I think the problem with ARM on the Windows side is that there's no commitment. Qualcomm isn't going to want to create a new category of processor for Windows machines (ie. a 10-15 watt part) without a huge commitment from Microsoft that ARM will end up as a large portion of Windows future (rather than just a single "look, we made an ARM surface that a few people will buy" project). Without that commitment, Qualcomm will certainly supply Microsoft with mobile phone processors, but those will be very slow by comparison. Qualcomm's mobile processors are half of Apple's single-core performance, nevermind the M1.
Part of the problem is that no one can (or wants to) force the issue. Apple got up on stage and said, "three years from now, we won't be selling Intel-based laptops. If you don't get on the train, you'll be left behind." Microsoft won't do that. Without that commitment, why should a software firm port its applications to ARM? Every software firm should be thinking, "if we don't do any work, Windows on ARM will be miserable and never get traction." Likewise, any chip maker is going to say, "I don't want to invest in ARM laptop/desktop chips until it's clear that ARM is going to be a major part of the Windows ecosystem." Finally customers are going to think, "I'm not going to buy an ARM laptop until it's clear that Microsoft, the chipmakers, and software firms are all behind this." No one is willing to commit to the future because that future won't exist unless they all move in unison.
Apple solves most of that "in-unison" problem. They're the chipmaker, they're the OS maker, and they're the device maker. The only thing Apple doesn't control is third-party devs. However, when you can move three of the four wheels, the other comes along. Apple burned its bridges behind it - or at least is telling the public that. Sure, Apple could abandon its ARM transition and move back to Intel, but realistically they're all-in for Apple Silicon.
The Windows world is going to continue to be stuck in a loop where no one wants to commit. Microsoft introduces a solitary ARM-based machine. The processor is worse than Intel's offerings, apps don't support it, they haven't put the effort into a Rosetta 2 that Apple has (you'll have a compatibility layer, but not as good), and third parties aren't rushing to support it (c'mon, it's one niche device). There's no incentive for any party to work hard on this - even Microsoft. If they put lots of effort into a Rosetta 2 system, that's basically wasted effort if ARM isn't going to be a significant part of the future. Might as well wait and see if the ARM laptop catches on before pouring more effort into it. But that becomes a self-fulfilling failure. Without Microsoft committing its full resources to ARM (or substantial enough resources), it will be a second-class experience which will mean that it will fail and not justify continued investment.
It requires a leap of faith that Microsoft doesn't have right now. It would require Microsoft to put a lot of effort behind software on ARM. It would require Microsoft to commission an ARM-chip worthy of a top-tier device (and probably lose a lot of money on it for a couple generations while people are skeptical of it). It requires Microsoft to get in front of the world and say, "we're going to make ARM a first-class platform for Windows and we'll show that commitment over the next 3-4 years until you finally believe it."
Apple is in an easier position for a few reasons. As I said before, they control more of the stack. There won't be Intel-based laptops a couple years ago for people to compare ARM laptops with. However, the biggest bit might be that they were already making their own chips. Apple was already making chips with double the single-core performance for mobile devices. When Apple launched the M1 Macs, they offered a huge improvement over Intel while lowering power consumption and heat production (and fan noise) by incredible levels. By contrast, when Microsoft puts a Snapdragon into one of their machines, they're usually looking at a slightly slower processor and it gets worse from there without a great Rosetta 2, without app developers on board with porting their apps, etc. Apple's M1 Macs have so many advantages: they're clearly a lot faster, they're clearly a lot cooler temperature-wise, they can run iOS apps (even if that's flawed in some ways), Rosetta 2 offers ahead-of-time translation for a lot of things offering closer-to-native performance even for non-ported things, and app developers are all rushing to get on board.
For a customer, an M1 Mac is so exciting - they're amazing devices with huge advantages and a guaranteed commitment from the ecosystem. By contrast, Windows on ARM basically only comes with disadvantages, no compelling reason to try one, and no buy-in from the greater ecosystem.