Perfectly consistent with Apple's stated goals (control the whole stack) and addresses some issues (waiting for Intel, instruction sets sometimes not even needed, etc.).
Of course, transitioning won't be trivial but I wonder if a solution is viable given Apple's unusual business model and execution. Simply said, why couldn't Apple just include BOTH an Intel chip and an in-house chip? The costs of a processor seem to be in the $25-40 range. Given Mac pricing, it seems doable to just build in both and use the appropriate processor as necessary. In fact, notwithstanding Apple's adherence to strong margins, they could even swallow some (or all) of this and treat the extra cost burden as sort of a down payment on the future to derisk the transition for a couple years.
I know this is the exact opposite of Apple's usual course of taking the hard decision and stepping firmly into the future (or at least Apple's vision of the future) but, if viewed as a choice between emulation software and simply including the hardware, maybe this is more user friendly (and thus entirely consistent with Apple's approach)?
