• KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    If apple is viable for consumers, and apple uses ARM, then ARM is viable for consumers.

    Windows and Linux being unfortunately behind is not an argument against ARM being viable, it shows it’s not ready - however, apple was in the same situation before they moved to ARM, so theoretically Microsoft could attempt a similar investment and push towards ARM. Apple’s control over both hardware and software certainly helped them, and went well for them.

    That said, maybe it’s a disagreement on terminology. When I say that ARM is viable, I mean that it’s ready to create hardware and software that does what people need it to do. Apple clearly succeeded, now it’s a question of if/when manufacturers start making open hardware and software starts compatibility… Or if maybe another option will succeed instead.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      RISCV is also viable to create hardware and software to do what people need.

      The software just doesn’t exist yet.

      • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t… But we have definitive proof ARM is, in the form of actual consumer systems on the market.

        • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          ARM has been in consumer systems since Android.

          We also have proof that ARM sucks for gaming and has many compatibility issues running X86 programs.

          Is ARM more mature than RISCV? Yes definitely. But just like RISCV ARM is also not a replacement for X86. Especially when running games or professional proprietary garbage software X86 is still the way to go.