The real message from this is that ARM is hard to work with and creates risk, and therefore we should all want alternatives.
They're not alone in this.
NVIDIA is the leader in treating customers as serfs.
The classic example being the OG XBOX which came with discrete PC grade CPU and GPU chips to get DirectX into a console fast. The price for "fast" was selling the console at a loss early because of low volume. Once the platform was established and selling at volume, MS tried to negotiate volume discounts and NVIDIA refused.
As a result, for their followup console MS swore off discrete chips and opted for a custom SOC. Again, NVIDIA refused to help or license any part of their tech. Discrete chips off the PC parts bin or no deal.
AMD was only too happy to license their tech and do custom chips for MS. Not only did they get a 90M chip contract, they wormed their way onto the CPU side of the following 2" generations for XBOX *and* Playstation. Neither bothered to talk to NVIDIA.
Right now, NVIDIA is riding high off their "AI" focused GPUs selling as high as $40K each. Practically a captive market. For now. Because every single big datacenter customer is busy designing their own GPUs optimized for their proprietary servers. Initially they're being used to fill in demand that exceeds their NVIDIA chip supply. But as those new architectures mature there will be a tipping point where the proprietary chips can and will displace the NVIDIA chips. On price, if not necessarily peak performance.
ARM is, like NVIDIA, assuming their hold on their customers is eternal.
It isn't. They've shown their true colors and it no longer matters if they settle in or out of court or win or lose in court. Every well run company will need to plan for a potential exit from the ARM domain. Because ARM can just as easily come for them at any time.
Hubris is its own reward.