From: ldo@nz.invalid   
      
   On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:47:39 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:   
      
   > It wouldn’t be outside historical industry norms. Intel made their own   
   > 8086s but also licensed them to around 10 other manufacturers ...   
      
   But Intel was a chip manufacturer from the get-go. ARM Ltd was set up   
   precisely as a company that made designs (and got patents on them) for   
   licensing to others, not as one that made its own chips. That way other   
   companies paying it money for those licences could feel confident they   
   were all competing fairly, on a level field with an honest broker.   
      
   But if ARM makes its own chips, now it is competing with its own   
   customers. Can you say “conflict of interest”?   
      
   > From a customer point of view: it’s not _that_ hard to change CPU   
   > architecture.   
      
   Are you talking embedded? Because in general-purpose computing, the   
   proprietary vendors anyway (Microsoft being the obvious example) have a   
   great deal of trouble supporting more than one platform.   
      
   The Open Source world certainly can manage it quite successfully. That’s   
   how it could be the first to embrace RISC-V.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)