its weird AMD was allowed to buy ATI but this deal is not allowed.You misunderstand the objection. It's because ARM is an IP company that sells IP needed by lots of Nvidia's competitors. Having a chip company buy an IP company that's used by other chip companies creates a conflict of interest and an asymmetrical power dynamic.
domih - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
NVIDIA says it will maintain the ARM R&D and market "as is" but "good faith" and NVIDIA rarely coexist in the same sentence.NVIDIA does not give a s..t about the future of ARM in cell phones, appliances, SBCs, industrial boxes, etc. NVIDIA just wants to own a CPU architecture (and sell processors) to fight for data center and enterprise domination against INTEL and AMD.
The High Performance Computing (HPC), hyperscale and exascale computing war between INTEL + Multiple acquisitions, AMD + Xilinx and NVIDIA + Mellanox (+ ARM ?) is ramping up and it will be a bloody one.
NVIDIA is still years ahead of INTEL and AMD for compute with CUDA. But AMD is slowly catching up with AMD ROCm and INTEL with INTEL oneAPI. This puts NVIDIA in a difficult position for the future: not having an in-house CPU architecture is a big no-no in this war.
The $40 billion deal is just a "pond" compared to these markets next 10-year data center and corporate expenditures.
No wonder NVIDIA is trying to appear nice and candid.
When NVIDIA says it will continue to develop ARM, it runs contrary to history. High technology companies pursuing two gigantic goals rarely succeed in both. One of the two always suffers badly.
NVIDIA not able to buy ARM is very bad news for... NVIDIA and very good news for... the rest of the world (companies and consumers) with ARM continuing to flourish unimpended by one technology corporation agenda.
The x86/64 industry is a duopoly, but thanks to ARM dozens of companies CAN STILL design cheap processors and hundreds of small companies can buy them for small runs, e.g. a few thousands units.
Apple, Fujitsu, Hitachi and Samsung are not the only ones making ARM-based CPU. Add Broadcom, Qualcomm, Marvell, Rockship, AMLogic, Mediatek and many other ones. Anybody in the world who wants to create a small appliance, phone, TV, medical or industrial box, SBC will probably go with ARM because it is low power, does not cost too much and there is a wide range of processor models adapted to many cases.
Putting ARM's destiny into the oven guy hands will obviously be a disaster. NVIDIA can try to appear nice and candid with its long con, there is no escaping from the fact that it would destroy the ARM market on which so many rely.
If the EU is smart it would buy ARM from SoftBank, keep it as a private company with public investment. The EU will need it when the computing war between China and the US goes hotter because China is not going to stop wanting its independence from the West technology behemoths. Last but not least, it would maintain ARM as a "neutral" CPU architecture. The EU could even make money out of it. Thanks to Brexit, the British would go balistic. But they do not have the money to buy it back. The EU does.
Drae - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
> NVIDIA says it will maintain the ARM R&D and market "as is" but "good faith"> and NVIDIA rarely coexist in the same sentence.
Even disregarding nvidia's history - the UK has seen a number of important acquisitions over the past fifteen to twenty years where the purchasing company has made "iron-clad" promises. Only for those "promises" to be quickly reversed the moment the term expires.
> If the EU is smart it would buy ARM from SoftBank, keep it as a private company
> with public investment. The EU will need it when the computing war between
> China and the US goes hotter because China is not going to stop wanting its
> independence from the West technology behemoths.
Why would the UK, the birthplace and home of ARM (in every respect) allow the "EU" to purchase it? How would the "EU" actually do this (you know what the EU is, right)? The EU has no ability to do such a thing even if the UK regulators were to allow it.
The "best" thing to happen would be for the UK Government to say to Softbank "you cannot sell ARM to any third party, list on the LSE and if you must NASDAQ, we will retain a golden share to stop this happening again". Then the government should do what the U.S. do with Intel/Cray/et al and engage ARM to design and develop supercomputing resources (for which the UK given it's size and capabilities woefully lacks), purchase said systems drawing in further expertise from elsewhere - perhaps a cutting edge fab or two. Alas this will not happen because the "political science"/law/media graduates who populate the civil service at the appropriate level don't "get it" and won't end up with high paid consultancy jobs as they would for fintech, banking and the like.
Oxford Guy - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
'good faith'Don't anthropomorphize inanimate inventions like corporations.
Corporations are inherently a bad-faith model, too. They're designed to sell less for more. That's the basis of turning a profit. It relies on tricking people (the field of advertising, as well as the field of politics — see all the 'incentives'/bribery to get corporations to place their stuff in 'your' area) into parting with more of themselves (money is life) than they're getting in return.
The corporation is an invention to, as Ambrose Bierce stated, provide individual profit sans individual responsibility. Specifically, it's to siphon life from the ecosystem and ordinary people so the yacht owning class can have larger bowling alleys in their homes.
mode_13h - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
> The corporation is an invention to ...Yeah, we get it. They're greedy. There are also plenty of greedy individuals. Greed is an intrinsic property of life. Whatever the actor, laws and regulations are needed to protect us from that greed.
It's too easy to focus only on the ills of corporations, capitalism, etc. These things have done a lot to benefit people. The core idea of capitalism is to harness intrinsic greed for the benefit of society. Too often, members of the public seem unaware that effective regulations are an essential ingredient in that formula. Regulations and their enforcers *are* the harness, without which there's little benefit and much potential harm.
Oxford Guy - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
‘Yeah, we get it. They're greedy. There are also plenty of greedy individuals.’No, you don’t. You have recycled the same illogic that you led off with in a prior post — the conflation of corporation and individual. Expanding on that to a ‘greed is life’ formula is even less clarifying.
