You're missing the big one: they missed the boat on 64-bits. It was only because they had a licensing agreement in place with AMD that they were able to wholesale adopt AMD's extensions to deliver 64-bit x86 processors.
Had Itanium been a success then Intel would have crushed the competition (however it did succeed in killing Alpha, SPARC, and workstation MIPS).
On servers, 32 bit x86 was doing wonders for small workloads. AMD64 quickly chipped away at the places where 1-4 processor SPARC would have previously been used.
It could not run x86 apps faster than x86 cpus, so it didn't compete in the MS Windows world. Itanium was a headache for compiler writers as it was very difficult to optimize for, so it was difficult to get good performance out of Itanium and difficult to emulate x86.
Itanium was introduced after the dot-com crash, so the marked was flooded with cheap slightly used SPARC systems, putting even more pressure on price.
This is unlike when Apple introduced Macs with PowerPC cpus: they had much higher performance than the 68040 cpu they replaced. PowerPC was price competetive and easy to write optimizing compilers for.
So ironically announcing Itanium was genius, but then they should have just canceled it.
No one wanted Itanium. It was another political project designed to take the wind out of HP and Sun's sails, with the bonus that it would cut off access to AMD.
Meanwhile AMD released AMD64 (aka x86-64) and customers started buying it in droves. Eventually Intel was forced to admit defeat and adopt AMD64. That was possible because of the long-standing cross-licensing agreement between the two companies that gave AMD rights to x86 way back when nearly all CPUs had to have "second source" vendors. FWIW Intel felt butt-hurt at the time, thinking the chips AMD had to offer (like I/O controllers) weren't nearly as valuable as Intel's CPUs. But a few decades later the agreement ended up doing well for Intel. At one point Intel made some noise about suing AMD for something or another (AVX?) but someone in their legal department quickly got rid of whoever proposed nonsense like that because all current Intel 64-bit CPUs rely on the AMD license.
That was an intentional act to force customers into Itanium, which was 64 bit from the outset.