Shrug---it's more complicated than that, my dear Atlas.
If you squint at published benchmarks like Specmark just right, the more complex ARM models gets comparable or better performance per GHz. The real reason why x86 architecture runs your favourite applications is, as you pointed out, because they are not available for ARM, because Wintel.
This is changing slowly: there are reports that PC sales are crashing, and the Wintel shiny front wall starts showing cracks. Will SolidWorks be available and usable on Android any time soon? Probably not, but the reason is not 'more transistors' or better architecture on x86.
What an odd reply!
I think the point is that this is story about people, and at some point in the timeline the main character in the story had a sex-change, which is a remarkable thing, making it a glaring omission from the story.
Nobody gives rat's ass what you used registers for on any CPU. ARMH is successful because customers can design targeted SOCs in 1/4 the time it take Intel to provide a reference design for what they define as the next mobile CPU one year too late.
Most processors at the time of the 68000 were CISC or multiple clocks per instruction. It wasn't until later when power and size for embedded applications were the drivers that brought RISC (ARM) type processor to the forefront.
This is more a *very* brief history of the people responsible for the design of the ARM architecture than it is a history of the conception of the design itself. I walk away from reading this article wanting to know way more about the design philosophy and design choices that were made regarding how the architecture came together. To me, the instruction set and the programmer's model, and the thought process going into their design, constitute much of what I would consider the "shaping" of the architecture. That merited one short paragraph.
That the ARM architecture had to be simple, compact, fast, and have low power consumption is a little obvious. That the framers of the ARM architecture have their roots in the 6502 is little more than interesting trivia.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.