I thought something was up when I saw his demeanor at MWC last month; especially when he attacked the ARM CEO at 1:20 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv45xll5iBw
I don't think that one phone alone will make a difference; especially if potentially funded by Intel like I believe was done for many of the MID products that came and went in the past.
The big challenge is not just SoC integration and power, but software. It is a HUGE software investment for an OEM on these complex applications platforms, and betting on one vendor's device with no option to move is very risky. With the proven ARM silicon partner offerings there is a wide variety of offerings with the ability to leverage software investment.
I don't believe that if Intel can close the silicon gap that they will automatically be in the game - there are many other issues like software and choice that have to be considered, and the bar is higher every year.
The position from Intel that the Internet is based on x86 and people want to migrate their applications directly to the mobile world was not the right approach. We are in a disruptive time of computing where this is not the key issue. ARM technology and partners are taking the reins in this new computing era where things are changing.
Maybe this reality is starting to sink in and this is one of the first signs. It will be interesting if they have to go to ARM at some point to change direction.
The ARM MS deal was joined at the hip bone to no viable Intel platform in high end mobile till too late. And the lack of viability in power consumption metric made any prior Intel smartphone platform stillborne.
The initial ATOM CPU/chipset targetted netbooks that did not have competition from power sipping ARM solutions, so in netbooks the power hungry ATOM controller chip ( relative to ARM solns) it squeaked by.
But in the high end smartphone arena, Intel in the early days of Android was largely MIA, and only the latest ATOM controller chip has mitigated the power issue, but too late, as much of the smartphone ecosystem is liking ARM and avoiding Intel and its typical high margins.
The diversity of the ARM ecosystem negates the x86 market domination Intel has enjoyed for many years, and many customers of ARM implicitly like the freedom with ARM solutions quickly ramping up in computational power whilst retaining superb power efficiency.
Yet if Intel brooked no regrets and did a crash program in 32nm and smaller ARM offerings - total solns including chipsets if needed, then there still might be some potential due to exlnt process tech. But they'd have to do this well and quick both in execution and quenching the internal bickering that is likely.
@motti2 - Dead on right - Intel failed at ATOM power management - esp. in chip set. They may be now looking to fix, but overloaded with engineers who are trained the INTEL way...and stuck with Microsoft & Intel centric software tools and engineers...
no cracking that Babushka for another decade...
I completely disagree with Bloomberg statement that Chandrasekher resignation is an indication of amid Intel's faltering attempts to get into the cell-phone market; if this was really the primary reason, I am sure Bloomberg would have provided more detail factual information. I do agree that there may be some type of management disagreement. I found this interesting that Bloomberg made such a strong statement concerning this.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.