RISC showed what you could do with a clean sheet and the battle has really been about whether we can afford the cost of changing to a new instruction set just because it's better by a bit.
68000 -> PowerPC -> x86 -> arm
Apple has been through 4 architectures in 30 years. Given enough money and tyranny (as in "were doing this" kind of leadership, vs committee) its apparently not that terrible.
POWER is probably the most RISC-y architecture in use at the high end right now, but it still looks like CISC to the people who originally came up with that idea.
My view, even when I was studying RISC V in grad school around 6 years ago, was that RISC is clearly superior technically and this would only become more obvious with Moore's Law dying. I think subsequent events are only confirming this view. The strongest evidence for it is that nobody would even think about making a new CISC architecture that isn't x86.
x86 platforms also tend to let you run your own code, and are associated with 'proper computers/proper operating systems' where you have full access to your own device.
The vast majority of non-x86 devices are of the 'locked down and dumbed-down' variety. Content consumption devices built around monopolistic App Stores and touch-centric UIs. They tend to be entirely non-upgradable and, increasingly, actively repair-resistant, too.
The market for a 'real computer' may be shrinking, but it's premature to call them 'legacy devices'.
(It'd be nice if serious ARM-based PCs became more of an option though, not just little devices like the Pi, or glued-in-battery Apple products, but fully-upgradeable replacements for a high-end x86 workstation or gaming PC)
What you are dismissing is by-the-book disruptive competition.
I expect it helps a lot that AMD can easily provide competitive x86 and GPU cores in one SoC, as they’re already building similar APUs - just with smaller graphics segments?