This does seem curious.
OK, so Intel has good (self-interest == profit) reasons for trying to migrate products to x86 instruction architectures, and also for trying to retain those developers with legacy ARM code who wouldn't switch.
But what is the actual playoff between the two architectures like?
We all know the ARM architecture to be small and efficient, but how much 'smaller' (more processing/Watt) is it?
We can't just compare any two random -or even the most modern- chips, because intel's ARMs lag behind in process size and so on. I guess this primarily involves the gate-count, but other system requirements, like code density, probably should be taken in to account.
Personally, I'd like to see the most efficient architecture win, which at the moment I expect to be ARM.
Since Intel have belatedly decided to improve efficiency by moving to multiple cores, what is the chance of the same thing happening for ARM?
It would be good if this gave the ARM-architecture an unassailable position relative to x86. This might then mean progress the other way, with desktop and supercomputer class ARM chips!