Slightly off topic but can't be the only one getting confused with Arm Cortex-M3's every time I read an Apple M3 headline. Why would they call a core the exact same name as another companies product?
Meanwhile Arm Cortex is semi-random, sometimes incrementing (M0,M1) sometimes with a "+" designation (M0+) and then just seemingly random jumps up to non-sequential double digits (M23,M35,M52 with or without a P designation. Its like "come on guys, make your mind up".
M (Microcontroller), R (Real-time), and A (Application) core profiles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-M#Cortex-M3 - 2004.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_M3 - 2023.
> Some might argue that Apple's usage of it makes more sense. M-series for Macs and they are just incrementing numerically.
By this logic if you name a project Y but I can argue my naming of a much newer project Y is "more logical", you should abandon Y?
Chronology matters :-)
1. Name their company after a common fruit
2. That common fruit being already word that was used as a company name when they were launched (by none other than the Beatles)
3. Then after they lost a lawsuit, settle with said company based on an agreement that they wouldn't enter that company's field
4. Then a bunch of years later enter that company's field anyway
Long story short: because they can ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If there’s any lesson I’d draw from this, it’s that trademark law should have high barriers to claims for generic names. If you want total control, invent a new word.