[anujdeshpande]

- As one of the replies said, I was talking mostly about the IoT space, but I think it's true for the non-IoT laptop/server space as well.

- Sure - looking at what Apple's silicon team is doing with ARM would make you think that ARM has nothing to worry about for a while. However, notice that Apple is the only one who is getting a lot done with ARM at the high end. Qualcomm, etc. aren't getting the same amount of performance. I believe that's because of the non-ARM stuff that Apple puts in their silicon efforts. Imagine in a few years, when the small companies designing and licensing RISC-V cores are not that small anymore - folks like Amazon (uses ARM cores in their servers) and Apple might have a serious alternative.

- I think open source models win in the long run, similar to Windows vs Linux, or closed version control software vs Git. The tooling around open source grows over a few years and then suddenly it feels like it's miles better than the closed options. I think similar stuff will happen with silicon.

- ARM themselves worry about this btw - not that long ago they created a website smearing RISC-V which was mostly full of FUD. Their employees revolted and made them get rid of that site: https://www.theregister.com/2018/07/10/arm_riscv_website/

[jkestner]

ARM should be worried. In anticipation of their new IPO, they changed their licensing model to be based on the value of the final device, not the chip itself. Manufacturers are profoundly unhappy with that, and hey, there happens to be ann alternative to invest in now.

Talk to someone who works at a RISC-V startup. There’s a lot of energy there. It’s going to take a while, but startups are working on every class of chip.

ARM changed the fee structure because growth has been flat, and this is a way to get money short term, not grow the addressable market. It will settle into Intel-like stagnation as a disruptor takes its markets. What's ARM's moat?