ARM is relatively open, but it is actually a closed instruction set architecture. Manufacturers using ARM architecture can only make some adjustments to their products according to their own needs, and cannot change the original design. After so many years of development, the ARM architecture has become complicated, and there are some problems such as patents and licensing fees.
RISC-V has been positioned as a completely open source architecture from the beginning, with more concise architecture documents and more than 40 basic instructions. Moreover, an instruction set supports all architectures and modular designs, and users can customize it freely according to their own needs. In short, RISC-V is much more open than ARM, and the project started at the University of California, Berkeley, 20 10. As a latecomer, I have little burden and can stand in front of my predecessors.
Of course, RISC-V is not without its shortcomings. Its disadvantage is that its birth time is too short, and the related ecological elements are still developing, which is still far behind the ecology of ARM. Moreover, ARM has occupied most of the mobile processor market at present, and RISC-V has little chance in this field. However, if Apple turns to RISC-V, it is an opportunity, but due to Apple's closeness, the scope is still limited.
So the opportunity of RISC-V is still in the emerging field. RISC-V and ARM are the same starting line on the field. RISC-V is likely to beat ARM with the characteristics of open source, or occupy a considerable share. In fact, with the domestic manufacturers banned by the United States, RISC-V, a completely open architecture, should be the key development object in China. In fact, domestic related enterprises are deeply involved in RISC-V, so they can still be optimistic about RISC-V.
As for the news that Apple turned to RISC-V, it is actually only a rumor at present, and it is still uncertain. However, the Apple-style turn is normal. After all, Apple pursues autonomous control. After all, it is hard to say what a closed company like NVIDIA will do if ARM is acquired by NVIDIA. Apple naturally doesn't want to be influenced by NVIDIA.
Moreover, the Apple system itself is relatively closed, and the software and hardware are controlled by itself. The impact and difficulty of its steering is not as great as that of other manufacturers, and it can better control its own direction. However, this matter is not a short-term thing. At present, it is still the world of ARM in related fields. Don't think that arm won't work.
Advantages of apple's risc-v over arm;
1, saving license fees.
2. Without the historical burden of x86 and arm, it can be redesigned.
3, open, can customize the instruction set according to different scenarios, such as servers, office desktops, mobile devices, wearable devices, industries or sensors.
4. Apple has a good ecology. No matter the original ppc, later x86, now arm and later risc-v, they can be almost transparent to users and developers through their own tool chains.
But the shortcomings are also obvious, and the latter is much more mature in ecology than the former. Apple has the ability to make money, so now it can go up and make a slow transition.
M 1 has just been released. Is this going to change again?
The latecomers came from the top, which solved many problems existing in ARM. The backward compatibility burden of ARM is too heavy.