A good point. I didn't cite it here because its implementation problems were severe and the reason it failed. Yet, I do give credit in more thorough discussions on INFOSEC history because the architecture was pretty awesome for Intel. Then, they watered that down with BiiN's i960MX. Then, even less radical (in security) Itanium. They lost hundreds of man years on the first, around a billion on second w/ Siemens, and at least $100 mil sunk into Itanium w/ HP.
Intel certainly tried to make up for their x86 monstrosity several times. They got smarter and smarter about how they did so in terms of market acceptance. A combination of engineering mistakes and foolish market choices (imho) made them pay. As you said, they learned to give customers the insecure garbage they wanted or risk extremely large losses. Links below for those interested in the specifics of their better work.
Intel certainly tried to make up for their x86 monstrosity several times. They got smarter and smarter about how they did so in terms of market acceptance. A combination of engineering mistakes and foolish market choices (imho) made them pay. As you said, they learned to give customers the insecure garbage they wanted or risk extremely large losses. Links below for those interested in the specifics of their better work.
Intel i432 Capability System http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~levy/capabook/Chapter9.pdf
Intel/Siemens BiiN System (w/ i960MX manual) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BiiN
Itanium Security Features http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/...