Yeah, you figured it out. Those systems didn't fail because they were uneconomical despite their tangible benefits to the end user, they failed because of... royalty fees. Yeah, guess all of that homework you've been doing on the marketing sections of riscv.org has really paid off, huh?
Established chipmakers who blow billions of dollars on R&D and manufacturing costs every year couldn't give less of a fuck about a one-time fee of a couple million dollars and a paltry 1%-2% royalty rate that amounts to a few tens of dollars on chips that cost thousands at worst. ARM makers don't seem to have any problem meeting their targets and remaining profitable, something that selling a product people actually want is going to make easier.
Going back to the original discussion, I recall MIPS and Alpha systems in particular because they too were the kinds of systems expected to eventually usurp the Intel stranglehold on the PC market, and they had a lot more going for them than RISC-V probably ever will; commercial hardware and software support, compatibility (they actually ran Windows, and not some shitty locked down baby version of it either,) and actual advantages that affect every user, not just nerds and the ethically minded. RISC-V doesn't have any of this, to 95% of end users it's a new sticker on the case and a whole lot of software that won't run anymore. To think that a platform dominated by a handful of irrelevant crowdfunded startups that can barely generate enough interest to get a basic general-purpose SBC out of the door is going to change the status quo in any way is absolutely delusional. The only fool here is yourself for gargling so much marketing hype like crusty balls in a back alley.
