In the first case anyone with the right skills can do it. In the second you need access to lots of specialist tools / proprietary industry knowledge.
If RISC-V 'wins' in application processors it will be because an Intel or a Qualcomm invests (probably) hundreds of millions in building a team that works on a multi year project. It definitely won't be bored high schoolers.
> In the first case anyone with the right skills can do it. In the second you need access to lots of specialist tools / proprietary industry knowledge.
In the first case, it used to require specialist tools like the Autodesk suite, and people had to have access to that software to develop the right skills and acquire the industry knowledge.
I don't think RISC-V "winning" is the right way of measuring success. Whether or not it becomes the dominant ISA for everything is irrelevant. It serves an important role in our market and it doesn't need the guys at Qualcomm and Intel to use it to make it successful. Either way Intel is investing big money into RISC-V: https://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-invests-in-open-source-r...
Also, careful what you say about high schoolers: https://riscv.org/blog/2020/11/13-year-old-nicholas-sharkey-...
https://info.efabless.com/press-release-efabless-launches-ch...
You're not wrong in your assessment. However you're looking at it as it is right now, as opposed to where it's headed for in the future and what it could ultimately become. While CG and computer hardware are very different fields, the effects of communal knowledge sharing are very similar and very powerful. When bored high schoolers and broke college kids (and curious adults) can tinker with the tech, they enter the industry with that much more experience and/or have another avenue for career transition. And that is far more valuable than the mild (and sometimes nonexistent) conveniences of ARM over RISC-V.