I agree their existing attempts have been disheartening and hard to watch. I don't think fighting for their future necessarily involves keeping x86 as their on

I agree their existing attempts have been disheartening and hard to watch. I don't think fighting for their future necessarily involves keeping x86 as their only chip architecture. I think that right now their "fights" and entries into these markets have mostly involved trying to keep the world from changing, not really fighting to survive. Less new and interesting strategies, more taking out old dusty x86 cores, polishing them up a bit and shoving them into the packages and market segments where they aren't dominant. This is their fault at this point. It used to be that without x86 compat, you had an uphill battle. They don't have that high ground anymore. The fact that companies like yours were more locked to ARM than other options should be a huge, amazingly large warning sign for them. I think what they should have done was the work the RISC-V team already started. I'm not sure they have the right architects to do it there though, frankly. The last time they tried to start a new architecture they really messed up on keeping it simple and providing clean hardware. They didn't recover confidence after Itanium and I think there was probably a lot of "Never Again" sentiment (probably rightfully so) both inside and outside the company. But I think at some point it is going to become clear to them that they don't have any option but to try a move that desperate and risky again if they want to be a dominant player in the processor design business in the future. Who knows if they'll actually get it right though. I probably would bet against it and would expect them to shift more and more towards a legacy designer (see also IBM) with substantial fab tech and capabilities that remain world class even if the processor design part loses most of the device markets.