Intel are the incumbents
and it is in their interests to support the status quo - protects the license revenue as Lance says and maximises the returns on investments already made. It is up to new entrants to be disruptive (and take more of the risks); this is not just complacency on Intel's part - their resources are huge but not infinite and they cannot do everything. Intel's business practices often limit the reach of their technical prowess (marketing trumps engineering) - look at ARM's continued dominance of the low-power space (Intel was an ARM licensee but dropped out and gave that business away) and also Intel's marketing boys hobbling the Atom chip.
Marketing also dictates a "black and white" approach - something has to win and all the alternatives must lose so Intel try to pick the winner (e.g. FinFET) and have to back it. From that point, everything else has to be inferior or the powerpoint slides don't stack up.
Microsoft is a direct and obvious comparison - although Intel has far greater research chops than they do; MS will defend the PC (and Windows and .Net) to the death and are frantically playing catch-up with on mulitple fronts (Metro UI, Bing, Win on ARM, ...).
Power consumption is a big issue and this new lot will do well from noticing that. I hope.