Re: OSX on ARM. Why not?
"Apple have switched architectures more than once before. It's something they seem quite comfortable doing."
Yes, they pulled that off with 68000->PowerPC->Intel, but every time the amount of compute power available increased. That eased the pain because it meant that emulators had good performance. An Intel->ARM transition wouldn't be able to do that. ARM cores are not fast, and emulation would have to run on the ARM core itself and that'd be a very slow dog indeed.
"Switching to ARM would give them a lot of potential benefits in addition to owning the silicon."
Others have already pointed out that buying AMD would give them the same control, but allow them to stick with x86.
"How many ARM processors can you fit into the same silicon/price bracket as an Intel processor?"
A lot. An ARM core has something like 48,000 transistors, whereas an x86 core contains many millions. Intel's problem is that they also need millions more transistors (cache, instruction decoding, etc) to make the x86 core fast.
"I'd be very surprised if a similarly priced array of ARMs wasn't as powerful as the Intel equivalent, and they'd probably use less power too."
It maybe as powerful in aggregate, but single thread performance would still be bad. That matters - most software is still single threaded, so all your apps would run slow. That might not be an issue for something that's not compute-heavy (a text editor). For other stuff like video decoding one of ARM's hardware accelerators would do the job, just like a mobile. However, something like Photoshop could be a real dog.
ARM or Apple might seriously pep up the ARM core to reduce the disparity in single thread grunt, and it would be more power efficient than Intel. However it sounds like a lot of work, and it be probably be cheaper to just go back to PowerPC; Freescale haven't been standing still with PowerPC, and if it comes to that Apple bought PA Semi a few years back - they had a very competitive PowerPC design at the time.