Apple didn't really go to ARM because of some fuzzy idea about how ARM is the wave of the future. They wanted control over the hardware, and that means vertically integrating. If they are going to design their own silicon, what else would it be other than ARM? Apple can force ARM to work because they control the silicon, the platform hardware, and the OS, and they have users who are quite accustomed to being browbeaten into compliance with their arbitrary decisions. A market full of Stockholm-syndrome sufferers is a lot easier to force into a new, binary-incompatible new platform when you alone decide that there won't be any more non-ARM Macs made, nor will the OS support non-ARM Macs beyond the point that Apple decides to stop releasing the updates.
The PC market is a lot broader than one hardware company that also is the OS vendor and the silicon maker. Apple can force its captive audience into ARM, but Dell can't. HP can't. Lenovo can't. Asus cant, Acer can't, and so on. Each of them knows that if the customers don't want to go where they are trying to force them, they can just as easily get commodity gear from someone else.
Windows could hypothetically decide they are going to stop Windows for all platforms besides ARM, but that would mean telling a lot of their close "partners" in the hardware industry that some of the products they want to sell won't be viable because of an arbitrary decision by Microsoft. These OEMs are the largest buyer of Windows licenses in existence, which makes them big customers of MS, with big amounts of cash. Will MS willingly tell them all to get lost? I doubt it.
All of this also assumes that Intel can't match the power savings of ARM designs. Some of the engineering tricks to make them efficient are not any kind of secret... things like the big.LITTLE hybrid core setup and super wide data buses (which can operate at lower clock rates) are not secret. Intel has been using the hybrid setup since its gen 12 products, and it would be foolish to count them out and declare that with all of their expertise, they can't match what Apple has done. They've stagnated over the years, with no real competition to push them to innovate, and we've ended up with generation after generation where most of the performance changes come from incremental process node improvements, without substantial architectural changes.
The Mac market is not the PC market.
I am personally still in x86 (including the AMD64 variant) land even though these days I use only laptops. My desktop simply is not needed anymore, since a laptop with a large monitor (or monitors plural), external keyboard, and an actual mouse does quite well. Power consumption is important to me, as I do spend a lot of time on battery, but ARM is still a no-go.
As far as hardware, Apple is out of the question... I do not favor their business practices, especially their efforts to make their products unrepairable. Any laptop that has a non-replaceable SSD is ruled out straight away. Any that has a battery I cannot replace with basic tools in a few minutes, same thing. (And I also don't like MacOS, so there's that.) I don't care how great Macs may be on power... if I can't easily repair them myself for a reasonable cost, they are ruled out.
I don't like Windows either. Linux, of course, does have ARM versions, but a number of the programs I use are Windows x86 via WINE... so while I personally don't use Windows, the way the Windows market goes of its own accord has a bearing on the hardware I select.
I expect that Intel will release more SoC designs that are increasingly good in terms of power, which doesn't have to actually match that of ARM designs to do well into the future. As long as it is perceived as relatively close, the ability to avoid a tumultuous platform change will mean it will likely remain the most popular option.