As for the rest it’s a lot of hand waving and an undefined reference to regulators. Regulation means nothing on its own.
mode_13h - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
> You have recycled the same illogic that you led off with in a prior postIf you don't read my posts, I'll just have to repeat them. The next part was:
me> The issue of treating them as people isn't in how we judge their behavior,
me> it's that they're granted legal rights of people, while *not* sharing many
me> of the other obligations and constraints that bound actual human adults.
> As for the rest it’s a lot of hand waving ...
It's all too easy for you to bash corporations and capitalism. These aren't perfect institutions, but perfection isn't a realistic goal. If you have any better ideas that have actually been demonstrated to work *at scale*, then let's hear them. Otherwise, we should try to focus on improving the system we have.
BTW, I'm incredibly suspicious of "revolutionary change" as a solution. Revolutions have a very poor track-record of actually yielding improvements for the people.
mode_13h - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
> NVIDIA does not give a s..t about the future of ARM in cell phones,> appliances, SBCs, industrial boxes, etc.
As an owner of ARM, they would. That's a major part of ARM's revenue stream.
> NVIDIA just wants to own a CPU architecture (and sell processors) to fight for data center
> and enterprise domination
No, they're also really heavily-invested in self-driving cars and robotics. What cores do you think those chips use?
And then, there's Nintendo Switch....
> But AMD is slowly catching up with AMD ROCm
LOL. I'm sure they'd like us to think so.
> When NVIDIA says it will continue to develop ARM, it runs contrary to history.
If that's the terms it agrees to with various regulatory agencies, then failing to do so could put them in legal jeopardy. They could face lawsuits, with the consequences being as serious as a forced break-up.
That's why I think this lawsuit didn't take issue with that commitment, but rather focused on more subtle ways the merger could result in an uneven playing field.
> If the EU is smart it would buy ARM from SoftBank
I doubt they have any way of doing that. I doubt the ECB can just buy companies. It also would raise concerns among many, if ARM is in *any* "state" hands.
> it would maintain ARM as a "neutral" CPU architecture.
While I think the EU would be the least bad government to hold it, they're still not neutral.
Oxford Guy - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
We like capitalism; it's great. We like it as long as the corporations we have invested in are protected from competition — from capitalism. That it eats itself is something we just won't admit to.Oxford Guy - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
I must be missing something because it seems to me that if the worst-case scenario fears happen (that Nvidia acquiring ARM leads to ARM becoming too expensive for many companies to take advantage of) it simple opens the door for more investment/development in other things, like RISC-V.Isn't that how supply and demand (aka capitalism) is supposed to work? So... why should this merger be blocked? What am I missing?
mode_13h - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
> if the worst-case scenario fears happen ... it simple opens the door for more> investment/development in other things, like RISC-V.
Ultimately, the problem is the amount of disruption that happens in between. A lot has been invested in ARM-based solutions and this move gives Nvidia too much influence/power over its competitors, if it's allowed to snatch up ARM. Worse, if the industry were deflected away from ARM, it's not only the hardware vendors that would suffer, but also those who've poured vast amounts of time, money, and effort into developing & refining the ARM software ecosystem.
> Isn't that how supply and demand (aka capitalism) is supposed to work?
Capitalism, left to its own devices, tends to involve lots of harsh corrections that cause substantial amounts of collateral damage. The proper role of government is to smooth out market dynamics, which includes ensuring that no actor wields too much power (i.e. monopoly).
Oxford Guy - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
‘Ultimately, the problem is the amount of disruption that happens in between’False dilemma.
Oxford Guy - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
Emulation works.mode_13h - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
Emulation is not a viable solution for many markets where ARM is dominant or ascendant. It always involves some power & performance penalty -- both key considerations for cloud, mobile, and embedded applications. Furthermore, it doesn't address much of the OS and driver-level software, which would have to be rewritten. Finally, we don't know that it wouldn't still run afoul of ARM ISA patents that Nvidia would ultimately hold.Taking a step back, I think your suggestion that the existence of some plausible alternative is not the standard used to judge these situations. The most common standard for evaluating mergers & acquisitions seems to focus on whether it's harmful to consumers. And that standard doesn't require that possible competitors are completely and perpetually barred from entry into the market, it just requires that there be some significant harm resulting from the move.
Oxford Guy - Monday, December 6, 2021 - link
Emulation works as a stop-gap, for your worst-case false dilemma scenario.And... if you truly believe what you're writing you're claiming that capitalism simply is impossible.
mode_13h - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
> Emulation works as a stop-gapWould you not agree that imposing something like a >= 30% slowdown constitutes a harm? If so, then how can you say Nvidia's potential abuse of ARM doesn't pose a significant threat of harm to thousands of companies and billions of consumers?
> if you truly believe what you're writing you're claiming that capitalism simply is impossible.
Explain.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
Having large corporations use governments to create walls against competition is mercantilism not capitalism. Having governments do that of their own volition is also mercantilism, not capitalism.Consumers are supposed to benefit by the competition involved in free trade. Seizing private IP as if it’s public domain is the antithesis of that. So long as mega corps, duopolies, and the like are being tolerated by regulators there is zero credibility in blocking this purchase. All it will do is stifle innovation (such as by slowing RISC-V) so a small number of large corporations won’t have to spend a bit more money. It harms Nvidia’s ability to compete whilst helping its competitors — without credible justification.
ARM’s IP is not in the public domain.
