I found the following analysis refreshing; maybe promoting from within is not that bad a decision for a juggernaut: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/intel-may-have-lost-the-iphone-battle-but-it-could-still-win-the-mobile-war/275825/
I've been following Intel pretty closely since about 1968. I used their 1000 bit ccd shift register as a delay line for a simple dsp application.
At one point I looked at the 4004 for an embedded application. Intel sent a couple senior sales people to make a presentation. They had not a clue as to what they had.
It's not only software and hardware being linked, it's MUCH bigger than that. It involves the whole ecosystem. I think Intel is BEGINNING to understand that..
When I associate "software" with "Intel," what comes out is "Microsoft."
I don't disagree that the hardware design and software design are linked, nor that in order to be best in class you have to optimize the two to operate together. It's just that I don't see the software side of the equation as ever having come from Intel. I mean, not even the BIOS, right?
Manufacturing supposed to go with product being manufactured. Krzanich/Perlmutter would have done wonders for bringing out new Intel chips. Software, though important, seems disconnected from Intel's heritage here.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.