I think the bigger problem is, what happens when we reach the long-tail of process development, and demand tapers off to the point they can't fund further R&D?
IE: Systems are "good enough" and people go from buying one every 3 years to "only when they break". That could be 10+ years.
I suppose Intel would just follow the carrot to the next profitable market like they are pushing Atom CPUs lately?
Design them to be replaced every 3 years.
Servers are designed for a 5 year replacement cycle.
Desktops are designed for a 3-5 year replacement cycle.
Laptops are designed for a 3 year replacement cycle.
Tablets are designed for a 2 year replacement cycle (and they're going the way of phones).
Phones are designed for a 1 year replacement cycle (down from 2 years only recently).
This extends to nearly everything tech-related. They're trying to push TVs to a 3 year replacement cycle, they've got printers down to 3 years or less, they're trying to get fridges and other major appliances down to 5 or less (they're currently at 10, down from the 20-30 they used to be). Cars have been on a 3 year cycle for idiots for ages (36 month lease rolling into a new 36 month lease on a new vehicle).
Whether that design involves failure of the device, lack of support/updates, pushed updates to make the device run worse, etc. doesn't matter. The industry is built on planned obsolescence. It's not rare to see someone using a device past its intended replacement cycle, but shit is designed to get people onto a purchase cycle.