Seems like Intel really lost the plan there with every new generation having just a few percent better performance, trouble with moving to smaller nodes and the enormous regression from spectre/meltdown.

The Apple chips are made for running macOS/iOS. Seems there are some hardware instructions that are tailor made for increasing the performance of Apple software so they can make sure everything is working toward a common goal.

Not really

They are trying to compete, and have different levers to pull with varying success. When the performance per clock or per watt levers don't work well enough, then they increase the power, and the end result is heat and inefficiency.

On the flip side, integrated solutions add another lever... writing hardware that does exactly what your software needs to improve the user experience.

AMD, ARM, and even Intel have some cool, efficient solutions, but not across their whole portfolio of products, and not at the higher ends of performance. But they are always competing, incrementing and working to get closer to that ideal.

Apple was able to focus on their exact market segment and get there rapidly.

The end users don't care what brand of chip is under the hood, or why the UX on Apple's implementation of Intel chips sucked, they just know the new device has much better UX overall due to the more powerful and more efficient chip and will upgrade for that.