IMO RISC-V will steamroll ARMv8 eventually, just like Linux and open source did to proprietary unixes and other operating systems. The only real question is whe

IMO RISC-V will steamroll ARMv8 eventually, just like Linux and open source did to proprietary unixes and other operating systems. The only real question is whether ARMv8 grows to beat x86 in PC and server space before that happens or not. And I don't say this as a fan of the RISC-V architecture or process. ARM is no less proprietary than x86, which is something that a lot of people don't really understand. Arguably it's actually more restrictive because x86 at least has two suppliers that compete on roughly equal terms. Intel might bully AMD somewhat, but a situation like amd64 where AMD unilaterally made an extension to the architecture against Intel's wishes could never happen with ARM. AMD also does not pay royalties on the cross license, I believe. (On the other hand, Intel/AMD are much less inclined to license to 3rd parties, so you can also argue it's less restrictive in some ways). And the ARM Ltd. architecture royalties are just a drag. An inefficiency. ARM provides almost no technological value in the ISA. ARMv8 is just a warmed over RISC that's slightly modernized for the age as you would expect, there is very little real innovation in it. Certainly not to the tune of a billion dollars a year. I say that lovingly, I like RISCs and I like ARMv8, and I would even rather OpenPOWER ahead of RISC-V, but it's the truth. It's also no disparagement of ARM architects and designers who developed the specification, it is a highly skilled and difficult task to develop a complete and coherent architecture even if you do go a conservative route and mostly follow existing ones. Writing specifications just has a limit on output. What ARM Ltd is mostly charging for is compatibility with their proprietary ISA and ecosystem. Which is fine, I mean good on them if they can get money that way, but it's the same proprietary lock-in that the Intel/AMD duopoly enjoy, and it is what many proprietary software vendors like the vertically integrated unix corporations enjoyed in the past before open source destroyed a lot of their business. Though to be fair, many have held off competition from OSS to greater or lesser degree, MS and Apple are obvious examples, so I don't see this open-source-izatoin as inevitable. On the other hand, an ISA these days is pretty much an API. Like a Java API or a C API. I think trying to extract a lot of money out of that kind of thing is on thin ice. I wouldn't call it rent seeking but it's not that far off it. At some point the market may quite well decide they don't actually need to pay anywhere close to a billion dollars a year to get the same result.