Investment in a platform makes all the difference. x86 was selling like hot cakes and Intel pushed hard (as well as being pushed by competitors like AMD, Cyrix etc) to keep getting faster. But physics finally kicked in and they couldn't keep making their chips faster but the costs over the huge volumes made their chips fast enough and cheap enough to compete against RISC chips which were much lower volume and more expensive as a result. Companies can only improve their products on the back of investment which comes from sales. ARM found a niche in low power portable products and so focussed on this because it was earning them money and they didn't need to compete with x86. Other chips died as a result of purchases. Alpha went to Compaq which had bought DEC and then it went to HP who bought Compaq, and they killed it because of the deal they had with Intel to develop Itanium. The Alpha devs went to AMD and producer the Opteron which killed Itanium in the market. The market determines where investment goes as well as the history. The x86 (once it got 64 bit support via AMD64 extensions, a direct result of the Alpha) it became suitable for big servers as it could now address more than 4GB of RAM. ARM continued in its niche but as smart phones came along, the need for more RAM and better performance started pushing the architecture towards the same sort of improvements that the x86 had gone through so it got 64 bit support, and multiple cores too and now the performance of ARM is such that a desktop or server could run on ARM, and ARM hasn't remotely hit the buffers that x86 is hitting.
I'm guessing you've not been around long enough to know this because you sound really inexperienced. I suggest you accept that you're wrong and give it up. ARM will keep getting faster and history got us to where we are. Do some reading, it is fascinating.