As a result Microsoft has to worry about what the OEMs want and how they will use the product. In contrast Apple only cares what the end user wants, what their experience is, what features they get and how they work.
An OEM cares about whether they're making ARM laptops or Intel laptops. They care about and want input into the implementation details. An end user doesn't care if Photoshop is running on an ARM chip or an Intel chip, they care about how well it runs and what the battery life is. They (generally speaking) don't care about the implementation details.
The main challenge is seamlessly migrating users to the new platform and Apple did a great job at it using Rosetta.
Both Linux and especially Windows struggle at this because they lack something as well integrated as Rosetta and require all applications to be recompiled to a new architecture.
Apple's, in marketing speak, brand permission has given them extraordinary latitude over the past 15 to 20 years. They've been able to get off with making abrupt transitions and other relatively wrenching choices that tech pubs and doubtless forums like this wailed about but which their customers were mostly fine with. Things that Microsoft and WinTel laptops, for example, couldn't with respect to ports, limited options, etc. couldn't.