If Apple's processors are as good you say they are, they would be absolutely disruptive in the server space. Multiple generations ahead of anything Intel or IBM can come up with in terms of perf/watt (and even assuming Apple's clocks stay low, comparable overall performance considering how low clocked those massive core count Xeons are compared to their desktop brethren. In actuality, a 24-core up-clocked A10 would likely eat a 24-core Xeon for lunch). Apple would be able to dominate servers in a way even Intel hasn't been able to, and make money hand over fist (no, not iPhone money, but more than anything else they do). If they could do it, don't you think they would?
It wouldn't be that simple. It seems that some people think all you need is one good thing to rule servers while PCs/Laptops/Tablets/Phones are much more complex.
Apple already tried the server market, and then closed up shop on them many years ago.
Power chips are very awesome in servers. However, if you delve down to the consumer side, it would be nothing special. Their awesome SMT4-8 is what makes it awesome, along with surrounding system interfaces and interconnects. Power 8 single thread were on par with Intel chips 3 generations ago(Broadwell generation, equivalent to Ivy Bridge). But that 10-15% difference is what makes us awe and drool on the PC side.
Same with other competitors too. On paper it seems so simple, but they just fall short of the best server chips. Because the vendors do not know everything that makes it an awesome server chip.
In fact, SpecCPU benchmark by Anand is more server/workstation oriented, and Intel chips lead here. You'll see the "IPC gains" of latest Intel chips are better on the server side than on PC. And it lines up pretty well with SpecCPU results too.
In this way, Apple and Intel are polar opposites of each other. The former knows how to captivate consumers, but little of servers. The latter has almost no clue about consumers, but knows quite a bit about servers.
To Arachnotronic: It's bit of unfair to compare in terms of revenue, you see.
Apple sells ~200 million units of iPhone/iPads annually. So in terms of chips its only 200 million of them.
Even in the "repressed" PC market, Intel is selling close to 300 million CPUs annum.
In terms of realistic TAM, Intel is far closer to it than Apple ever was/is. But because the ASP of "premium" CPUs are only in the range of low-cost phones, in terms of absolute revenue Apple is the bigger winner by far.
It may seem impressive for manufacturers like Apple to sell $600 phones constantly, but very impressive too that Intel can sell just a piece of silicon for $300 to quite a few as well. Apple may just be bringing Intel down to a more realistic level since they were too dominant in that space.
A cheap phone is in the range of "premium" CPU in terms of costs.