This isn’t a credible anti-trust maneuver. What would be is starting with the more powerful monopolists and duopolists and working one’s way down. How about starting with Internet search? If anything is in need of the commons-first commie approach it’s that. Mega corps are deciding what content we’re allowed to find and how. That’s not what the Internet is supposed to be — a giant honeypot for ad revenue and mega corps’ control, hand-in-hand with government authoritarianism. But, the priority is never on what is more needed by the masses. Not one bit. So, instead of actions to free people from censorship we have the priority being protecting a few large corporations from minor inconvenience.
Oxford Guy - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
You wanted to know what I’d do? My magic wand would get governments to enable an open-source World Search for searching the Internet — free of profiteering censorship. It would have everything indexed, would not respect robots.txt, and would cache content to preserve it against censorship erasure.The free flow of knowledge vastly outweighs ARM’s spindly IP when it comes to anti-trust prioritization. But, people are so accustomed to the ridiculous nature of the search situation as to barely question it. That the Internet came into being as a military-corporate complex entity perhaps helps to explain why too few demand that it be something more efficient.
GeoffreyA - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
You know what I'd do? I'd make search engines disappear, and then people will have to type the URL like we used to.mode_13h - Wednesday, December 8, 2021 - link
> then people will have to type the URL like we used to.LOL.
Heh, I still remember the days when Yahoo tried to maintain a topical index of all the sites on the web.
GeoffreyA - Wednesday, December 8, 2021 - link
Yes, I remember that. Yahoo was supposed to be the doorstep of the Internet. And then Google came about and, as if by magic, always landed on what you really wanted.GeoffreyA - Wednesday, December 8, 2021 - link
Forgot to add: I remember keeping Word and text files that had URLs.mode_13h - Thursday, December 9, 2021 - link
Oh, I kept well-curated bookmarks in Netscape Navigator. At one point, the storage format for the bookmarks was a .HTML file, which was pretty neat. You could simply post it up on your website, to share your bookmarks with people. Yeah, that was a thing back then.GeoffreyA - Friday, December 10, 2021 - link
Firefox today can actually export the bookmarks to an HTML file.Oxford Guy - Thursday, December 9, 2021 - link
‘I'd make search engines disappear, and then people will have to type the URL like we used to.’Via osmosis?
GeoffreyA - Friday, December 10, 2021 - link
"Via osmosis"If I had a magic wand.
mode_13h - Wednesday, December 8, 2021 - link
> get governments to enable an open-source World Search for searching the Internet —> free of profiteering censorship.
That's a nice vision. This might interest you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_search_e...
> and would cache content to preserve it against censorship erasure.
As I'm sure you're aware, there are serious practical limits to what can be archived. Also, it runs into a bit of trouble with RTBF, for which I think there are some compelling arguments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotte...
That said, I regularly donate to archive.org, and would encourage others to do the same.
mode_13h - Wednesday, December 8, 2021 - link
> Having large corporations use governments to create walls against competition> is mercantilism not capitalism.
Look at the track-record of how often mergers & acquisitions get blocked and you'll quickly see that it's more the exception that they intervene. You seem to presume the FTC and courts incapable of weighing the evidence and arguments in order to reach the best decision.
> Having governments do that of their own volition is also mercantilism, not capitalism.
If they acted to further tilt the playing field, yes. If they act to level it, no.
> Seizing private IP as if it’s public domain is the antithesis of that.
Exactly who is doing that?
> So long as mega corps, duopolies, and the like are being tolerated
> by regulators there is zero credibility in blocking this purchase.
That's a false dichotomy. Because they've previously approved some mergers & acquisitions they shouldn't have, is no reason to pack up and go home.
> All it will do is stifle innovation (such as by slowing RISC-V)
No, it doesn't stifle RISC-V. That was founded and gaining pace before this, and we have every reason to expect RISC-V will continue maturing, unabated. You can't justify an anti-competitive move on the basis that it will hasten innovation. That's like saying it's okay to fling asteroids at the Earth to hasten the evolution of new animals.
> It harms Nvidia’s ability to compete
Nvidia is competing quite well, if you haven't noticed. And none of their announced plans depends on this acquisition.
> ARM’s IP is not in the public domain.
Nobody said it was.
> This isn’t a credible anti-trust maneuver. What would be is starting with the
> more powerful monopolists and duopolists and working one’s way down.
When you're in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. This acquisition is a lot easier to stop now, than it would be to unwind after substantial damage had been done. That's why the FTC's role is to review these deals, *before* they complete. We even have a good example of this, where the FTC + 46 states recently sued Facebook, in part for its acquisition of Instagram. That claim was dismissed, on the basis that the FTC hadn't objected at the time.
As for monopolies and duopolies, the burden for dismantling them is considerably higher. It's not enough merely to show that a company has a de facto monopoly, you actually have to prove they're wielding their power in improper and harmful ways. There's actually a lot of legislation and case law, around these things. It's not something the FTC can just do on a whim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitr...
> Mega corps are deciding what content we’re allowed to find and how.
Breaking up Google isn't the only solution to that problem, you know? And even if they were broken up, there's no reason to think the pieces wouldn't each just behave in the same way. A better solution would be some sort of regulation of internet search.
> That’s not what the Internet is supposed to be
According to whom? Is that enshrined in any law? The Internet existed before internet search!
> a giant honeypot for ad revenue and mega corps’ control ...
> But, the priority is never on what is more needed by the masses. Not one bit.
Well, we *did* have net neutrality *and* regulations against ISPs spying on their customers. That is, until 2017, when Congress & POTUS decided otherwise. That at least shows you can't say "not one bit". It'll probably come back, someday.
> instead of actions to free people from censorship
> we have the priority being protecting a few large corporations from minor inconvenience.
