But those were successful devices. He's talking about Google devices that failed, in part because they used Intel CPU's. Devices like the original Google TV.

How do you know it failed because of Intel CPUs?

and Chromebooks.

All the unsuccessful Chromebooks and the Revue Google TV. Both of those have only recently started to pick-up when they started using ARM chips. And now Google is repeating the mistake by starting to put Intel chips in its Motorola devices.

This is also a very bad strategic mistake because if Intel succeeds in mobile, and becomes popular, who do you think it will help most? Google? No way. That situation would help Microsoft, because they can start using the x86 chips that got popular on Android to promote their x86 tablets and hybrids, where Microsoft has a real strength because of legacy apps.

So Google is now pushing Intel chips into the market, and gaining who knows what, because I don't see any benefit for them, but definitely helping Microsoft in the long term. If Intel survives, Microsoft survives. You'd think Google would realize that and doesn't want that.

Google has absolutely no need for Intel in the future, even for their data centers. Microsoft's future pretty much depends on Intel and x86 chips. I don't understand why Google isn't taking full advantage of this weakness of their competitor, and instead it's trying to put Intel back in the game.

Trust me when I say that the lack of success of Chromebooks and Google TV have very little to do with Intel.

With that said, Intel has been way too slow in its race against ARM, but saying that this has impacted Google I don't find credible.

The ARM Chromebook costs less than x86 Chromebooks while offering more-or-less the same user experience and it's much more popular in sales, according to Amazon.

So, Intel is/was a part of the problem at least for Chromebooks. (I don't know anything about Google TV)

There's also motorola razr-i (europe only).