Here, chip makers never promised to prevent X. Maybe preventing X is desirable now that people do Y, but you can hardly blame them for not preventing something they didn’t promise to prevent.
They promised to develop general purpose chips which can meet as many desktop computing needs as possible, which now implicitly includes need Y (but they didn't anticipate that at the time).
They could of course just reject the necessity of need Y, but if the majority of their clients actually do have need Y, can it really be said that the chip is successful at being general purpose?