That's another false dichotomy. Whether the FTC does this has nothing to do with action on censorship. Any move by the government against online censorship would require new laws, which needs Congress to act.
And, again, it's not the corporations that would ultimately pay the price. The FTC cares about consumers first, before investors and businesses.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, December 9, 2021 - link
‘According to whom?’Rationality. Rational people value efficiency.
mode_13h - Saturday, December 11, 2021 - link
> Rationality. Rational people value efficiency.My point was that the internet is not some fundamental thing that existed before time. It's a thing that we collectively created, and we can collectively change it.
But, that only has a chance of succeeding if there's a positive and definite vision people can coalesce around, like Net Neutrality.
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, December 15, 2021 - link
‘the internet is not some fundamental thing that existed before time. It's a thing that we collectively created, and we can collectively change it.’No relevance to what I wrote and no substance either. Pretty words, though.
Lakados - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
The UK is fearful that NVidia who already does much of the same R&D ARM does will close offices and lay off employees which would see as many as 5000, highly paid engineers hitting the unemployment line.China is afraid NVidia will fight them on the ARM-China stuff as it is now a direct competitor to ARM. They don’t want to risk loosing that control.
The US congress, and FTC, are being lobbied heavily by Qualcomm, Intel, and a few others about how it’s bad for consumers because…. Reasons? When mostly they are fearful that NVidia’s patent portfolio would make their stuff non competitive and cause years of their R&D to go down the drain as it just doesn’t stack up.
Oxford Guy - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
The high pay that the corporate world gives is supposed to be balanced by the reduced job security. Otherwise, public sector jobs should be paying at the same level. So, if those engineers lose their jobs they’re supposed to get new ones. Or, they can always become secondary math and science teachers making very little money.The FTC doesn’t seem to be particularly concerned with catering to China. I don’t know about the UK in terms of that.
Protecting Intel from RISC-V seems to be a foolhardy endeavor. The world is moving toward open source, just as microcomputing went from dozens of incompatible platforms to mostly x86.
0x1874DE4C - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
Can't see what the fuss is about. NVIDIA's acquisition of ARM would only do one thing - accelerate the transition to RISCV and ultimately waste a lot of NVIDIA's cash.Oxford Guy - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
So, basically exactly what I said in the post right above yours. I wonder if anyone has a substantive rebuttal to this point.mode_13h - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
The mere potential for the industry to eventually re-balance, after any harms done by the acquisition, is not the standard to which these M&A activities are held. The standard they must meet is that the move not do substantial harm. If it gives Nvidia a short-term advantage over its competitors, that harms consumers (i.e. in the form of higher prices, and since we're talking about Nvidia, that's not even a theoretical point) and shareholders of those other companies.Also, RISC-V & its various ISA extensions have not been deployed at the same scale or variety of applications as ARM. I think it's still too early to say that its patent situation is entirely stable. If credible patent claims emerge about some key ISA extensions, that could easily nullify the benefits of using it vs. Nvidia-controlled ARM, for some/many applications.
Oxford Guy - Thursday, December 9, 2021 - link
If you want to talk about consumer harm there is a list of actual things to focus on rather than canards.Ethylene oxide. ‘Inert’ ingredients that are thousands of times more toxic to human cells and up to 25,000 times more toxic to creatures such as bee species.
You talk a good game but it’s all fluff. Corporate welfare isn’t about protecting consumers.
mode_13h - Saturday, December 11, 2021 - link
> If you want to talk about consumer harm there is a list of actual things to focus> on rather than canards.
Stop playing whataboutism. We're talking about *this* acquisition and the basis upon which it should be evaluated.
> Ethylene oxide.
Has nothing to do with this. That's not in the FTC's bailiwick.
> Corporate welfare isn’t about protecting consumers.
When did I say anything about corporate welfare?
Qasar - Sunday, December 12, 2021 - link
" You talk a good game but it’s all fluff. " as do you oxford guy, more then any one here. most of your posts are nothing but a fallacy, and BSOxford Guy - Wednesday, December 15, 2021 - link
Tu quotient fallacy there. Shocking.Oxford Guy - Wednesday, December 15, 2021 - link
Quoque, which I did type. Thanks autodefect!Qasar - Wednesday, December 15, 2021 - link
and more bsJeffreyHF - Saturday, December 18, 2021 - link
It would also give Nvidia intimate knowledge of all R&D and product development roadmaps, of all ARM licensees, and the ability to prioritize ARM focus on areas that benefit Nvidia.WaltC - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
This isn't happening...there are too many powerful people against it. Much of it stems from getting burned by nVidia in past dealings--nVidia doesn't play "nice" and never has. Their bad reputation goes back decades--it's not new. I remember when nVidia was awarded the first xBox contract--Gates was still with Microsoft at the time. Right after the contract was fulfilled and Microsoft was preparing to award the contract for the second iteration of the xBox--nVidia sues Microsoft. Microsoft settled but it was obvious they were really pissed. nVidia never got another xBox contract--even though it kept submitting bids for many years thereafter. Whatever they pulled it pissed Microsoft off a great deal. I don't see this deal making it for nVidia--too many people don't trust the company. I don't--but I'm just a small fry here. nVidia made its bed...Oxford Guy - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
Corporations weren't designed to be nice.Oxford Guy - Saturday, December 4, 2021 - link
Here's the deal... since so many comments are using the false claim that some corporations are benevolent people and others are malevolent people.The deal is that the corporation exists to do one thing: enrich the wealthy. Henry Blodget isn't the only person to post plenty of hard data (charts) on that. But, his seminal article about why people are protesting (from the Occupy period) is a good a place to start. Find the one with dozens of charts. It shows, very clearly, the massive divide between the financial class and the masses (whose claim to fame is that they 'own' debt). Corporations are a machine designed by the former to milk the latter. The masses get some shiny toys and quality of life improvements to partially compensate them for the exploitation – to keep them pacified.
