In this case, I think that the "sunk cost fallacy" counter is as specious as it is obvious. It completely misplaces the burden of evidence. Apple has a platfor

In this case, I think that the "sunk cost fallacy" counter is as specious as it is obvious. It completely misplaces the burden of evidence. Apple has a platform with hundreds of millions of active users, perhaps over a billion actual devices in use. In a situation like that, conservatism is warranted. The guiding principle is simple: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Meaning that the argument doesn't start with any sort of discussion about technical advantages that RISC-V might have over ARM, or challenging reasons to stay on ARM as if, having dismissed them, the obvious default plan of migrating to RISC-V would kick into action. It starts with trying to demonstrate that something about ARM is broken. Because, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So. . . is it hindering Apple's strategic or operational priorities in any way?