AMD does not have any low power consumption models that equal the same performance as an i5 Sandy Bridge. AMD processors still use too much power to be used in ultrabooks. Yes, AMD graphics is better than Intel HD 4000.

AMD is just lucky to have customers like Sony and Microsoft using APU in the next generation of game consoles.

Apple makes Macintosh that requires a CPU. Apple picked Intel for their CPU supplier. Apple and Intel is not in competition of CPU. Apple makes Mac OS X that runs on 80x86 that does not relate to Intel as a competitor. Mac OS X is a competitor to Windows. Intel is supplying what Apple wants. You can see that because of Apple pushy attitude towards Ultrabooks, Intel is providing low power consumption processors with high performance. This was not Intel's plan for their processors in the past. Later Ultrabooks became Intel's plan for regular PC that runs Windows.

I think you might want to re-examine your opinion. My wide reading points to increased competitiveness between Intel and Apple in the same space (OS is a secondary choice for most consumers - as long as they can surf the net and open Word and Excel files). Now, would you prefer an Intel Ultrabook and an Intel TV STB, or the same from Apple? Watch when Apple substitute x86 for 64-bit ARM in their laptops - look to 2016. Of course, they could save all the bother and go with a non-threatening company in AMD who is just a fabless SoC designer of excellent chips. Kabini would do the job nicely ("... the 28nm quad-core SoC will be available in a 15-watt, quad-core version, said to be comparable to Intel's Ivy Bridge Core i3-3217U <circa June 2012>. This will offer a 50 percent performance improvement compared with the existing Brazos 2.0 chips, while enabling over 10 hours of battery life"...) to play mp3, movies and post to Facebook, and even do a little gaming - a market Apple hasn't tried to corner yet... think, Cook, think.