[Jtsummers]

> one must explain how and why Apple decided to develop their own (first mobile, then computer) chips in the first place instead of sticking with Intel.

Re mobile:

1. Timelines. Apple only transitioned to Intel in 2006 on their computer side, the first iPhone was announced in 2006. As a company they had little overall Intel experience. There was no "sticking with Intel" because they'd just switched to Intel concurrent with the development and release of the iPhone

2. iPod. Apple's prior mobile devices were already using ARM processors. That's a lot of experience and existing supply chain connections to take advantage of.

3. Mobile Intel chips sucked. They drew too much power and were not suitable at that time for a mobile device like a phone (already more power hungry with the wireless components compared to something like an iPod).

[klausa]

The parallel version of history in which iPhone launched with an Intel CPU inside is not _that_ far off:

https://www.theverge.com/2013/5/16/4337954/intel-could-have-...

[Arn_Thor]

Right. So the story of how Intel lost the world’s single biggest customer goes as far back as that and raises the question of why the world’s leading, at the time, chip maker couldn’t or wouldn’t make mobile chips.

Also, when Apple switched to ARM for their desktops the core motivation may have been to bring everything in house. But they gained a momentous advantage in the market because the chips they made were so much better than Intel’s. Again, explaining what happened to Intel to make them lag the cutting edge should imo be the key question, not why Apple made a rational business decision (albeit possibly an unethical one. Shareholder capitalism has entered the conversation.).