> You sound like someone from the 90's dismissing Linux. Software seems to be very different from hardware. How would a company like Red Hat, Canonical or basi

> You sound like someone from the 90's dismissing Linux. Software seems to be very different from hardware. How would a company like Red Hat, Canonical or basically almost every enterprise company which primarily relies on Linux/OSS/GNU products make money from RISC-V? The cost of entry is much higher and there is no clear way of building a business around open source RISC-V (yet) > The bottom line is that ARM represents vendor lock-in and broken market with only one seller Yes. But why would anyone who which was capable of building a high-end RISC-V core give their design away for free? Unless there is a clear incentive for them to do that it’s objectively worse than the current situation where anyone can license a high-end CPU design from ARM. > like Apple did for user machines) but it's certain it won't choose the ARM arch Right, except in the one case where they did choose ARM? > that would make no sense Why? As long as the cost of designing such a processor remains very high, there are no open source designs available and it’s cheaper to build on top of what ARM than build it from scratch it makes perfect sense. I mean in principle I agree with you. It would be great if CPU design was open source, anyone could take a high end core design improve on top of it and then share their changes with everyone but I don’t see a clear path to that. Instead companies might just take what they can from the OSS community and contribute nothing back. ARM seems like a somewhat decent but far from perfect solution for this (as long as it remains independent)