Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th May 2013 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
"It was the only moment I heard regret slip into Otellini's voice during the several hours of conversations I had with him. 'The lesson I took away from that was, while we like to speak with data around here, so many times in my career I've ended up making decisions with my gut, and I should have followed my gut,' he said. 'My gut told me to say yes.'" The world would've been a much different place - Apple would have been less dependant on Samsung for its chips, which probably would've meant less money for Samsung to develop its Galaxy business.
Permalink for comment 562056
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2006-04-10
Normally, yes. But now think about Intel dominating the mobile market. First more and more high end phones are using x86 chips. Intel develops software to make it easier and faster for developers to make software for x86. Now Intel has the fastest software, the fastest chips and the best transistors. Because of this even 250 dollar phones begin to use x86. Software is being developed less and less for ARM and it quickly returns to being a simple low low power chip provider. Giants like Qualcomm, Samsung and Apple stop producing CPU's. As Intel is the only supplier of high performance chips they slow down innovation to crawl.