Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Paul Otellini: Intel Lost the iPhone Battle, But It Could Win the Mobile War

Posted by Unknown on from the learning-from-mistakes dept.

kenekaplan writes "In an interview with The Atlantic before stepping down as CEO of Intel, Paul Otellini reflects on his decision not to make a chip for the then yet released iPhone. 'The lesson I took away from that was, while we like to speak with data around here, so many times in my career I've ended up making decisions with my gut, and I should have followed my gut,' he said. 'My gut told me to say yes.'"

9 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Gripping insight by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 4, Funny

    I usually don't keep up on things like this, so it was nice to see an article that really s

    --

    Long signatures suck.
  2. The girl you should've asked to prom... by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, we've all heard guys tell stories like this. It takes me about 20 seconds before I mentally paint an "L" on their forehead.

    The day Steve Jobs stood in front of a room and introduced the Iphone EVERYONE knew this was a game changer. "Today we're going to introduce a new iPod, a phone, and world class web device" As he repeated that line the graphics on the screen merged and the room realized the leaks about three new products were instead one new device. It was a hell of a mis-direction. It wasn't "the mother of all demos" but it was a close second.

    Intel knew this was on the way and didn't think it was lightning in a bottle? Their shareholders should be furious.

    1. Re:The girl you should've asked to prom... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The day Steve Jobs stood in front of a room and introduced the Iphone EVERYONE knew this was a game changer. "Today we're going to introduce a new iPod, a phone, and world class web device" As he repeated that line the graphics on the screen merged and the room realized the leaks about three new products were instead one new device. It was a hell of a mis-direction. It wasn't "the mother of all demos" but it was a close second.

      I disagree, but that's probably because I'd been using PDAs for a decade prior to the iPhone. Everyone in the PDA business knew that phones and PDAs were going to merge. The only thing they didn't know was if phones were going to pick up PDA features, or if PDAs were going to be able to make calls. In the end, they are both small computers running various programs.

      The only game-changer the iPhone brought was that it eschewed hardware number/keyboard entry (and one helluva marketing campaign). Others had toyed with a purely touchscreen interface before, but nobody had bet the entire farm on it like Apple did. (For those taken in by the marketing who believe that the iPhone was the first purely touchscreen phone, google for LG Prada.)

      In that way, the iPhone was a lot like the iPod. It was ho-hum in terms of technical features - things which everyone else already had or had tried before. But the interface was a game-changer, and even if they weren't actually the first to market with the idea their massive marketing campaign made it first in people's minds. So I don't really blame Intel for missing the boat. Interface and marketing aren't things you can really appraise prior to a product's release. If Intel judged the iPhone purely on its technical features, it would've looked like any other smartphone with one helluva risky bet on a touchscreen-only keyboard. Just like the technocrati here first saw the iPod and based on its technical features declared, "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame."

    2. Re:The girl you should've asked to prom... by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You could look at Apple's own Newton and see a lineage. PDAs existed before the iPhone and are pretty much a dead market now.

      Apple had quite a few of innovations, some created in-house and other purchased. The iPhone has a fantastic interface. Even the earliest iPhone had a quick, responsive interface with excellent graphics. They were first to bring multitouch gestures to a mainstream appliance. As you pointed out they got rid of hardware keys without using garbage like "grafitti". They put a lot of work into a better interface and it shows.

      Apple designed their way out of the intimitation factor. They simplified everything down to one button. When grandma gets lost on an iPhone or iPad she knows that one button will always get her unstuck.

      I'm not an Apple fanboi, the Galaxy sII and Asus Transformer next to me are proof of that. Android has taken Apple's starting point and improved on things IMHO.

    3. Re:The girl you should've asked to prom... by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interesting but Apple developed iPhone over ~2 - 2.5 years. Depending on when the key players sat with Intel that likely would have been enough time to develop a first generation chip. Apple sold 3 million iPhones it's first year, so the payoff would have been worth it.

      Apple met with other vendors who stretched out of their comfort zone - such as Corning to create the first generation Gorilla Glass. Corning had all the reason in the world to play it safe. They had just lost big on photonic technology and were hovering over the junk stock threshold. Corning's closest experience to the iPhone's display was CRT tube glass. Gorilla Glass is now used on 1.5 billion devices around the world.

    4. Re:The girl you should've asked to prom... by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jobs just designed the pain out of the iPhone. Long battery life. Just works. No hassle operation. Huge apps. A natural extension to your growing stable of i-stuff.

      The herd moved. The CPU? An ARM-- the direct and absolute antithesis of everything Intel stands for. Simple, low-power consumption, RISC, and with easily grafted subsystems.

      If Intel did the ARM, it would measure six feet by eleven feet, weigh 900lbs, and use four kilowatts of electricity, and would need to have Microsoft's lipstick on it.

      It's maximally disingenuous of Otellini to utter such horse crap. Andy Grove, come out of retirement, would ya?

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    5. Re:The girl you should've asked to prom... by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "maximally disingenuous"

      Good phrase.

      Consider how much has changed since the iPhone 1 ~ six years ago.

      Apple has nearly done away with the click wheel. In fact most music devices are now touch screen based.
      Clamshell and candybar phones are increasingly a rarity, most people have a smart phone or feature phone.
      The iPad grew out of the iPhone and now has dozens of imitators.
      The "ebook" grew out of the tablet market pioneered by Apple.
      The laptop market has been overtaken by the tablet market.
      Tablet and Smart Phones have cut heavily into the handheld game market.
      MS decided to glue a touch tablet interface onto it's desktop OS Windows 8. OK, I threw that one in there for laughs.

  3. my gut by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    My gut tells me not to eat tacos with honey Diablo habenero sauce anymore. I don't listen either.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  4. I wish I'd went with my gut... by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We ended up not winning it or passing on it, depending on how you want to view it. And the world would have been a lot different if we'd done it," Otellini told me in a two-hour conversation during his last month at Intel. "The thing you have to remember is that this was before the iPhone was introduced and no one knew what the iPhone would do... At the end of the day, there was a chip that they were interested in that they wanted to pay a certain price for and not a nickel more and that price was below our forecasted cost. I couldn't see it. It wasn't one of these things you can make up on volume. And in hindsight, the forecasted cost was wrong and the volume was 100x what anyone thought." It was the only moment I heard regret slip into Otellini's voice during the several hours of conversations I had with him. "The lesson I took away from that was, while we like to speak with data around here, so many times in my career I've ended up making decisions with my gut, and I should have followed my gut," he said. "My gut told me to say yes."

    So, he made a perfectly rational decision based upon the data he had available. It turned out in the long run that he would have been better off if he had acted otherwise, so looking back on it he says it would be better to reject rational decision making. I find this unconvincing. In my experience, people have a fantastic way of revising their own personal histories and 'the gut' is a great tool to do so. If I made the best choice I could, given the information I had, and it turned out incorrect I can always look back on things and say that my gut told me otherwise. By this means the chief protagonist of my personal history will always be correct, always know the right thing to do, even when it turned out to be wrong.