Please tell me you aren't trying to be serious.
Serious about trying to invent a rational to explain/justify the premise that Apple is trying to completely merge iOS and OS X. They aren't and probably won't.
With apple migrating OS X more into iOS,
Tail wagging the dog. The problem is most of the rest of this isn't true.
Those processors have already made its way to 64 bit.
Nope. ARM A15 (and the A7 derivatives ) still have 32-bit address spaces. They can address more than 32-bits of memory but any one instance only get 32-bits. It is good for running multiple 32-bit OS images on virtual machines. For single processes that need to address a large ( > 4GB ) address space it is a complete bust.
Low power multicore arm processors will be the new chips used
Intel is on a rabid better power management kick too. In fact that is one of the primary focuses of Haswell. There is no huge gap that ARM 15 has over some subset of Intel's offering at this point in the "plugged in" normal operations. Some feature phones sure. But that is primarily because ARM throws relatively performance out the window.
but won't happen until apple completes the transformation of OS X.
iOS and OS X are going to integrate well. But the hand waving about the core objective to do a complete merge is just that... hand waving.
Face it folks, the computers we know are transforming to tablets and phones.
Not really. There are going to be more folks who normally use tablets than the older legacy PC OS offerings. What is more true is that the workloads for most aren't changing. If a more affordable, smaller computer does the core subset of what users want to do they'll move "down" on the next iteration. That isn't 'new'. That has been in effect for almost 50 years.
Xeon processors keep getting more expensive.
Horse manure.
First, Xeon processors cost just about as much as Intel's Core i processors. High end Core i7's are priced the same as Xeon E5 1600s. Xeon E3 line up with mainstream Core i5's and i7's of similar specs. Xeon are the root cause of Mac Pro pricing drift over time is pure misdirection and Apples-to-Oranges comparisons not grounded in facts and/or comparisons of an Apples-to-Apples nature.
Second, "processors" aren't really just processors anymore. memory management, high speed PCI-e lane management , GPU , voltage regulation , etc. are all being weaved into the "CPU" package. There is some price creep in Intel's offerings but there is also more in the component you are buying ( and less to buy to complete a logicboard layout).
Not far fetched for apple to do this.
It is pretty far fetched. Apple just finished a transition to a CPU architecture. Rosetta is retired. There is little to no good reason to fire up that overhead of split system and application development and testing again.
Unless Apple is looking to throw Mac performance into the relative crapper they'll be on x86 for 2-3 more generations. Intel could screw up in the next 2-3 years but so far they are exactly on track to fend of ARM incursions into what has classical been Intel (and AMD) space.
And with the way Apple has handled the Mac Pro the earliest would seem to be the fall. But you are right, Tim did not specify the fall.
