Unfortunately, Microsoft has kind of killed ARM's entrance into Windows notebooks, now that Windows RT is essentially dead. And Google - Google of all companies

Unfortunately, Microsoft has kind of killed ARM's entrance into Windows notebooks, now that Windows RT is essentially dead. And Google - Google of all companies, with their architecture-agnostic Chrome OS - has also helped push Intel into its now near-monopoly in Chromebooks. At least with Microsoft it's somewhat understandable why it would kill Windows RT - no compatible apps. But ChromeOS?! Google should be pushing ARM in notebooks like crazy. If ARM doesn't end up with at least 70% market share in Chromebooks (due to the multiple ARM chip makers, just like Android has the majority of market share in mobile operating systems), then I'll consider that a major competition failure. Granted it's not all Google's fault for pushing Intel. Intel managed to enter the Chromebook market with some shameless lies: 1) First lie: promoting the new Intel Chromebooks as "Haswell Chromebooks". I have a good memory and I remember at the time most people thought that was basically Core i5 Chromebooks - at least for a while. 2) Second lie: Those chips were Haswell Celeron, but at those device price points of $200-$250, it would've been impossible for Intel to sell them profitably. So they sold them below cost, so people then can have the choice between what is essentially a $110 chip and a $20 chip, yet the devices cost roughly the same ($250). So of course the choice was made for them, and people would rather get the $250 device with the $110-value chip than the $20 one. It still pisses me off to no end that governments aren't taking action against Intel over this. It's highly monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior. It's no different than Microsoft eating the cost of IE and bundling it with Windows. Intel has also wasted over $8 billion in subsidizing their mobile chips so far, to be able to sell them under-cost, and competitively against ARM. No ARM maker, not even Samsung or Qualcomm, could ever afford to do something like that. So why is Intel allowed to do it to take out the competition from the market in this way? 3) Third lie: After people got used to $250 Celeron (Haswell) Chromebooks - Intel did a bait and switch and switched those more powerful Haswell Celerons with Atom-based Celerons, which are no more powerful than ARM chips, but people now think those "Celerons" are. It gets worse. Now that people remember that the ~$110 or so "Celerons" were relatively powerful (thanks to the Haswell/Core architecture), they are now starting to charge that much for the Atom-based Celerons. Even though as I said, they are the equivalent of $20-$30 ARM chips. But this is what monopoly can get you (at least in Windows PCs and Chromebooks, where the ARM competition has been all but wiped out). The lies also continue with the way Intel is now calling its new Atoms - "Braswell", as if they had anything to do with Haswell or Broadwell. Intel has become (or perhaps has always been, I've only been following this stuff closely for the past few years) an incredibly shady company. And it saddens me that more people don't see it, and that Intel gets away with it stealing ever more market share in nefarious and anti-competitive ways.