Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th May 2013 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Intel "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.
Thread beginning with comment 561970
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Dependance ?
by Kochise on Sat 18th May 2013 06:41 UTC
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03

Come on, they previously had been dependent on Motorola for the PowerPC, which ended into choosing Intel as their CPU provider. It should have been obvious to choose Intel as well for their mobile offering. Oh, sorry, had they something relevant in that matter 6 years back ? Nope.

Imagine Apple switch to Intel for it's iPhone 6+ lineup, after all Sony do the same architectural transition to x86-64 with its PS4. Now Intel decide do raise its lineup price. How should respond Apple ? How can they ?

Putting all the eggs in the same basket is not a sane strategy either. Kudo to Apple for selecting the right options at the right time, otherwise, I guess, they wouldn't be where they are right now.

BTW, Apple has selected the A5 and A6 CPU path, its not without foresight, I guess.

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE: Dependance ?
by tanzam75 on Sat 18th May 2013 15:29 in reply to "Dependance ?"
tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

Come on, they previously had been dependent on Motorola for the PowerPC, which ended into choosing Intel as their CPU provider. It should have been obvious to choose Intel as well for their mobile offering. Oh, sorry, had they something relevant in that matter 6 years back ? Nope.


Not 6 years back.

But 7 years back, when the negotiations would've occurred, Intel was still producing the XScale series of ARM chips. Had they gotten into the iPhone, Intel would probably not have sold XScale later that year.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Dependance ?
by Kochise on Sat 18th May 2013 15:35 in reply to "RE: Dependance ?"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Was the XScale strong(ARM) enough at that time ? I mean, if I recall correctly, there was no suitable GPU bundled (beside the veteran PowerVR) so perhaps many aspects were probed before selecting the right hardware platform to develop on.

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Dependance ?
by tylerdurden on Sat 18th May 2013 16:58 in reply to "RE: Dependance ?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

The negotiations for selling StrongARM had started way back before 2005. The original acquisition from DEC had been a rocky one, and most of the talent that came with that group had left for other companies/startups. So Intel couldn't get rid of StrongARM fast enough.

Intel had made it clear that they did not intend to go into a low margin business like SoCs (Systems on Chip) at that time. Intel's own road map did not have anything at the power/performance levels for mobile/phone applications until 2010 (and in fact they are still 3 years behind some of those goals).

Intel grossly miscalculated the market, as they did not expect it to explode until past 2010. They spent basically half a decade without anything to target it, and now it may be too late.

But who knows, competition is always good.

Edited 2013-05-18 16:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3