A corporation has no obligation to do anything altruistic, beyond providing just enough pacification (goods/services) to the masses to keep the corporation from being attacked politically in a manner that actually threatens its scope and survival.
Corporations can even be used to violate laws. When the fines are smaller than the profit it is an attractive proposition. Given that corporations frequently function to insulate against liability sweetens the corrupt pot. Insiders on MSNBC blithely stated that the DOJ has long had a policy of fining corporations rather than jailing executives.
The illogical claim is that it's better for ordinary workers, as if the corporation would suddenly be shut down — as if it couldn't simply get replacement executives. Imagine the idea of promoting workers at the company to the executive class. Egad! Of course the justification is illogical but such things are par for the course. The expectation is that the masses will hear the nice words, nod, and never unpack them to see the falsity.
You are worried about what 'Microsoft thinks' after what Microsoft's executives did to IBM via the OS/2 scam? What about how IBM bypassed superior available consumer hardware when building the first IBM PC — simply to maximize margin? Critics complained but stock holders smiled, as selling less for more is the point. One cynical view is that the function of the critics is to obscure the truth of what corporations are about.
GeoffreyA - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
Corporations are rotten. However, some are worse than others. If there were a rotteness scale, Nvidia would hit MAX till the bell broke off. Understandably, folk are up in arms about it, especially money-hungry dogs like Apple I'm sure. And you're right, perhaps it would have instigated a transition to RISC-V; but right now, there's too many invested in ARM.Oxford Guy - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
‘but right now, there's too many invested in ARM.’That doesn’t make sense in any sort of free market context. All you’re saying is that anti-competitive behavior is protectionism for certain companies.
mode_13h - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
> That doesn’t make sense in any sort of free market context.It does, unless you're advocating entirely laissez-faire capitalism (which I don't, and is largely theoretical). The goal of the FTC is to keep any market player from gaining an unfair advantage, through M&A activities. That's exactly what this is.
> All you’re saying is that anti-competitive behavior is protectionism for certain companies.
It's the overall market they're trying to protect. The ultimate test is in the plausible impact on consumers. A healthy market delivers better value for them.
Oxford Guy - Monday, December 6, 2021 - link
Capitalism in name only... all that.mode_13h - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
> Corporations are rotten.The ideal of capitalism is to minimize harm and maximize the benefit of self-interested market participants. People need to understand this. It's the reason we need good laws and effective enforcement.
Consider the alternatives. Are you going to simply wish they weren't rotten? As long as bad behavior produces growth, it's a race to the bottom. If their competitors don't adopt similar tactics, they'll be run out of business.
GeoffreyA - Monday, December 6, 2021 - link
I just can't grasp the ins and outs of capitalism. But I do side with it, something my younger self would've been shocked by. Non-capitalist systems are usually some form of state capitalism masquerading as "equality and ownership for all." Well, I know that if I've privately toiled and sweated for something, it's mine. Nobody has the right to take it away. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, a lot of non-capitalist feeling often seems to me a secret desire to take away what belongs, usually by toil, to someone else.Idealistically, I would subscribe to something like Star Trek's non-feasible system, where everyone works but there doesn't appear to be any money!
Oxford Guy - Monday, December 6, 2021 - link
Mode believes that governments should pick the winners and losers. It's not capitalism.GeoffreyA - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
I think what he's saying is: in the real world, it can end up being a dirty game, so there's got to be regulation. As in sport, there must be rules and umpires.mode_13h - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
> Mode believes that governments should pick the winners and losers.Generally, no. I do think it's best if no market participant has too much power. In short, I believe capitalism needs to be regulated, both to keep a level playing field and to mitigate the damage caused by its excesses.
mode_13h - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
> something my younger self would've been shocked by.As a teenager, I found the idea of socialism to be alluring. That was until I saw how poorly it tended to work, in practice.
> Non-capitalist systems are usually some form of state capitalism
> masquerading as "equality and ownership for all."
If the constant is greed, then we shouldn't be surprised to see it manifest in one way or another, no matter what the system. So, the challenge is then one of devising the most effective system to manage & even harness that greed for the benefit of society.
I don't argue that greed is good. I merely argue that it's fundamental and it's what we make of it.
GeoffreyA - Friday, December 10, 2021 - link
So much that we do is driven by simpler, fundamental currents in our nature. How often is vanity or desire for applause the root of virtuous behaviour? Quite often, the real drive is hidden even from ourselves or, if visible, we don't wish to accept it. I don't mind: the proof of the pudding is in the eating, not the ingredients or oven. But it can play out in more sinister ways when people are hitting out on some social issue but really are pushing for their own interest. To me a lot of ill feeling against the rich seems that way. What is it, except envy? Envy for the rich man's wealth. Then, highfalutin rhetoric and philosophies are built up in the universities (all that Marxist nonsense?) to sanction stealing another man's property.mode_13h - Saturday, December 11, 2021 - link
> What is it, except envy?Justice is a real and fundamental social concept. In controlled experiments, primates have repeatedly and consistently reacted negatively, when they've observed one of their peers getting cheated or getting a worse deal.
Some people are more sensitive and activated by the perception of injustice than others. I think there is some legitimate outrage that *not* born out of envy, when some reap in excess at the seeming (or actual) expense of those with little.
