Arm is facing down its biggest competition ever, with the up-and-coming RISC-V architecture threatening to unseat it as the CPU at the center of almost every portable device. Now, one of Arm’s biggest customers is trying out RISC-V, as Qualcomm is getting involved in a joint venture dedicated to the architecture.
The joint venture doesn’t have a name yet, but Qualcomm, NXP, Nordic Semiconductor, Bosch, and memory giant Infineon are all teaming up to form a new company that Qualcomm’s press release says is “aimed at advancing the adoption of RISC-V globally by enabling next-generation hardware development.” At first, the group will be focused on automotive uses, with an “eventual expansion” to IoT and mobile, Qualcomm’s biggest market.
Statements of intent are easily written, so let’s hope this is more than a fart in the wind.
I want to see RISCV succeed. Licensing costs will go away, however even more important to me as an end user is that ARM has been kind of regressive in terms of portable operating systems and openness, RISCV has the opportunity to be better and put a stop to vendor locked operating systems. I want a robust platform with universal booting standards like x86 has provided over the decades. However that’s just the idealist speaking. As a realist I am extremely concerned that RISCV could be a repeat of ARM’s problems especially with companies like qualcomm are involved.
“As a realist I am extremely concerned that RISCV could be a repeat of ARM’s problems especially with companies like qualcomm are involved.”
This.
There is a RISC-V Platform Standard, but it just seems to be a copy of ARM’s, with UEFI and ACPI for servers (and desktop too I guess, although I haven’t seen one yet).
Apart from UEFI being more popular, I wonder if there’s a reason why both ARM and RISC-V didn’t choose to use OpenFirmware.
Pardodper,
UEFI would be fine as long as all vendors used it consistently. The problem is when nearly every device needs a custom tailored image to be able to boot it. I don’t know if it was ever a goal for ARM developers, but needless to say they failed to even come close to the interoperability of x86. I want developers to focus on the task at hand and not worrying about hardware support and pulling their hair out getting the bloody OS to boot.
Standardization would make life so much better for developers, users, and manufacturers as well:
Want to build a product without worrying about sourcing compatible SBCs, no problem!
Want to write an OS that can run on hundreds of devices out of the box, no problem!
Want to repurpose a device or use one for a DIY project, no problem!
Want to continue using a device long after manufacturer EOL using a 3rd party OS, no problem!
x86 proves this is possible. RISC-V can do it too! I’m just very concerned that the initial adopters for RISC-V will end up pushing it down the path of ARM, which fails at all of these metrics.
No they won’t. They’ll just shift to different parties. No matter how open the platform, its still rent-seekers all the way down.
Drumhellar,
Interesting, I wasn’t expecting that line of argument
I’m not sure what is or isn’t allowed in terms of derivative works, but at least with RISC-V you’re not forced to pay for the original IP. But I guess 3rd parties might offer value added IP for a cost though.
Regardless, there is evidence that RISC-V is already having a competitive impact. ARM themselves are adapting their own licenses to better position ARM to compete with royalty free RISC-V by making ARM IP more accessible for IOT development and only charging for production.
https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/embedded/article/21808309/arm-eases-upfront-licensing-fees-to-head-off-riscv
This is why I’m always in favor of a healthy market with lots of competition. Even if I’m happy with the technology I’m using, more competition helps ensure companies are serving customers without being too abusive, which is what happens without good alternatives.