Sounds like the story I have heard told a few times about how companies in the 60s, and 70s would make sure they had the business card of an Amdahl sales rep on

Sounds like the story I have heard told a few times about how companies in the 60s, and 70s would make sure they had the business card of an Amdahl sales rep on their desk when the IBM sales rep came to visit (Amdahl apparently made their business selling mostly/somewhat IBM-compatible but much cheaper mainframes.) All I can say is general comment as a consumer / "prosumer"; I recently went looking to build out a high core count homelab server built on either RISC-V or ARM; because I wanted lower power consumption, higher core count, and, well, was interested in something non-x86 anyways. When I went looking, I found there is still nothing out there in the ARM world other than Ampere servers and that is unavailable to end consumers. We're decades into this ARM thing, but there are entire market segments where ARM looks like it'd be applicable but there are no products (ok, other than Apple). And yet I also found that RISC-V seems to be making early moves into this kind of space - e.g. I can preorder and actually buy the Milk-V SOPHON-base "Pioneer" board, which is a 64-core RISC-V board in mATX form factor I can put in my own case, etc. but nothing like this seems reasonable on the horizon for ARM. Still. My question is: is this a product of the viability (or lack of it) of these segments/ businesses, or does it have something to do with ARM licensing? Anyways, I'm bullish on RISC-V. I played with PicoRV32 a few years ago on hobby FPGA projects; built out my own little primitive SoC on an Artix A7 board, wrote my own little operating system, it was great fun. The openness of all this stuff is fantastic and necessary for producing innovation. I feel like the nature of RISC-V will naturally tend towards producing more diversity of products than ARM has, even if the investment environment goes through a bit of a contraction for a bit.