I'll tell you why the more knowledgeable people aren't saying much--Dunning-Krueger. This design is a really, really big change. It has obvious comparisons to Itanic, but recall that the Itanic operated three (41-bit?) instructions at a time with a few flag bits to inform the processor about parallelism safety. This is not that, at all. From a hardware/architecture design standpoint, I have little to say because I know that I'm unqualified to evaluate it. There are some business issues that appear fascinating, however.
I did not pay a great deal of attention at the time, but my recollection is that the problem was lack of support for the idea of moving more or less the entire install base to a new architecture. Microsoft appears to be attacking that problem by porting the major OSes, which implies their software build tooling.
The comment, "Will it run Crysis"? is probably the most important one on this article. It took me a year or so after joining AMD to realize that no one buys CPUs. They buy applications. The hardware (all of it), & the OS are nothing but overhead. A perfect architecture without applications is worthless. The most hideous beast of an architecture that is running 80% of the world's software today can be expected to run 85% in five years, barring a major disruption to the market.
I think the timing of this announcement is important. Microsoft has been working on this for almost a decade. When you are doing this sort of research, you can make a big announcement at any point. I think that they looking as Spectre as the sort of disruption that might create an opening to overturn x86. It's certainly due.
Microsoft drove Apple to 5% market share by running a completely open platform for developers. Yes, it's been a long time, but it seems unlikely to me that they have completely forgotten this fact. Certainly, they would like to drive DRM into the core of the system, but I'm doubting they will do this to the detriment of non-M$ applications.