[panick21_]

Apple had to pay a lot for that license and even if you are willing to pay its not that easy to get. And if you do pay, you are not actually allowed resell the licenses for that chip.

RISC-V gives all people a level of power that is even higher then what Apple had with ARM.

As somebody from Esperanto said when making their Esperanto said it. If we had asked ARM it would have been 'pay of a couple million and then you can't do X,Y and Z'.

[klelatti]

I really don't get this sort of take : the world's most valuable company and a startup backed with $100m+ shouldn't have to pay for the IP that they use? Will Esperanto be giving their IP away for free and letting other firms do what they want with it?

Sure RISC-V is great in many, many ways but having the 64-bit Arm ISA ready for Apple to use in (checks notes) 2013 has been fundamental to them building their multi-trillion dollar business. Getting that ISA ready cost real money.

[panick21_]

> shouldn't have to pay for the IP that they use

They don't want actual ARM IP. They only want the ISA. Its questionable if ISA design should be protected.

To get an architectural license its millions, do you think its reasonable to pay millions just for an ISA specification?

And even with that specification, there would be lots of restrictions still.

Listen to Jim Keller on the topic, there are also other issues with how slow developments are. Lots of companies are already out with accelerators that don't even have an official ARM spec yet.

> Sure RISC-V is great in many, many ways but having the 64-bit Arm ISA ready for Apple to use in (checks notes) 2013 has been fundamental to them building their multi-trillion dollar business. Getting that ISA ready cost real money.

That's nice and all for ARM and Apple.

But now we are in the future where an open standard exists. Once you move to an open standard you don't go back very often.