I really gotta wonder if this was a long term plan or in response to Intel leaving MS in the lurch with the changes to x86 strategy on mobile or a bit of both.
Clearly a long-term plan because Microsoft wouldn't have been able to do it so quickly.
Also, Intel did not leave Microsoft in the lurch: Intel left Intel in the lurch.
It made no difference at all to Microsoft, which already had Windows on ARM smartphones and tablets. It didn't even lose any revenue, because Windows is free on small screen devices.
No, I'm worrying about a strategy that would have been a bit easier to implement. I have about as much belief in the hypothetical nature of a Surface Phone as people had about an Apple Phone. An intel chip would have made much more sense for Microsoft.
No, it wouldn't. Microsoft's long term preference is to move to sandboxed apps downloaded from the Windows Store.
If you're running Windows 10 on a smartphone with an Intel chip then you're potentially leaving yourself open to badly-written Win32 programs that can have devastating effects on performance, security and battery life.
If you're only going to allow UWP apps then it doesn't matter whether it's a ARM chip or an Intel chip.
In passing, OEMs can already make and sell Intel-based smartphones and tablets with free Windows 10. However, Intel-based phones like the Asus ZenPhone weren't successful, which is why Intel dropped the new Atom SoCs for phones and tablets....
