It's going to be a very sad day when consumer electronics win over industrial applications.
And if your making an MRI machine or other industrial equipment that consumes a huge amount of power, the fact your attached computer uses 300W vs 600W doesn't really seem like much of a big deal.
Apple has a head start with their ARM machines, but I'm also not really worried that the rest of the industry won't catch up in a few years eventually. You can only really pull off the new architecture trick once or twice, and being a leader has a way of inspiring competitors.
Apple's software and OS is also horrible to use in server applications, you only do it if you need to do it, such as iOS CI, device testing and such. Otherwise you avoid it as much as you can.
Apparently not.
The Mac has gone from Motorola 68000 to PowerPC to Intel to ARM.
And if needed, they could do it again.
None of these machines have used Macs, ever. Why would anything Apple does affect this market?
Apple is gobbling up its supply chain and using precious fab slots. It affects others.
This sounds more like a pitch for letting the MRI machine talk to the laptop than putting redundant chips in every device.
Do you want to put a rack of laptops inside the machine, waste several screens and keyboards? Log into every laptop with your AppleID before you can start your machine? It's such an inelegant solution.
Instead, the x86/Linux environment lets you put multiple mainboards in a machine, or you can choose a mainboard with more processors; it is a much more flexible solution in industrial settings.
This sounds like a huge security risk.