For this and other reasons, I think the legitimacy of the system hinges on some degree of fairness. Fairness in both the rules and their enforcement.
GeoffreyA - Sunday, December 12, 2021 - link
You're right. I was being overly cynical against my better reason. The main thing we all want is fair, equal dealing. What is good for one is good for all. And when one sees the disparities between rich and poor, it's hard not to be moved by the picture. Concerning the primate experiments, I believe there are neural correlates that have a bearing on this, when one is being treated differently, being left out, etc. It causes an effect similar to physical pain.(And while it may seem I was defending the rich because I'm well off, the truth is, I work for small wages, have struggled to get a job, and grew up in a home where we weren't well-to-do at all.)
GeoffreyA - Sunday, December 12, 2021 - link
Thinking about my comment, it struck me that my muddled sentiment was trying to say: if society is divided into three segments---the high, the middle, and the low---it is the middle who have hidden motive to install themselves in place of the high, using lip service to equality and brotherhood to get the low on their side. What's more, they come up with all sorts of intellectual cant in the universities to back their aims. Once they, the middle, have displaced the high, the proletariat will still be in the spot they've always been. Take it, I was hitting out against that. When I hear talk of yachts, etc., I fancy I can almost sense the envy of this upward-aiming group.mode_13h - Monday, December 13, 2021 - link
> it is the middle who have hidden motive to install themselves in place of the highI think we're somewhat wired to be social-climbers. It's an intrinsic part of being social animals, and it gets back to the part about greed being somewhat innate.
> using lip service to equality and brotherhood to get the low on their side.
Feeling victimized or disadvantaged is a powerful motivator, and politicians know this. That's one of the accelerants of identity politics. And I'm not making an oblique reference to any specific group, as no group is immune to it.
That's why I think society loses, when we engage in identity politics. The more we can bring the focus back to establishing and enforcing general principles, the better we are for it.
> When I hear talk of yachts, etc., I fancy I can almost sense the
> envy of this upward-aiming group.
I think extreme wealth does have a corrosive effect on society. It's also not as good for the economy. Markets function better, when money and power don't over-concentrate.
GeoffreyA - Thursday, December 16, 2021 - link
Incidentally, today is Day of Reconciliation in SA. That's what society needs, reconciliation and love, whereas identity politics is causing more division and cementing the lines. Focusing on the 0.01% that makes us different, and sweeping under the carpet the 99.9% where we're the same. Imagine if subatomic particles had to say, "Let's engage in identity politics," matter as we know it would fall to pieces. Small wonder, society is in this state.Agreed, extreme wealth is not a nice thing, but if somebody earned it by toil and sweat, by right it belongs to him. How does society remedy that?
mode_13h - Friday, December 17, 2021 - link
> today is Day of Reconciliation in SA. That's what society needs, reconciliationThat's admirable. It would probably help.
> Focusing on the 0.01% that makes us different
I'm often struck by the irony of how fiercest conflicts are often between neighboring tribes or countries that outsiders find almost indistinguishable.
> if somebody earned it by toil and sweat, by right it belongs to him.
You can't. Not by yourself. Amassing extreme wealth depends on the work of many people, much infrastructure, standards, security, and stability. All of that comes at a cost. Taxes are the tool we have of assessing and extracting those costs.
mode_13h - Monday, December 13, 2021 - link
> The main thing we all want is fair, equal dealing.Agreed, but we must be wary that we're unreliable judges of fairness. I wish I could remember the name, but there's a psychological effect where people judge their position according to their neighbors and it leads to a skewed perception where most people feel like they're doing relatively worse than they are.
In my case, I have nothing to complain about. I'm paid more than enough to meet my needs. In fact, if I thought this were the upper end of the pay scale, I could accept it without much complaint. However, when I learn that others in my area are getting paid more for similar or even lower-grade work, I can't help but feel slightly annoyed.
Anyway, fairness is a loaded term. What some people judge to be fair (e.g. equal opportunity), might be seen as unfair to those trying to compete who are at a disadvantage. Thus, even agreeing on the general principle doesn't guarantee we'd agree on any specific policy or means of instituting it.
This is where I think having broad participation (i.e. democracy) has real potential. If you believe the system is working mostly as judged fair by the preponderance of your peers, that can lend real legitimacy to it. It's by no means a guarantee that democracy leads to a fair system, but broader participation *should* tend to make the system more fair than it'd otherwise be.
GeoffreyA - Thursday, December 16, 2021 - link
Absolutely, I think it's almost universal that we feel we're worse off than our fellows. And that leads to discontent, robbing joy from what could've been a happy life. As my dear grandmother often says, "Contentment." Sadly, people are envying other's cars, jobs, heck, even gardens! I joke not.As always, solutions are what count. I think there's much to be gained if we could apply ideas from computer science to society. In many ways, isn't society like an operating system? The problem is, programs are individual and sentient. So the question becomes, how do we reconcile these tensions, of control vs. individualism? And how do we do so in a stepped fashion? Because unlike a hard drive, we can't format a society. Democracy is the best system we've got; but I would go so far to say that anti-democratic notions can still be "emulated" on the democratic machinery. Perhaps critical mass of participation hasn't been achieved, or you've got this monolithic clumping into "AMD and Intel." A law of nature? Perhaps.
mode_13h - Friday, December 17, 2021 - link
> In many ways, isn't society like an operating system?Good questions, but I think a lot of where economists and certain ideologies have gone wrong is by treating humans as perfectly logical and always acting in their own best interest. We know humans are subject to a whole range of cognitive biases and errors, which some of us have grown very adept at exploiting -- both for political and economic gain.
