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).
https://www.theverge.com/2013/5/16/4337954/intel-could-have-...
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.).
I think Intel probably deserves a mention in the article but that line of question feels like the wrong angle of approach for it.
My only point is that the story of Intel’s disorganized retreat is at least as relevant as Apple’s march forward
