We have people licensing Arm and building interesting CPUs (Ampere).
I'm not sure that the NVIDIA acquisition would be good for the market or for Arm.
> I'm not sure that the NVIDIA acquisition would be good for the market or for Arm.
NVIDIA works with Ampere and just started shipping server nodes with Ampere CPUs.
If that was bad for Ampere, they would not be working with NVIDIA on this.
Not that you are right/wrong (I don't know), but Ampere appears to be an example that shows the opposite of what you are trying to claim.
Intel once was in a similar position to Nvidia and everyone hated them then. The failure of their last few generation has meant they don't have as strong a monopoly position and so have to start taking a more conciliatory position with the market. I don't know if they're succeeding here but it's obvious they've been "humbled".
Now, maybe Nvidia will treat ARM completely differently than it's GPUs. But companies tend to have single cultures and so it's easy to imagine Nvidia squeezing dimes from other ARM customers, where ARM has been at the opposite side of the market, reasonably priced, good-enough tech. Charging a high premium on your capital investment works for a market leader, that uses the money for more investment. But for a market followers, the same strategy results in market share shrinking 'till the whole thing dies (not that this isn't a way to make money but when the thing dies, some people are unhappy).
Adding to that Intel didn't exactly pick this model as their first choice. The combination of a wafer production shortage and Intels CPUs underperforming is what drove Intel to this. It is neither Intels or most feasible clients first choice.
Intel has done lots of things that it turns out people didn't want to do (with them).
I can't tell if you're saying you have insider information or you're just assuming they're getting customers with no evidence.
And Annapurna (owned by Amazon) sells CPUs to all sorts of vendors, including Ubiquiti and Synology.