> how do we reconcile these tensions, of control vs. individualism?
> And how do we do so in a stepped fashion?
This is the challenge of our age. At least, in terms of governance. We have to figure out how to fix discourse. If we can both fix discourse and increase engagement, then there's hope. Part of fixing discourse involves somehow reducing manipulation, which is a growing threat and driving the electorate towards the extremes.
> I would go so far to say that anti-democratic notions can still be "emulated"
> on the democratic machinery.
Yeah, what seems to happen is that demagogues take power and then start breaking and contorting government to enshrine themselves and increase their authority. Before you know it, you can no longer call it a democracy. Examples abound.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." People forget that part. Democracy is anything but self-maintaining.
GeoffreyA - Tuesday, December 21, 2021 - link
As usual, excellent points.Some ingredient is missing from democracy. As long as the human element is present, there'll be manipulation. The game seems to be, how do I use the democratic system to install myself in power? So, instead of a tyrant who does it by force, we now use a softer, more persuasive approach. Promise a tonne of stuff, play into the notions of the demographic you're trying to win, crack some jokes, and you're well ahead. Plus, the Common Folk don't seem to know what they want, or what will truly make them happy, and are ripe for manipulation.
We discussed an AI ruling at some length before. Of course, humans aren't going to accept it, and I fear it would end up being tyrannical because its optimisation would always outweigh our attempts for democratic reform. Or human fingers might be in off-limit parts of the source code!
mode_13h - Tuesday, December 21, 2021 - link
> we now use a softer, more persuasive approach. Promise a tonne of stuff,> play into the notions of the demographic you're trying to win, crack some jokes,
> and you're well ahead.
That's the sort of thing you do if you're aiming for the center of the electorate. If you're running as a partisan or a cultural/economic warrior, then you want to seem more extreme in your views and uncompromising in your positions.
> the Common Folk don't seem to know what they want,
Really? I think most people in fact *do* know what the do/don't want. Manipulation tends to harness fear, anxiety, or moral outrage. Those tactics tend to be inexpensive, because they don't require big spending or huge government projects, once the politician is elected. The same cannot be said of appealing to their economic self-interests.
> humans aren't going to accept (an AI ruling)
The AI you really need to fear is probably one that's smart enough to put up a human front man.
GeoffreyA - Tuesday, December 21, 2021 - link
The radical character does gain quite a following, often by appealing to passion or unreason.You're right, and dug deeper than I went. Appealing to fear works natively, and is a tactic employed throughout history. Same with moral outrage. The wind blows strongly in Salem this Christmas.
As for that AI using a human front man, it is a chilling thought. I can't help picturing a ventriloquist or something like a techno-doppelganger!
mode_13h - Tuesday, December 21, 2021 - link
> I can't help picturing a ventriloquist or something like a techno-doppelganger!Or simply a vain, shallow media personality with questionable allegiances. Now, why does that sound familiar...
GeoffreyA - Friday, December 24, 2021 - link
Watched half of Resurrections last night, and one notion was that of agent programs being "skinned" with human personalities.mode_13h - Saturday, December 25, 2021 - link
I watched the first 3 Matrix movies. I didn't too much mind the sequels, but didn't really think they were up to the level of the first movie. I recently watched it again, right around its 20 year anniversary. Ah, nostalgic.I didn't plan on watching Resurrections. Maybe if the reviews are really good, but I'm not really interested in seeing more movies like #2 and #3.
Aside from being a bit gratuitous, I thought Ex Machina was pretty good. So far, I think Next (the series that originally aired in 2020) is one of the more plausible visions of a rogue AI taking over.
P.S. Happy Holidays!
GeoffreyA - Sunday, December 26, 2021 - link
Reloaded and Revolutions were overdone, CGI-drenched action movies. The 1999 original was about a concept. Once revealed, there was little left. I expected Resurrections to be a disaster, but was surprised, and felt it had a poignancy that was missing before. Also, seeing these beloved characters back after so long was really something. I would say, if you loved the original, Resurrections is worth it. Faithful, with a wiser perspective. And while there were some ugly CGI patches, I was shocked to see a 2021 movie---and Matrix of all things!---looking pretty real a lot of the time.Ex Machina was excellent, but left me feeling rather unsettled. Perhaps it was that unlikeable man who created the androids. I'm fond of Blade Runner 2049, which, admittedly, is a bit low on AI philosophy. Haven't seen Next but I'll take a look when I get a chance.
Same to you and your family. Happy holidays!
GeoffreyA - Sunday, December 26, 2021 - link
(Forgot to add: Steins;Gate 0 dealt with AI generally and is worth watching. And Time of Eve, in a more light-hearted fashion, looked at android equality.)mode_13h - Sunday, December 26, 2021 - link
Regarding Steins Gate, I'm basically done with time travel in movies & TV. I might make an exception for Tenet, which was well-reviewed and sounds genuinely creative.I actually have seen Time of Eve (as well as all of the Ghost in the Shell TV and movies). I even recommended it to someone else.
mode_13h - Sunday, December 26, 2021 - link
About the second and third movies, that's pretty much what I was thinking.I need to re-watch Blade Runner 2049. There were definitely things about it I didn't fully grasp. I preceded it by watching the Director's Cut of the original movie, which just looked fantastic and was pretty fun in that retro-future sort of way.
Next is a little sketchy on some of the technical details, I think mostly driven by a desire to create an ongoing sense of dramatic tension, but gets enough things right to be truly unsettling.
