For Apple it worked because they waited until they had a really, really good ARM ISA CPU (combined with arguably sandbagging their x86 offering for a few years prior but I digress).

Qualcomm is also working on a really good ARM ISA CPU with their acquisition of NuVia and subsequent Oryon architecture.

Meanwhile this is just using off-the-shelf ARM CPUs in a MediaTek SoC with blackwell bolted to the side of it. ARM's CPUs so far have been subpar for laptop-class chips. Hence why neither Apple nor Qualcomm are using them.

▲

dijit 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> arguably sandbagging their x86 offering

tbh, I always read this as Intel doing some sales magic here.

Apple: "Hey, we're making a product that has a 15w thermal envelope, do you have anything?"

Intel: "Yes!"

(Unspoken: their products will throttle down to fit, in fact, they will try to run always at 99ºC so you always get the best performance! FEATURE!)

Apple: "uhhhh..."

Consumers: "HEH IS IT EVEN A PRO DEVICE IF IT DOESN"T HAVE <INTEL MARKETING BRAND TERM>?"

Apple: "UHHHH... Guess we'll do it ourselves"

	▲	kllrnohj 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> tbh, I always read this as Intel doing some sales magic here. Possibly, but Apple choosing a new, thicker chassis the same generation that they introduce their more power efficient replacement is certainly a thing. Even if Intel failed to achieve the TDP they told Apple, Apple also seems to no longer believe the thinness they were doing was viable for that TDP anyway. Intel's product offering certainly wasn't as compelling towards the end there, but it also looked almost uniquely bad in Apple's chassis vs everyone else's