But Intel is what it is now because of x86. They want to pursue the same model in a different segment altogether (mobile) which does not work. It's the easy path for them and that's what big corporations do. I agree with Rick, Intel need to give their wireless baseband group a great deal of autonomy. Intel's traditional corporate culture is the problem here.
The other big difference is that Apple generally sells fashion goods. Sure the stuff must work, and work well, but ultimately the difference between an ipod and some other MP3 player is "coolness" rather than any specific technical features.
Intel doesn't sell end-user products. They sell chipsets to designers. They have to convince the designers that it is better to use Intel parts than other (mainly ARM) parts. Designers typically use quantitative measures like power consumption and cost and not nebulous concepts like "cool". While Intel's Intel Inside program might have worked for PCs there is little chance it will work for phones etc.
Intel-inside also worked because Intel had established the industry standard for PCs. Using x86, and Intel in particular, has always been seen as the conservative low-risk option for PCs. That is not the case for phones etc where ARM holds that slot.
I find it funny you complain about Intel’s “closed and secretive nature” yet propose Android as the way to go. What is Android other than a bunch of highly proprietary Google middleware riding on top of an open source operating system? Google, like Microsoft and Intel very closely guards what they believe to be their life’s blood. Google’s Android is very much proprietary …just like Microsoft’s and Intel products … get use to it.
embracing x86 architecture may be a burden to Intel. Innovation is very important for this giant to turn around. Wireless computing is a sexy market for CPU but the requirement is quite different from traditional desktop computer, Intel must figure out a good direction to leapfrog the present hurdle.
In recent years, Intel seems to be known more for evolving and adapting current products, than for innovating. The cellphone SOCs mentioned would seem to have been an adaptation rather than an innovation. But whether they innovate or adapt, they need to get market traction to get the product going, and cancelling projects after others have spent significant time and money to adopt them does not bode well for future adoption in the market.
What do you think was Apple's & Steve Jobs approach to new products ? Customers don't always know what they want. Yes, there are many things where you should get customers inputs but in technology, sometimes you have to take a bold leap. The biggest difference between Apple & Intel in this regard is that Apple was successful at it (most of the time)
Its good to know what customers want and let them decide what solutions and product they would endorse. This approach has been successful but we should also look for alternative approach, which is used by Apple and is hugely successful. Intel is known for its innovation and even when the products may not be successful; the technology would linger.
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.