> x86 is never going to reclaim the crown of most important architecture
To be clear, I assume you are including 32-bit and 64-bit, e.g., x86-64. I am surprised by this comment. To me, x86 won the architecture battle because of Linux (and less Microsoft Windows). Nothing is so cheap to deploy and maintain as a Linux server that runs x86-64 procs. Yes, I know you can buy single board computers, but x86 wins in the triangulation of dollars-watts-performance. If you disagree, what do you think is the most important architecture today?As time goes on, more and more ARM chips will take roles traditionally taken by x86-64. Hell, ARM is already the best-selling architecture. Laws of scale will dictate that investments in x86-64 will fail to keep pace with ARM. Apple Silicon is already showing a small fragment of that effect. The chips are incredibly competitive, and for what Apple has chosen to focus on (perf-per-watt), unbeatable. ARM investments by other companies are catching up to Apple, and x86-64 does not make enough money to reverse that trend.
Look at it this way; Apple can design their own cores whether they use ARM or RISC-V, and control the software from top to bottom either way. Nvidia's already shipping RISC-V microcontrollers to cut down on manufacturing margins, and without better options the rest of the world might follow. ARM's dominance is only possible if better RISC options don't exist; and for anyone that's not ARM the idea of IP serfdom sounds awful.