I don't think that makes sense. RISC-V is by definition a new ISA, M1 is based on the existing ARM ISA.
This is ARM to RISC V.
Yeah, they really have got their work cut out for themselves!
It's kind of an issue for ARM too but they're a bit further towards solving it than RISC-V.
In any case it's mainly a problem for people that want OS updates or the ability to install other OSes, so it's not going to affect app writers or normal users much.
Can you elaborate on why you think so?
I understand it is the opposite: RISC-V is much further towards solving it.
This is because RISC-V has put effort from the start into standardizing boot process (spl -> sbi -> uboot|uefi), ISA (profiles), the firmware-kernel interface (sbi, uefi protocol, acpi) as well as the platform itself (platform spec, standards for interrupts, timers, hypervisor support, the uart requirement, the watchdog and further platform standardization efforts).
This has happened (and is happening still) before significant deployment of SoCs using RISC-V microarchitectures as the application processor.
Meanwhile, ARM realized, quite late, that this is important, and is lagging behind, with plenty of non-fixable, bespoke platform hardware deployed, and low vendor uptake as they are asking their clients to change what they already have in place.
Yes. The experience will be equal or better over the IBM PC-derived platform, by design.
PC was an accidental platform, RISC-V platform spec is an intentional (and very informed) one.
A transition to RISC-V will be cold turkey. It's technically possible of course to build one CPU that can run both A64 and RV64, but only ARM can legally do it, and they probably won't unless they're really losing, sometime 5 or 10 years from now.