Intel is culturally incapable of doing long-attention-span products. They only succeed with fire-and-forget products. Sustained effort over the long haul is just not in their DNA.
Exactly Intel's problem with these things. They are always too expensive compared to the competition. It's the #1 reason they failed in mobile, too. Their similar performance Atom chips cost 2x more than the highest-end Arm chip.
Galileo was as close as they came to a home run though. It really was their run at a Rasp-pi-alike, but it was almost twice as expensive, wasn't compatible with the Rasp-Pi headers (though it oddly was with Arduino, which seemed like a real design impedance mismatch), and was lacking numerous peripherals like video out.
They had a similar problem with that whole Maker-targeted series of chips - they couldn't seem to decide if they wanted to capture the ease of use of Arduino or the deep integrator capabilities of these target-specific MCUs and really failed to split the difference.
They also failed to take into account that they were very much the minority player and any sort of entry into those markets would be a war of attrition and not just overnight success... and the billion dollar juggernaut did what billion dollar juggernauts do to side projects that aren't overnight successes - they killed it before anyone could even develop competence working with them.
Both Edison and Quark really had niches they could have well serviced, if they had given it a real try... but it was very apparent that management wasn't interested and the designers didn't understand who they were targeting.
It seems that strangely they can't do that on newer field.