Microsoft recently announced its Copilot+ PCs and, at the same time, announced new ARM-based Surface computers. Intel and AMD were pointedly part of the presentation, but the talk about ARM processors, the battery-life improvements, comparisons with Apple’s M processors, and, importantly, the capability to run Intel-based applications (also known as x86) in a competent emulator leave a massive unanswered question hanging. If Microsoft can achieve this transfer from Intel-based processors to ARM based processors, what market is left for Intel?

A comparison has occurred to me: Nokia.

Nokia were dominant in cellphones. They had the best hardware and the best software, such that it was. I had Nokia phones most of the time between 1999 and 2010 or so. By 2010, it had become clear that the future was owned by the iPhone and Android. It was clear to everyone except, apparently, Nokia, who stubbornly clung to their in-house software and ecosystem. Calling Symbian an “ecosystem” feels generous… The app store on Nokia was woeful, and very soon it became clear that developers developed apps first for iPhone, sometimes next for Android, and rarely for Nokia or Blackberry.

Nokia were eventually bought by Microsoft after they finally decided that their software was not going to win and jumped the wrong way – to Windows Phone. Windows Phone should have done better, but that’s a thought for another time (or this The Register article).

What Nokia should have done was convert to Android. Android was clearly the Windows of phones, and it should have been clear that if they wanted to be a part of the future, that was their only option. If they had, I would have stayed with Nokia, happily.

Intel and AMD’s turning point

And I believe Intel and AMD are in the same place now. They think that they would be giving away huge amounts of margin if they abandoned their bespoke chip development, but Qualcomm, Apple, Google, and Microsoft have made it clear that the future lays with ARM’s RISC chips. Every Android cellphone, every Apple Mac, MacBook, iPad, and iPhone, the Nintendo Switch, and soon, I suspect, every PC will be running ARM-based chips.

There are two reasons Intel and AMD chips have hung on so far: Games and other legacy software, and the lack of a good emulation layer. If Microsoft’s new emulation layer (“Prism”) is as good as they claim, there is no reason to imagine people and businesses won’t start buying these new ARM-based PCs. And if they do, games developers will quickly swap over (as they have for the Switch).

There’s also the question of the Xbox and PlayStation – they both currently run an AMD x86 based processor, which makes game porting (I imagine) relatively easy from Xbox and PlayStation to PC. With the success of iPad and Mac, and with this new Prism emulator, might the next generation go ARM? If so, might porting from console to Apple Silicon / Windows on ARM be easier than supporting legacy processors?

If I were an Intel or AMD shareholder, I would be seriously concerned about the future viability of the companies, especially given that neither company has a single product that meets the specifications necessary to call their computers Copilot+ PCs. They’re not even close.

If Microsoft is betting the future of Windows on ARM computers, which they appear to be doing, then Intel’s role as leader in chips is going to be in serious jeopardy.

What do you think? Am I too optimistic about ARM, or too pessimistic about Intel’s ability to pivot? Will Intel learn the lessons of Kodak and Nokia, or are these comparisons inaccurate? Tell me in the comments below.