B: "it is a failure as a business. If you employed underhand tactics you could be even bigger!"
This is the phylosophy that gives us DRM on cars, 100 page lisence agreement with TVs, and fraud on wallstreet.
Obviously not true, but I can see how some might think this if their main comparators are companies that get to $1trn valuations in 30 years. Not every company can or should be a FAANG.
ARM makes prototype designs that you can extend, M1 is an absolute success of that model.
Regardless: you say they've failed as a business, your metric is how much they earn from being nearly everywhere.
I would pointedly disagree: they're everywhere, that's success, they're everywhere and profitable. There's absolutely no need to rent seek... this is unsustainable capitalist thinking.
They're able to innovate and turn a profit with their "modest" income, why do you need them to do more than that? How do you know they would do better with more money?
Intel (yes, apple to oranges) has many orders of magnitude more money, but most of it goes into bureaucracies.
See also: Microsoft, Oracle