The watch is part of the iPhone ecosystem. You can't use a Watch without buying an iPhone. The watch is an accessory to the iPhone.
From a software side, WatchOS is a trimmed down version of iOS and share many of the same frameworks. The HomePod is an even further trimmed down version of iOS.
"Designing x86 based hardware" is relatively easy. Intel does all of the heavy lifting with designing and integrating the components. Apple has shown any expertise in designing chips that are a match for Intel's on the high end.
Every other processor transition that Apple has done - 68K -> PPC -> Intel involved a massive CPU advantage that made emulation viable. That wouldn't be the case with x86 -> ARM. On the other hand, Apple had to migrate processors just to stay competitive with Wintel each time. If they stay with Intel, they don't have to worry about not having competitive performance with other PC manufacturers.
Finally, Apple has shown no expertise in delivering chips that are competitive with Intel on the high end. I'm sure they could do it, but they don't get the benefit of spreading their engineering fixed costs across almost a quarter billion devices a year if they develop a high end ARM desktop chip like they do with iOS devices.
> The watch is part of the iPhone ecosystem. You can't use a Watch without buying an iPhone. The watch is an accessory to the iPhone.
So? The iPhone was part of the pc ecosystem, for years you needed a pc to even set it up. That says nothing about its architecture or the resources required to develop it.
It says a lot. The watch can either lead to more sales of the iPhone because if you want an Apple Watch, you have to buy an iPhone. If you have an iPhone, the Watch provides additional functionality to the iPhone.
The Mac doesn't benefit enough from the iPhone tie-in to make it worthwhile as an adjunct to the iPhone.
From a software side, WatchOS is a trimmed down version of iOS and share many of the same frameworks. The HomePod is an even further trimmed down version of iOS.
"Designing x86 based hardware" is relatively easy. Intel does all of the heavy lifting with designing and integrating the components. Apple has shown any expertise in designing chips that are a match for Intel's on the high end.
Every other processor transition that Apple has done - 68K -> PPC -> Intel involved a massive CPU advantage that made emulation viable. That wouldn't be the case with x86 -> ARM. On the other hand, Apple had to migrate processors just to stay competitive with Wintel each time. If they stay with Intel, they don't have to worry about not having competitive performance with other PC manufacturers.
Finally, Apple has shown no expertise in delivering chips that are competitive with Intel on the high end. I'm sure they could do it, but they don't get the benefit of spreading their engineering fixed costs across almost a quarter billion devices a year if they develop a high end ARM desktop chip like they do with iOS devices.