I hear this is a results of Intel's mobile designs (Atom) are not competitive with the latest Cortex A15 (Snapdragon S4, A6X, Samsung Exynos and soon Nvidia Tegra 4). Asia OEMs have seen Atom 32 and 22nm roadmap and it is very uncompetitive. Intel sales team was saying it results from poor Power/Performance/Area metrics of Intel 22nm node. Now we are hearing Intel 14nm not going well and mobile parts pushed to 2H/14.
This is why Intel needs new leadership. Head hunter search by Intel is looking for someone from outside with mobile phone experience.
Paul Otellini was paid a package worth $17 million for his efforts in 2011 http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4370482/Intel-CEO-pay-2011
So if you think you can do a better job perhaps you should ask for $20 million.
How about Dadi, I use to work under him. He is a man who could turn things around... need to look at the entire cellphone in holistic manner (platform...). someone needs to make a difference rather than saying moore law in ever IDF (do not take me worng I have high respect for Gordon Moore).
US Made - I also worked Intel and agree.
"Moore's Law" is not a business model but that has been Intel's plan under Otellini. Silicon technology keeps changing for no real benefit at communication SOC level. Intel silicon manufacturing also does not understand low cost.
My old Intel group still using foundry and would like to continue to use foundry rather than use Intel internal silicon.
Andy Bryant is just wrong when he says " Intel can meet (the mobile challenge) though its superior chip making technology" .
Otellini/Bryant just do not mobile SOC design and the failed high cost silicon strategy (copy exactly, design rule restrictions, Et cetra).
Intel has been talking about a process technology lead for 15 years that would allow Intel to win the mobile market that has clearly not worked
See this 15 year old Intel propaganda
Bryant again saying more of the same
"Otellini felt it was time to turn over the reins to a new generation as Intel admittedly faces challenges in the mobile computing arena — challenges, however, that Bryant feels Intel can meet through its superior chip-making technology."
Insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result.
Time for an outsider to clean house and install a new management team that understand what it takes to win in mobile.
@yalanand, very simple,
Robert noyce, moore, grove... all get phd in science from top tier college( mit, caltech).
the way Otelini look at a chip is just like a girl look at a shoe, he can't tell what's really driven it. all he know is how attractive it looks.
check ultrabook as a good example...
Apple has made a good career out of making consumer electronics look seductively attractive, to the extent that many people would pay a premium to own Apple products.
That said, ultrabook is just the PC world catching up with thin light Mac computers, and not really a differentiator.
lol, the difference is intel is a chip company instead of a PC company.
he need to make it faster, cheaper, cooler, more energy efficient etc.
Otellini apparently has no clue on any of these factors...
Being the CEO for Intel for 8 to 9 years is highly responsible and also fully loaded. People achieved their targets will always have the self satisfaction and they set an example to be followed by others.
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.