Apple is selling hardware (and now services), the software at most should break even. Apple gets obvious benefits from its approach - verticle integration, hw sales...
Microsoft sells software. MS doesn't care if the platform is x86 or ARM. Why would it? MS gets paid either way. As far as its concerned it would offer the option (to make Windows future-proof and run on more devices) and let the market decide.
There are a good amount of chipsets that are now on 5nm processing. But only Apple made a full desktop OS to go with it.
I'm deeply fascinated by these questions. I'd love it if someone in the chip design industry who is knowledgeable about the situation would comment.
Intel has been in trouble for some time due to its own failure to downscale, a failure which has little to do with x86. They'd be losing to someone else if Apple/AMD hadn't been there.
Intel still has some time to recover: it has plenty of money, and Apple/AMD are unable right now to take full advantage of their position. Apple/AMD rely on a supplier (TSMC) which does not have the capacity the supply all or even most of the processor demand, so Intel gets quite a bit of marketshare almost by default.
Imagine 3 years from now there are a bunch of Chromebooks selling at Chromebook prices, but offering intel performance. That would start to hurt Microsoft.
Chromebooks are only relevant in US school system.
Very few people are willing to pay the same price as a regular laptop for what seems just a big browser OS.