Still missing the point. Which non-x86 architectures targeted at low power or HPC - if you count computer graphics as a subset the main growth markets - were tried in the last 15 years?
Why trying to win people over on compatibility if they have to rewrite their software anyways for other reasons, especially after ARM took the largest market share in mobile?
I think you look at it the other way round -- it is not so much Intel who wanted to win customers over compatibility, but rather the customers who had to port their software, and suddenly saw a possibility to not do that.
It took a while to Intel to accept that the mobile-app providers won't invest the same effort in porting their apps from ARM to x86 given the market penetration, but I don't believe it was a suprising outcome to them.
Why trying to win people over on compatibility if they have to rewrite their software anyways for other reasons, especially after ARM took the largest market share in mobile?