People like to compare RISC-V to Linux, which I think it is just wrong.
Linux is something that you can download from kernel.org, compile it and bring it up over night. It's a package with a bunch of scripts that compiles a working kernel for your machine. All the work is already done for you.
RISC-V, on the other hand, it is just a document describing an ISA. It is far different from a working implementation.
RISC-V might shine on micro-controllers and on power management control units, since those applications are more simple and more affordable to implement from scratch.
But on high-end applications, it will be no different from ARM's path. Implementing an high performant CPU costs money, someone will have to cater those costs, either by hiring a full team of highly specialized engineers (which will cost a bunch of money) or by licensing to third parties (which will also cost money through licenses or royalties).
Linux is something that you can download from kernel.org, compile it and bring it up over night. It's a package with a bunch of scripts that compiles a working kernel for your machine. All the work is already done for you.
RISC-V, on the other hand, it is just a document describing an ISA. It is far different from a working implementation.
RISC-V might shine on micro-controllers and on power management control units, since those applications are more simple and more affordable to implement from scratch.
But on high-end applications, it will be no different from ARM's path. Implementing an high performant CPU costs money, someone will have to cater those costs, either by hiring a full team of highly specialized engineers (which will cost a bunch of money) or by licensing to third parties (which will also cost money through licenses or royalties).