If Apple were to take this line of attack - I'm sure it wouldn't be anything like a crippled netbook. How much more platform value could you put into a fixed BOM without a $200 Intel CPU - not to mention all of the associated cost of cooling/fans? As one example, you might be able to afford to put in a 2048x1536 screen instead of the crappy 1366x768 screens found in many ultrabooks.
Sounds a lot like what Intel is doing with Bay Trail, which you pooh-poohed for being too high cost (forgetting, by the way, that ARM is equally high cost when equipped with leadership features). You have a habit of setting up scenarios with apples to garden gnomes comparisons, and proclaiming ARM a winner.
Intel has two architectures, one of which is extremely high performance and coming down in power, and one which is extremely power efficient, and climbing up in performance. It's the perfect pincer attack against an architecture that's on a process generation or more behind.
As for pricing, it's already extremely segmented, and you ought to know already that only a small portion of Intel's volumes actually sells for $200 ASPs. Much of it is Celeron and Pentium which already sell for <$50 - and there will be Haswell versions of these products below 10W, not to mention versions of Bay Trail that can beat ARM in performance, while being low power, and fully capable of 2048x1536 displays.
And while you are running in circles making backwards looking comparisons at nonsensical ASP values, you're missing that x86 is very much "in the game", and there's really no PC play that ARM is uniquely capable of addressing.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
