The M1 is roughly competitive with the Ryzen 4000 chips (depending on variances in TDP, cooling, etc.) but arguably gets as much as double the battery life.
No argument that it's an advancement of CPU technology, but I think you might have some magical thinking if you think momentum doesn't matter.
It's not like suddenly 100% of buyers look at only benchmarks where the M1 leads, or only at battery life, or only at software that runs on the M1 rather than all the software they use.
If users were only looking at CPU benchmarks, AMD would have a lot higher market share, and the same will be said about the M1 after a year as well. Will Apple users replace Intel laptops in record numbers? Probably! But the conversion of Windows users will be slow regardless of hardware.
Sure, but they're not just going to sacrifice the consumer market entirely. The industry as a whole will need to respond.
> There are other cases where "M1 for x" doesn't exist yet - high-end workstations, for example.
For now. In a year, I wouldn't bet on it.
> AMD is at something like 20% of Windows notebook share after about one year of having dominate mobile chips.
AMD beat Intel by a little in efficiency over the last year (and for the mainstream laptop market, after a certain point, that's mostly what people care about). M1 is a _dramatic_ jump forward, there. "Here's an AMD and an Intel laptop for 1k each, the AMD one is a bit faster and has slightly better battery life" is a different proposition to "Here's the same AMD laptop from earlier, plus a $1k MacBook Air. The MacBook Air's a bit faster, and has twice the battery life".