> just saying that it’ll inevitably be used, while ignoring the hurdles in the way.

That statement makes no sense. These things aren't in conflict, saying something is 'inevitable' doesn't mean you can't see the hurdles or that you are ignoring them. Its just born out of an understanding of what the hurdles are and how, in time they can be overcome.

> and have very little interest when it’s pointed out.

Maybe they aren't interested because they know its a long road and anytime there is any success its better to just be excited for a moment and not have somebody comes in with the 'but actually'. This is a totally normal social dynamic.

This concept is best addressed in The Big Lebowski, "Your not wrong your just an a*hole".

> For all three it comes down to Software Compatibility

And as an industry we have some understanding of how standards with open protocol work and how the situation improves. RISC-V isn't knew and we have some idea of how that process is going and how it is organized. Its reasonable to make assumptions about how this will continue.

We also have a large and strong open software community that is gone focus on these standards. Even for very large cooperation, maintaining its own standard is a huge pain in the ass.

There is a pretty good standards process with lots of people involved that has been making very good progress.

There is also real money and effort put into improving all the upstreams. The RISE project for example, brings together tons of major companies, universities, distros and so on. And this isn't just about RISC-V, lots of effort also put into tools, open designs and so on.

RISC-V went from no support to be comparable to long established ISA in a pretty short time. Its not unreasonable to project that forward.

> and experience of use

RISC-V has been adopted by a huge number of universities, its the default now anytime somebody upgrades those courses. Anybody doing things on a FPGA, is almost certainty gone use some open RISC-V core. Some FPGA manufactures are even pushing RISC-V as their example cores. RISC-V is also designed to be easy to learn and get into. It already has a lot of adoption all across the industry. Far more and far faster then any other ISA ever.

Experience is gained by people working on projects, and there are lots of them.

> Apple does the same mistake with desktop gaming and Microsoft with almost any physical product they release that’s not running windows.

That's different, because Apple just clearly doesn't care very much. That a very different situation.

> "the underlying tech is built and people will flock to it when they open their eyes"

No they are only observing that large cooperations all over the world are already moving in that direction. That China and India see the advantage as well. That there are major chip makers who have made it the core of their business. That Europe is making a major investment. That there are a whole boatload of AI companies are adopting it. A huge number of people have already seen it and its has been growing fast for a while now and that growth can be measured in a number of ways.

> I really do hope that more open platforms and technologies happen, but I feel like the people who unabashedly push them without acknowledging how it needs to happen are doing them a disservice.

I feel like those people mostly exist in your imagination. When speaking in support of something you are not required to follow it up with a 50-page development plan. You can just like something and be optimistic and that is totally fine, it doesn't mean that person is naive or unaware.

If you have an actual counter argument why optimism isn't warranted, then you can say that. Some people believe RISC-V is badly designed for example. Some people believe fragmentation will kill it. But just to outright state 'people who are optimistic are a problem' is a silly position.