Ultimately, the 2016 MBPs are a great example of why Apple needs to divest from Intel. The poor timing for Kaby Lake mobile processors and lack of low-power RAM were both Apple's reasons stated when the topic of "the MBP isn't keeping up with the competition" arises.
And who's to say that macOS.next will be anything similar to the current macOS?
Intel based Android devices have an ARM emulator on board (libhoudini) and claim to be ARM when querying the store, in order to not have a software offering disadvantage.
As far as Intel based phones, that's even easier, tell developers they are realeasing an x86 based phone in the next year, either you bundle an x86 version - again you're already testing an x86 build every time you run the emulator - or you'll lose compatibility. Apple has never been afraid to abandon apps when it transistioned processors.
The Android situation is different, if people have a choice between buying an Android device that is 70 percent compatible and one that is 100% compatible. The one that is 70 percent compatible is at a disadvantage. But if people want an iOS device and Apple switches to Intel and they lose some apps what choice do they have?
That's not what the article is talking about and it's a bad idea for UX reasons (no touchscreen).
And who's to say that macOS.next will be anything similar to the current macOS?
Don't even go there; a vocal minority of Mac users including me do not want anything like that. And getting back to the article, if the OS is radically different then presumably it doesn't need both Intel and ARM processors.
Windows 10 Apps seem to have bridged the divide between mobile and desktop, and run fine on both.
It wasn't instant, Windows has been trying to bring this divide closer since Windows 8... and after so long they're pretty much succeeded with the Surface tablet/laptop.
I'm a Mac user too. Unfortunately, Apple is notorious for doing what they think is right, regardless of their user base. Need I say "lightning headphones" or "no magsafe, just USB-C"?
Both of these strike me as positioning for the future Apple wants despite the concerns the vocal parts of their userbase.
That's not to say Apple doesn't release terrible things at times (hockey puck mouse[1]?), but I have trouble imagining Apple releasing one of those. (Laplet? tabletop?)
[1] I actually think that may have been calculated - it is impossible that Jobs didn't know it was a shitty mouse, but alongside the iMac, it got a ton of attention at the time Apple really needed it.
I've heard similar sentiments quite a few times. However, there's little reason to believe that Apple would have been able to meet their needs better than Intel could have. It's not like Intel's development schedule was misaligned with Apple. They just couldn't get the processor out in time.
Never say never, but that is the sort of thing Apple would never do.
