Sung Kim if you are going to accuse someone of being clueless you have to make the case for that. Don't simply make assertions. There is nothing "click bait" about the article, as that would imply it covered something very different than the title suggested. But the article is tackling exactly the question posed in the title.

I have not problems being wrong about something as I am not claiming to be an expert. However it is impossible for me to correct anything in the story if you cannot even point out what you believe to be untrue.

Aslo before judging you need to actually read the story properly. I made no claims that Apple would be better off jumping from ARM to RISC-V. In fact if you have followed my reading, I have repeatedly made it clear that I think ARM is the best choice for Apple at this point in time.

This story deals with the hypothetical assumption that RISC-V was the better choice. What then? The claim by some readers as been that that somehow would paint Apple into a corner. I made the case here that hardware transistions are Apple's bread and butter. They know how to do that. They could deal with a RISC-V transition better than almost anybody else in the industry if they had to. That was what the whole article was about. It was not an article arguing Apple "should" transition to RISC-V. This seems to be your misconception.

If there is anything in the story that made you mistankenly think this, then please point it out and I can make adustments to avoid that other readers miss the point.