One other thing to consider: when the PC industry was making the jump from 32-bit to 64-bit, Intel brought its own solution called Itanium (IA-64), which was incompatible with the x86 instruction set. Meanwhile, AMD was able to build its own solution (AMD64) which was compatible with x86. When Windows XP x64 was in beta, they had both Itanium and AMD64 builds available. Intel also focused IA-64 on the server market, completely overlooking the consumer side, which is where the majority of revenues in the market come from. This led Microsoft to officially announce it would stop support IA-64 in 2010. Today, Intel is licensing AMDs 64-bit instruction set across its entire lineup of processors (including Xeon). Pull up Explorer on any modern PC running an Intel CPU and do a search for "AMD64" - you'll literally see hundreds of folders with that prefix.
The same focus that allowed Intel to become the main player in the PC industry in terms of CPUs is what has caused it to falter in the last 5-7 years. Intel has a tendency to only look at the future of the industry from its own perspective, and either overlooks or outright discounts competing views (i.e. AMD, ARM-based processors, etc.). Part of that is their own hubris because they have such a dominant position in the market that they don't view anyone as a legitimate competitor, even though they went out of their way during the 11th gen Core announcement to throw shade at both a 3 year old nVidia iGPU and a six-year old AMD iGPU as if they were the only competitors to Intel's integrated graphics.