I had a Atom-based netbook (in the early days when they were 32-bit-only and couldn’t run up-to-date Windows). It didn’t suck, as such, but it was definitely resource-starved.

However, what I meant is Atom-based Android tablets. At about the same time as the netbook craze (late 2000s to early 2010s) there was a non-negligible number of Android tablets, and a noticeable fraction of them was not ARM- but Atom-based. (The x86 target in the Android SDK wasn’t only there to support emulators, originally.) Yet that stopped pretty quickly, and my impression is that that happened because, while Intel would certainly have liked to hitch itself to the Android train, they just couldn’t get Atoms fast enough at equivalent power levels (either at all or quickly enough). Could have been something else, e.g. perhaps they didn’t have the expertise to build SoCs with radios?

Either way, it’s not that Intel didn’t want to get into consumer mobile devices, it’s that they tried and did not succeed.

Android x86 devices suffer when developers include binary libraries and don't add x86. At the time of Intel's x86 for Android push, Google didn't have good apk thinning options, so app developers had to decide if they wanted to add x86 libraries for everyone so that a handful of tablets/phones would work properly... for the most part, many developers said no; even though many/most apps are tested on the android emulator that runs on x86 and probably have binary libraries available to work in that case.

IMHO, If Intel had done another year or two of trying, it probably would have worked, but they gave up. They also canceled x86 for phone like the day before the Windows Mobile Continuum demo, which would have been a potentially much more compelling product with x86, especially if Microsoft allowed running win32 apps (which they probably wouldn't, but the potential would be interesting)