@Curmudgeon Guy: I've always admited how for as big ads it is, Intel is not afraid to try new things, push them hard and drop them quickly if they fail. That's more like a startup. They get an A for effort in my book.
That said I agree with Junko, a media play was far left field for them.
A foundry busienss, however, is a smarter move. They are sitting on a lot of capacity and a rapidly maturing market for their current products. Fill the fabs!
This is exasperating....XSCALE, WIMAX, MEEGO...now this.....going for new fangled technologies with halfbaked "wait and see" attitude. The only serious support Intel has shown is for it's crown jewels....the X86 based processors. X86 IS the comfort zone and unfortunately, no one wants to go the way Andy Grove in the early 70's..... when Intel let go of DRAM and concentrated on processors.
Trying to go into foundry services will also be flawed. To compete with TSMC in cost and development will just not do. TSMC is just too flexible in either cost and development that Intel will find itself hard to catch up or match. Besides, TSMC IS TAIWAN...it will never let go w/o a fight.
I don't know how much of this is a reflection of hard times ahead and currently at Intel, versus a simple and predictable decision based on a broader trend. More and more, we're seeing attempts to provide video content outside of traditional television and it seems that Jon Peddie at least is very enthusiastic about this particular offering. Intel is certainly going to face challenges, but is it really moving out of this space because of that or because it makes more sense for Verizon to make this move than it does Intel?
Its not new that the PC market is shrinking and will continue to do so until it stabilizes. Intel needs a coherent strategy to counter the trend. So far there has been none. It has dabbled and spend billions in communication, TV, wireless spaces with nothing to show. The only saving grace has been the companies lead in manufacturing technology that is preventing a steeper decline. Intel has continued to milk its monopoly in the PC market for a long time, that market is declining. Its entry into other markets have been disastrous. I have held Intel stock for years and must say, its not gone anywhere. The last few Intel CEOs (after the amazing Andy Grove) were disastrous. I dont beleive the current management can effect the change at Intel to take on Qualcomm, ARM etc. The Intel board shares the blame for making these appointments. They have made one too many mistakes and ought to be fired too along with the 5% who are losing their jobs !
This was expected. No matterhow spectaculr the hardware platform might be, for Intel to succeed with this business, it was absolutely necessary for Intel to get deals from media companies.
The original goal for Intel was to generate demand for web-delievered video on TV, allowing consumers to bypass cable companies and their "bundled services." Being able to watch high-qualirty programs a la carte on the Web was deemed as the ultimate next-generation IPTV.
Intel started the division in 2011, hiring digital executive Erik Huggers from the BBC to lead the team.
But truth to be told, for the chip giant to get into the media business was ill-fated from the very beginning, in my opinion.
Meanwhile, TV companies' effort to bring Web video content to TVs continue as seen in LG's purchase of WebOS:
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.