Actually, it occurs to me there was a 2008 movie called Eagle Eye that's in a somewhat similar vein as Next. Worth a watch, I'd say.
GeoffreyA - Tuesday, December 28, 2021 - link
I did see Tenet and meant to watch it again because a lot was puzzling. Certainly creative and well executed, but I ended up feeling Inception was still the better movie. Anyway, there's a car chase in Tenet that's worth its weight in gold.Ghost in the Shell, 1995, was a masterwork, and the Wachowskis seem to have got a lot of ideas from it.
Also saw the Director's Cut of BR, or the Final Cut as they're calling the best version nowadays, and it looked terrific. (The negative was supposedly scanned at 8K.) The first BR had that distinctive ambience. Plus, who could forget those umbrellas! My favourite scene is Deckard's questioning of Rachel, where, smoking her cigarette, she answers him famously. 2049 delivered; but I felt it didn't have that many ideas. What draws me is the otherworldly atmosphere and beautiful photography. And that part when K's "wife" bids him farewell, what a sad, golden moment; filmmaking at its best.
mode_13h - Sunday, December 5, 2021 - link
> so many comments are using the false claim that some corporations are benevolent peopleWho here has actually *said* they're benevolent?
I think the real issue is market power. You don't want one actor to have too much of it.
> the corporation exists to do one thing
The wealthy exist to enrich themselves. Corporations are but one tool they use to do it. The point shouldn't be to debate whether greed exists. The point should be how to *use* the powerful motivation of greed to do useful and beneficial work, while minimizing the incentives for it to cause harm.
> Corporations are a machine designed by the former to milk the latter.
> The masses get some shiny toys and quality of life improvements
> to partially compensate them for the exploitation – to keep them pacified.
As you seem to acknowledge, corporations supply more than just shiny toys. You can't look only at the harm they do. If you talk about any realistic reform, you also need to replace the benefits and services they provide.
You also can't wish greed out of existence. The best we can do is try to manage (and harness) it.
> Insiders on MSNBC blithely stated
Sounds like editorial content, rather than reporting. I guess you found that by searching for some source that aligned with your thinking on these issues? You know that's confirmation bias, right? There could be 99% of datapoints that refute your claims, but if you conduct your search in a way likely to return just the 1% that agree, you come away feeling validated. That's why scientists (and good economists) try to devise good tests that would *disprove* their hypothesis, in order to truly test it.
> the DOJ has long had a policy of fining corporations rather than jailing executives.
The standard for prosecuting executives is very high. You have to prove intent, which is a high bar for resource-starved SEC lawyers to meet. Consequently, they tend to go after things that are easier to prove, such as insider trading. I wish it weren't so, but the way you presented it makes it sound like the DOJ is corrupt. It's not, but the same cannot be said of some of those controlling its budget.
> The illogical claim is ... if the corporation would suddenly be shut down —
> as if it couldn't simply get replacement executives.
No, I don't believe that factors into the decision-making process. Care to cite any first-hand DOJ sources on that?
There have indeed been prosecutions of top executives, such as in the cases of Worldcom, Tyco, Enron, Merrill Lynch, and those are just the ones that come to mind. Even now, there's the Theranos case. Of course there *should* be many more, but these cases and the Sarbanes–Oxley Act show some willingness to hold executives to account.
> The expectation is that the masses will hear the nice words, nod,
> and never unpack them to see the falsity.
No, I doubt that. You impugn motives too easily, given your proclivity to decry these sorts of claims made by others.
> You are worried about what 'Microsoft thinks' after what Microsoft's
> executives did to IBM via the OS/2 scam?
That was over 25 years ago. Not only does technology evolve, but also the law's attempts to regulate it. Not least, because its role in our lives is now so much more pervasive and fundamental. Also, now lawmakers, judges, and lawyers are increasingly well-versed in it.
Oxford Guy - Wednesday, December 15, 2021 - link
‘I think the real issue is market power. You don't want one actor to have too much of it.’That’s the straw man.
mode_13h - Friday, December 17, 2021 - link
How is that a straw man?Vitor - Monday, December 6, 2021 - link
Fookin hell, only Nvidia+Arm can compete against Apple chips. Stop being dumb, FTC.mode_13h - Tuesday, December 7, 2021 - link
Apple won't be king of the heap forever. Many tech giants that once seemed unbeatable have receded somewhat, and no longer dominate as before. IBM, Microsoft, Cisco, and even Google seems to have plateaued quite a bit.So, it's not enough to justify the concerns & potential harms listed in the lawsuit that there's a more advanced player the combined entity would be better positioned to possibly dethrone. Indeed, if Apple is seen to abuse its power, the proper solution is anti-trust litigation against *it*. Otherwise, Apple will eventually slip up, or others will simply catch up to it. I fully believe either Intel or AMD could compete with it, if they'd just be willing to leave x86 behind.
JeffreyHF - Saturday, December 18, 2021 - link
I don't get your point. Apple is not a merchant vendor of chips, and Nvidia doesn't compete with Apple. There's nothing Nvidia can't do with an architectural license from AEM, and a stellar engineering team, that they could do if they owned ARM - that is, if they intend to compete on a technological field, rather than manipulate, handicap, and control other licensees.melgross - Monday, December 6, 2021 - link
I’m curious as to what governments would have been thinking if Apple hadn’t sold off it’s approximately one third share of stock in the early 2000’s. As Apple was one of the founders, they couldn’t have been shrugged off as Nvidia is here.pogsnet - Monday, December 20, 2021 - link
Surely if Nvidia gets the ARM, they will share information which makes the rest slower while they hide something that is needed to make it faster. Therefore there own product will be better than the rest.