Apple's M-series chips are dominating the market, leaving Qualcomm and Intel wondering about this ARM 'slice of the pie'.

At this point, encountering ARM-based computers or laptops is no longer a novelty for macOS users, but for Windows users, it remains somewhat elusive.

Browsing through the most popular social media platforms, it's easy to spot users sharing about the 2021 MacBook Pro with the Apple M1 Pro or the latest Mac mini with the Apple M2. ARM processors have taken over Apple's entire range of computer products, affirming the company's ambitions for the future of mobile processors.

However, looking back at the Windows laptop segment, it's hard, even very hard, to find a machine that supports ARM architecture. But even the efforts from giants like Qualcomm with powerful processors like the Snapdragon 8CX Gen 2 and Snapdragon 8CX Gen 3 haven't made a difference as they lack compatibility with many applications. So, why has only Apple succeeded with ARM on PCs while Qualcomm and Intel haven't?

Returning to the early days of processors and Windows

Returning to the early days, processors were incredibly expensive components for the entire computer industry. This was inevitable due to limited production capabilities and the high cost of manufacturing materials. Consequently, hardware manufacturers and software developers had to carefully calculate before launching products for end users.

Manufacturers made many calculations based on the instructions executed by both processor types. For x86, they used the Complex Instruction Set Computer architecture, which enhanced task processing with complexity in data segments. Additionally, the complex instruction architecture of x86 also helped reduce the burden on RAM because the processor only had to handle very few tasks, but each task was usually heavier and required much more power.

As for the ARM architecture, the instruction set used is Reduced Instructions Set Computer (RISC). This is a very simple instruction set with a series of tasks designed for ARM architecture. This allows the processor to handle tasks more smoothly, work faster, but in return, it will have many tasks and relatively consume the system's RAM.

As mentioned earlier, the market must yield profits while keeping input costs in check. Even if optimization is achieved, excessively high costs are a major limitation for end users. Therefore, computer manufacturers at that time opted for simpler architectures more suitable for the majority of users.

The x86 architecture has been applied since then, with the advantage of saving a considerable amount of memory for equivalent tasks. Something ARM couldn't achieve at that time. Over time, there have been many software or operating systems that only support x86 architecture and changing that was impossible.

Apple M1 shakes up Apple's market like a cannon shot

Frankly speaking, Apple was right to monopolize the production from hardware to software, ushering in a completely new era for its future devices. That's also why Apple could swiftly transition its entire system to ARM architecture.

The macOS operating system has long been known as a hardware-optimized product with impressive software. This allowed Apple to develop it more fittingly for the processors the company had chosen. In subsequent versions, you'll notice a lot of similarities between iOS, iPadOS, and macOS.

Thanks to the shared experience from both ARM and x86, Apple's transition wasn't too complicated. Essentially, Apple M1's hardware is also developed from Apple A14 Bionic, so there weren't many changes for Apple to optimize its software. The biggest challenge for the company at this time was third-party software.

Apple's choice was to use a translator to translate software code into the language of ARM architecture. The company used the Rosetta 2 code translator to handle the tasks mentioned above until third-party software companies could timely provide native versions.

What's notable is that Apple's over-optimization using the translation tool also resulted in too much delay during usage. This helped the company gain more public recognition and assertiveness about the strength of its software.

Furthermore, good optimization was also a pretext for Apple to assert its processor's strength compared to previous Intel products. Consequently, showcasing its improvements and attracting more customers. Also, if you notice, subsequent software versions are all translated for ARM, so x86 MacBook models will become inferior, almost pressuring users to switch to Apple's ARM.

So why doesn't Windows do this?

Apple is vertically integrated from hardware to software and final products for end users. But with Windows, it's different. All components and even software are shared with many partners for collaborative development. For example: Processors may come from Intel or AMD while software comes from Microsoft.

Switching to ARM on Windows is neither simple nor cheap for manufacturers. Apple may have paid a lot for software manufacturers to perform code translation for their products. But with Windows, who will foot the bill for that?

Actually, Windows hasn't never been produced for ARM processors. The Snapdragon 850 previously for Qualcomm's PCs is evidence of this. However, the major hurdle of app availability has hindered the success of the product and consequently, it's not widely adopted by app developers to become popular.

Some major manufacturers like Adobe also have ARM software versions on Windows, but due to the limited number of products, they're not widely spread. ARM-based Windows laptops are scarce, so there aren't many users cracking these software and have to pay for them if they want to use them, which is also a significant barrier.

Secondly, we need to address the power of processors. Snapdragon SQ3 is a notable processor line with strong performance and good battery life. However, Intel's extensive improvements to its Core i processors have overshadowed the power of the Snapdragon SQ3, leading to less attention.

Comparing Intel Gen 12 with Qualcomm's ARM processor line, the performance difference becomes even more evident. You can explore performance across processor lines through the newly launched Microsoft Surface Pro 9 tablet at the end of 2022 to see this more clearly.

Behind Qualcomm's ARM lies true efficiency with chip lines having a TDP below 10W. In contrast, Intel has added TDP levels for its mainstream chip lines up to 28W or even 35W. This significantly surpasses in power. Unfortunately, Qualcomm isn't Apple, so the performance isn't optimized as much.

Regardless, ARM may be the future for benefits from product battery life and temperature during usage, but Windows is vast. It's not easy to change quickly. Launching products with not much breakthrough in performance isn't getting much user attention.

Conclusion

ARM remains a lucrative market for power-efficient laptops like Ultrabooks that can extend battery life while ensuring product performance and temperature. However, for success, Qualcomm, Intel, or Microsoft must collaborate to optimize and introduce truly native applications for the operating system and make significant performance breakthroughs.

• Explore more articles in the Discover section