Whether you're right or not, I think I agree with the idea.
It also seems to me that, in general, working with a different CPU architecture and instruction set implies that the new & improved stuff has to be significantly better to be worth the cost and risk.
At this point, is one really that much better than another? Are large improvements happening at the margin?
Another camel that'll poke it's head in the tent, in large/expensive embedded (which I realize that the parts in the article aren't aimed at) is whether a CPU and it's battlegroup of other stuff will be supported right off the bat by software infrastructure and later on by actually being available in the long run. You have to wonder how out on a limb anyone who used a Motorola 88k felt.