Yes. Open source, high-level libraries, SaaS/Cloud, good dynamic translation (e.g. Rosetta), etc. make the sort of backward-compatibility that Intel/HP failed so miserably in providing much less of a big deal today. One of the driving forces behind Itanium was that, not only was developing custom microprocessors and OSs for a single company expensive, but even once you'd made that investment, ISVs were reluctant to support your low volumes for any amount of love and money.
It’s definitely interesting looking at ARM now. It’s helped by having consistently had much better price/performance but also the fact that things like phones meant a ton of the primitives people would need to switch server applications were already taken care of. Intel really would have been better off cutting their marketing department and hiring 50 more developers to work on open source like GCC, OpenSSL, Linux, etc.
Intel actually has a lot more software development than they're generally credited with. It's mostly "just" hardware enablement but when the Linux Foundation was still providing external numbers on Linux kernel contributions by company, Intel was one of the very top contributors.
With respect to ARM, Intel pretty much blew it, especially on mobile. They were so determined to exploit their x86 beachhead. I remember at an IDF, they were even trying to make a case for how it was important to run x86 everywhere so that Flash would run consistently.
I’ve often felt that Intel’s embrace of open source is someone wanting not to repeat the Itanium loses. They seem to have a much better relationship with key open source projects now.
