For too long they have just released incremental, minor upgrades. They haven't really produced anything earth shattering. They release i7's with huge areas of the die devoted to graphics that many won't use. When they do nix the graphics and add more cores they charge a fortune for it. If you want my money you need to do better than a 10-12% increase in performance.
I just built a new desktop after maybe 5 years with the old one. I went with the amd 8350, not because I am a fan but because the MB, SSD, RAM, antex case, psu, CPU and gfx card came to about $400 in a sale. It's not as fast as an i7, but for lightroom, coupled with the ssd, it's plenty fast enough. It has also saved me a fortune on the heating bill. The AMD isn't better but for the $125 I paid for it I don't have buyers remorse, it combined with an ssd made the better choice then even an i5 for the same total cost.
I respect intels play it safe approach with (mostly) regular release cycles but I think the lack of serious high end competition from AMD has allowed them to rest on their laurels. I would have liked to see them be brave and ditch an upgrade cycle since they keep slipping and bring forward skylake. I'm looking to get a tablet soon and I would love a goldmont chip to be in it but thats probably not going to be for ages. So I will wait, perhaps by then AMD will be using 16nm and be able to compete a little better?
Spending $700 - $1000 on a new desktop is a fairly serious commitment, if you want to get people to spend it you have to deliver a decent jump. It's too easy to look at what you have already and go it's just not worth the cost for a modest speed bump. ymmv