Talk:Arm Holdings/Archives/2014

Readd all the companies that got deleted with citations
See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ARM_Holdings&diff=573705691&oldid=573703902

Unsourced (or ) is not tolerated in ARM Holdings page. It's much more strict that "ARM Architecture". Now this material I deleted under time pressure has no home. comp.arch (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to re-add but please find the citations before expanding the customer-lists. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel kind of bad for trying to clean up ARM Architecture, I did and dumped the mess here, just didn't realize it was such a mess/strict here. I just copy pasted.

Do add (move) what is down here (one at a time is ok) with citations in the article page not down below. This is just the deleted text for convinience.

Deleted text:

ARM architectural licence:

Companies with 32-bit architectural licence include Apple Inc. 

Intel (through its settlement with Digital Equipment Corporation), 

and Qualcomm.

Distinct 32-bit custom-designd ARM architecture implementations by licensees include Qualcomm's Krait (or Scorpion) in Snapdragon ,

DEC's StrongARM ,

Marvell's (formerly Intel's) XScale. 

ARM core licence:

Companies that are current licensees of 64-bit ARM core designs include Apple (A7), AppliedMicro (X-Gene), AMD, Calxeda, HiSilicon (Huawei's),<Done, these are the "same thing", which one to use and others.

Companies that are current or former licensees of 32-bit (and some for 64-bit) ARM core designs (some for microcontrollers) include AMD, Alcatel-Lucent, Altera, Analog Devices, Apple Inc., AppliedMicro, Atmel, BlackBerry (formerly Research In Motion), Cirrus Logic, CSR plc, Cypress Semiconductor, Ember, Energy Micro, Faraday Technology, Fujitsu, Fuzhou Rockchip, Huawei (HiSilicon division), IBM, Infineon Technologies (Infineon XMC 32-bit MCU families), Intel (DEC), LG, Marvell, MediaTek, Microsemi, NEC, Nintendo, Nuvoton, NXP Semiconductors (formerly Philips Semiconductor), Oki, ON Semiconductor, Panasonic, Qualcomm, Sharp, Silicon Labs, Sony, ST-Ericsson, STMicroelectronics, Symbios Logic, Toshiba, Yamaha, Xilinx and ZiiLABS.

comp.arch (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added a bunch of the core licensees back, with citations. I'll let somebody else add more. Guy Harris (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for single handedly doing this. When going to sleep I had second thoughts about this. This material was deleted as unsourced, maybe it's unwanted here, period? Does ARM get paid for the licenses once (royalty-free - guess not)? Or for each processor produced? Maybe the business types - "analysts" don't care for a list of companies, let alone the SoC/microcontroller names like A7 only (names like Apple and iPhone might be an exception).


 * and "Mention the core licensees first, then the architectural licensees; we mention the licensing of cores before the licensing of architectures in the beginning of the section, and most ARM cores are probably licensed from ARM.". I reversed put them first on purpose since they are more expensive (unsourced but "obvious", probaly confidential, any possible citation?). comp.arch (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A comprehensive list of licensees might not be interesting, but if ARM has a count of licensees, that might be interesting as an indication of the popularity of ARM Holdings' products, and listing some significant companies that have licensed ARM cores or the ARM ISA might also emphasize the company's significance.


 * As for the licensing terms, ARM's "Licensing ARM IP" page doesn't give any details on the terms (financial and otherwise) they offer - my guess is that ARM only tells those to potential licensees, and might individually negotiate with architecture licensees (and perhaps might do so with some core licensees). I would also guess that core licenses have per-processor charges (that some core licensees might be able to negotiate away in favor of a sufficiently-large one-time payment), and don't have a good guess as to how architecture licenses work, but my guesses aren't worth any more than anybody else's guesses.  Absent a citation, I'd be inclined not to say anything about, for example, the relative costs of core and architecture licenses; I think it's reasonably obvious (to the point of not needing a citation) that if you're going to design your own cores from scratch, you need more technical knowledge than if you're going to license a core design from ARM, so we can at least say that. Guy Harris (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done both of you on your recent excellent work on this article. Dormskirk (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks and Harris, I agree, except in the absence of a list at arm.com (or count), a simple count here would be problematic. No way to know if it is maintained or give a citation except then for all the licensees anyway. Might as well list them all then? And if not all then how to objectively trim the list? comp.arch (talk)