Which might actually have been a dire warning for the people at Intel behind the Galileo and Edison devices: Both were x86; but violated enough legacy-PC expectations that the OS(es, did anyone aside from Intel's Linux branch get interested?) had to be ported; and any of the old 'basically uses DOS as an RTOS by ignoring it for time critical stuff' x86 applications were unlikely to work; plus reports on the quality of the documentation range from 'frustrating' to 'dire'.
386s, by contrast, are markedly slower; but are pretty exhaustively documented and supported at this point; and their behavior hasn't changed in ages, so your expensive legacy software and/or system design doesn't have to either.
These offerings were too novel to just inherit support by carefully copying a prior design(or at least its software facing behavior); didn't have a solid attempt to compensate for that with quality support and documentation; and once those factors dragged it down into the morass of eccentric SoCs with slightly shaky Linux BSPs, just being able to run x86 code in userspace applications wasn't enough of an advantage to offset the relatively high price and areas of mediocrity(reasonably high speed GPIO, in particular, was...not impressive).
They might have actually done better if they had offered a 'DOSbox SoC' or something that, from the software side, slavishly replicated the behavior of a Pentium Pro and whatever chipset was most popular in a single chip, just faster. Instead, they broke with the past far enough to require a fair amount of support; then didn't provide it; which doesn't exactly command a premium price among random application processor SoCs.