He's not saying it won't win, either. He's just saying that for it to win, it needs a viable dev platform. Which, if you reverse cause and effect is blatantly obvious.

If ARM comes anywhere close to viable enough to be "winning", there will be a good market for dev platforms, and somebody will step in and fill the need. Heck, some are even arguing here that the Pine64 already meets that need.

I'm definitely on the side of ARM(and RISC-V and other new architectures for that matter) getting "wins", because the modern environment is displaying the signs of a low-layer shakeup:

* New systems languages with promising levels of adoption

* Stablization and commodification of the existing platforms, weakening lock-in effects

* Emphasis on virtualization in contemporary server architectures

* "The browser is the OS" reaching its natural conclusion in the form of WASM, driving web devs towards systems languages

All of that produces an environment where development could become much more portable in a relatively short timeframe. It's the high friction of the full-service, C-based, multitasking development ecosystem that keeps systems development centralized within a few megaprojects like Linux. But what is actually needed for development is leaner than that, and the project of making these lower layers modernized, portable, and available to virtualization will have the inevitable effect of uprooting the tooling from its existing hardware dependencies, even when no one of the resulting environments does "as much" as a Linux box. The classic disruption story.

It's not simple cause and effect. Servers cause compatible dev boxes and dev boxes cause compatible servers.

For applications not involving system code, a viable development platform is instantly available by developing remotely.

Why is this discussion so fixated on having a local development environment? It's 2019.

We have to define what "winning" means here. Google uses POWER9 and specialized GPU-like chips for some workloads. All cloud providers can gain from being able to offer products that perform better or have lower prices than it would be possible with x86.

Right now ARM probably outnumbers x86 in number of machines running Linux by a very large margin. In my backpack there is one x86 machine and two ARM ones and that doesn't count the one that's in my hand

It all depends on what chips become available at what price. All cloud providers do lots of hardware design for their own metal. I'd they tell you that their next data center will be primarily ARM, they create a market for a million unit run of whatever CPU they choose.

> Google uses POWER9 and specialized GPU-like chips

As do the current top two supercomputers, Summit and Sierra, among others.

Cray's XC-50 uses ARM CPUs.

I have to agree with LT, but not on technical issues. This is a question of business issues. You can look at many facets of different cases, but they are all distilled into "Path Dependant Behavior". Sometimes it is called "Baby Duckling Syndrome", but it is that the leader in a market segment is much better equipped to respond, and outpace competitors.