I don't think it will. This is clearly a totally reactionary move of a company that has been absolutely trounced in the commercial market by ARM and saw the writing on the wall that once RISC-V established itself the few gaps they lived in would be eventually replaced.<p>This, 'throw it over the wall' style open sourcing has worked before, Docker being an example.<p>The problem is their current 'open' strategy is probably not open and dynamic enough to compete with RISC-V. And the consumers that don't care still don't have much reason to use it over ARM.<p>Maybe they can find a gap but I don't think they have a long term growth curve.
Genuine question related to riscv: what is the value of a standard when a majority of it is part of optional extensions? Doesn't that make riscv a ton of distinct standards, marketed as one?<p>RV32I is nothing close to RV64IMAFDQCPBS. It seems like all the fragmentation standards are made to avoid packaged up as a "standard" to make sure everything under the sun can use risc-v.<p>(see also usb-c)
> Can MIPS Leapfrog RISC-V?<p>Not if the company will continue being run by the legal department. From industry insiders, I heard people having exchanges with them like "you are gonna fail, thus we are not gonna be working with you..."<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18701898" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18701898</a>
How much does open-source hardware really matter? It sounds really cool, and i hope it takes off. But is this really where the industry is going, or is this a flash in the pan that gets a lot of attention from people like us?
> MIPS’ target customers will include Arm licensees looking for alternatives.<p>> MIPS’ advantages over competitors are many. Its instruction sets already have extensions such as SIMD (single instruction, multiple data) and DSP.<p>But…ARM has those things?
Here is some more info about the MIPS Open community MIPS is trying to establish:<p><a href="https://www.mips.com/mipsopen/" rel="nofollow">https://www.mips.com/mipsopen/</a><p>Based on the FAQ, older MIPS architectures, for example Release 5 is not included, only Release 6. I don't see any info about what the exact license they plan to use.
Give me a big fat MIPS pizza box for the 21st Century, and I'm in. Give me a pocketable mobile MIPS device, and I'm in as well.<p>As long as they both work together as platforms.
>Swift added, “The 30+ year legacy of MIPS architecture should mean something. It’s a value.”<p>This reads so desperate. "should mean something" betrays they're not even sure themselves.