Sung, this is all well known by me. You are not saying anything new here.

If you don't take time to read the articles you respond to, and only blurts out stuff based on reading a headline, I will just delete your comments. They add no value to the discussion.

Re-read the article and then see if you can modify your original response. I keep these comment sections so people can come with constructive criticism, suggestions for improvements, add interesting information or have a useful discussion going.

Comments which are not constructive and not adding to the discussion are not welcome.

Let me just repeat what I have already stated: I have never said Apple should adopt RISC-V. In fact this is the Nth time I am emphasising this. I have in previous response an numerous medium articles argued that ARM is the best choice for Apple. I made this clear already back in 2016: https://erik-engheim.medium.com/in-3-years-apple-will-switch-from-intel-to-arm-a6816058a1b2

Repeating myself again, as you don't seem to take time to read my responses properly. This article was to answer the hypthetical: What if RISC-V turned out better and Apple ought to switch. Would they be at a disadvantage relative to the competition. My argument was: "No".

Also you are misunderstanding the license model for RISC-V. Don't call other people clueless about the industry if don't know the basics of what is being discussed. RISC-V does not require you to negotiate with anybody to add an extension. If Apple used RISC-V they could add whatever extension they wished. This is clearly stated in most introductions to RISC-V. Most companies however would want to use an extension which is an industry standard as that give better access to tools, a richer ecosystem etc.