[jcelerier]

As the article says:

> “International standards have a special status,” says Phil Wennblom, Chair of ISO/IEC JTC 1. “Even though RISC-V is already globally recognized, once something becomes an ISO/IEC standard, it’s even more widely accepted. Countries around the world place strong emphasis on international standards as the basis for their national standards. It’s a significant tailwind when it comes to market access.”

[veltas]

Says that, but I don't agree with that. If anything it would have been less successful being picked up in discount markets if the specs weren't free for download, and I don't know what fringes they're trying to break into but probably none of them care whether the spec is ISO.

[rjsw]

That can depend on how the spec gets made into an ISO standard. There is a process called "harvesting" that can allow the original author to continue to distribute an existing specification independently of ISO.

[jcelerier]

> Says that, but I don't agree with that

I guess you just never had to fill in a grant application where you have to justify that you are using official standards so that you can get money

[veltas]

I'm guessing in those kinds of situations it doesn't matter about the arch given x86 and ARM also aren't ISO standards. The manufacturers however should comply with relevant quality standards.

[jcelerier]

it doesn't matter when there is no ISO standard for a given tech. But as soon as there is one, then you have to provide arguments as to "why didn't you use the standard".

[lifthrasiir]

Usual lies. There are a plethora of largely ignored international standards. Making it an international standard is just one of many ways to achieve the wide worldwide acception and still has a high failure rate.